Nils Luehrmann
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,513
Or Austin... That's about a $750K-$1.5m home anywhere west of downtown.
After getting married, I talked to two different brokers about listing my wife's 1,100 sqft bungalow, but even after looking at the comps, both brokers suggested listing it for under $250,000 which I felt was too low for the location. After sending out some emails to friends and colleagues, within a month I found someone who agreed to pay $258,000 for it.
(No, 1,100 sqft is not a typo. In fact, the property was on only 1/10th of an acre... homes in many parts of Austin don't come cheap.).
So for us, not only did we get about $10,000 more than what the brokers were suggesting, but we saved $15k in realtor fees. The buyer paid for the inspection and appraisal, and we paid $800 to have a real estate attorney draw up all the legal documents and make sure all the I's were dotted and t's were crossed.
While this transaction could not have gone more smoothly, I'm not sure I would necessarily have done it had I not found a buyer so quickly and if the brokers had not suggested such a low price.
If it was a home I was living in and in a location where the average time a house is on the market is over two months, then I'd probably use a broker. Trying to sell a house your living in could cause more of a headache than simply paying the broker fees and not worry about open houses, making handouts, continually showing the house, etc.
The other problem is even if you sell the house without a broker, chances are the buyer will have a broker and thus you will have to pay that broker 3%. You could state that you wont work with a broker, but that will likely keep most interested parties away, which could result in having to sell the home for less, thus not only wiping out the savings from not paying a broker fee, but possibly even cost you more money.
We are currently looking at building a new house, and in the next few months I'll have to evaluate whether or not to use a broker. Our current home is far more substantial than my wife's bungalow, so the savings we might get from not using a broker is tempting, but I can see how it could easily not be worth the effort, and could result in having to sell the home for less than what a really good and aggressive broker might sell it for.
My guess is that I'll try to sell the house on my own for a couple weeks, and if it looks like I'm not getting any positive responses then I'll hire a broker.
After getting married, I talked to two different brokers about listing my wife's 1,100 sqft bungalow, but even after looking at the comps, both brokers suggested listing it for under $250,000 which I felt was too low for the location. After sending out some emails to friends and colleagues, within a month I found someone who agreed to pay $258,000 for it.
(No, 1,100 sqft is not a typo. In fact, the property was on only 1/10th of an acre... homes in many parts of Austin don't come cheap.).
So for us, not only did we get about $10,000 more than what the brokers were suggesting, but we saved $15k in realtor fees. The buyer paid for the inspection and appraisal, and we paid $800 to have a real estate attorney draw up all the legal documents and make sure all the I's were dotted and t's were crossed.
While this transaction could not have gone more smoothly, I'm not sure I would necessarily have done it had I not found a buyer so quickly and if the brokers had not suggested such a low price.
If it was a home I was living in and in a location where the average time a house is on the market is over two months, then I'd probably use a broker. Trying to sell a house your living in could cause more of a headache than simply paying the broker fees and not worry about open houses, making handouts, continually showing the house, etc.
The other problem is even if you sell the house without a broker, chances are the buyer will have a broker and thus you will have to pay that broker 3%. You could state that you wont work with a broker, but that will likely keep most interested parties away, which could result in having to sell the home for less, thus not only wiping out the savings from not paying a broker fee, but possibly even cost you more money.
We are currently looking at building a new house, and in the next few months I'll have to evaluate whether or not to use a broker. Our current home is far more substantial than my wife's bungalow, so the savings we might get from not using a broker is tempting, but I can see how it could easily not be worth the effort, and could result in having to sell the home for less than what a really good and aggressive broker might sell it for.
My guess is that I'll try to sell the house on my own for a couple weeks, and if it looks like I'm not getting any positive responses then I'll hire a broker.
