|
"Steve" <tm4525@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119808773.608496.170020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If you have a mediocre or hard to sell property you may need to hire an
> agent. But if you have a sought-after property you shouldn't need to.
> FSBO isn't worth anything, and you do not need them.
>
> 1) put up a web page with complete info and photos of every room and
> amenity
> 2) put an ad in the paper with the web address
> 3) list the property at 4-5% below market (agent-market that is)
> 4) Give it a month or 2
>
> Think of your advantage if you can knock off $50K from the house next
> door and still walk away with the same or more money? At the high end,
> you can assume that anyone with that kind of money is reasonable
> internet savvy. Or at least they have a kid who is.
>
> Signing an agreement with a broker is totally foolish. Remember that if
> you find a FSBO on your own, you have a bargaining position that you
> do not have with a broker. If its a hot property you're going to pay
> market or close anyway. But if the seller doesn't have to pay the
> broker,and you are ready to buy, cash-in-hand, you can get a piece of
> that 4-6% overhead yourself. It costs money for every month the seller
> doesn't sell without a broker for advertising, carrying costs, etc, so
> if you can buy quickly you can get a bargain.
>
> Unless of course you're willing to pay $50K for a glorified chauffer.
Another strategy that can work if you already know a potential buyer: Split
the savings in commission down the middle. If, say, an agent's commission
would normally be $10,000, offer it to a buyer for $5000 less than what you
would otherwise demand. I did this in 1998, and it worked fine.
|
|
Re: Why do you still need an agent to buy a home?
