I’ve accepted a new job out of state, so my wife and I need to sell our home, which was her childhood home. We want to avoid paying a traditional realtor’s 6% commission, as the house should sell quickly. It’s worth about $280k, and paying $15k in fees seems excessive. We owe under $200k on the mortgage.
The house is located in the 47901 zip code, near Purdue University, with 4 beds, 3.5 baths, and about 2300 sq. ft. It’s a converted 2-unit townhouse that could be re-divided.
I’ve found a local agent who charges a 1% flat fee and offers other fixed-cost options. A friend suggested offering 2.5-3% to the buyer’s agent, which would save us compared to a traditional realtor. The agent has positive reviews, with some recent ones mentioning $500 to list and 2%-3% for the buyer’s agent.
I also had to sell a home once, and I know how those fees can feel like a big bite. If the house should sell quickly, that 1% flat fee sounds like a smart move. Offering 2.5%-3% to the buyer’s agent seems fair and still saves you compared to the usual 6%. You’re in a good spot near Purdue, and with 4 beds, 3.5 baths, I bet it’ll attract buyers fast. I’d say go for it—you’ll keep more of that hard-earned money
Howdy buyers,
choosing between a traditional realtor and a flat-fee broker depends on your specific needs and preferences. Each option has its own advantages, and the best choice for you will usually depend on factors such as your budget, the complexity of the transaction, and the level of service you need.
Considering your circumstances, using a local agent with a 1% flat fee and offering 2.5-3% to the buyer’s agent is a smart move. It significantly reduces costs compared to traditional fees while still incentivizing buyer agents. Given the home’s location and market appeal, this approach should help you sell quickly and save on commissions.