Longtime readers may remember that I’ve sold exactly one house in my lifetime. It was 1997. I began with a real estate agent, moved on to a second real estate agent, and eventually decided that disappointing service was the only feature included with both contracts.
So I fired the second agent too.
Then I sold the house myself.
I told the full story in an earlier article explaining why I didn’t think the agents were worth what I was being asked to pay. The short recap is that my first agent did almost nothing to market my modest starter home beyond entering it in the Multiple Listing Service and printing a few fliers.
The second agent’s fliers looked nicer.
That was the most noticeable improvement.
Eventually, I found the buyer myself. I hired an attorney who charged me a flat $300 fee to handle the negotiations, while the title company took care of most of the technical paperwork.
And that was that.
No agent. No percentage commission. No commemorative fruit basket either, but somehow I survived.
Of course, that happened almost three decades ago. So it’s fair to ask whether I would still try to sell a home without a traditional agent today.
The answer is yes.
Well… probably.
First, a Reminder About What I Actually Did
Although I sold my house without an agent, I didn’t literally do everything myself.
I found the buyer. I dealt directly with the people interested in the property. I made the decisions. But I also paid qualified professionals to handle the work that I wasn’t comfortable doing on my own.
That distinction is important.
“For sale by owner” (FSBO) sometimes creates an image of a homeowner standing in the front yard with a cardboard sign, a ballpoint pen and a contract downloaded from a website operated by somebody named Honest Eddie.
That wasn’t my strategy.
I eliminated the traditional agent, but I didn’t eliminate professional assistance. I simply purchased the services I needed separately instead of paying for all of them through a commission based on the sale price.
In other words, my 1997 sale was less about refusing help and more about refusing to pay for help that I didn’t believe was providing sufficient value.
That remains the heart of the issue today.
Selling a Home Is Easier Today
In some ways, homeowners have far more tools now than I had in 1997.
Back then, the Internet was still clearing its throat. Most people weren’t carrying miniature computers in their pockets, and online real estate searches were nowhere near as important as they are today.
Social media didn’t exist. Digital signatures weren’t part of everyday life. A “virtual tour” probably involved looking at vacation slides in somebody’s living room.
Today, homeowners can research recent sales, study competing listings, advertise online, communicate instantly with prospective buyers and hire photographers, stagers, appraisers, lawyers and other specialists without relying on one person to arrange everything.
That should make selling your own home easier.
And in many respects, it does.
But technology has also raised buyer expectations.
In 1997, taking decent property photos meant keeping your thumb away from the camera lens. Today, buyers may expect professional photography, measured floor plans, polished listing descriptions, video tours and enough high-resolution images to document every closet shelf in the house.
Technology has made it easier to reach buyers. It has also made poorly presented homes look even worse beside professionally marketed competition.
So yes, the modern seller has more power.
The modern seller also has more ways to make a mess.
The Percentage Problem Hasn’t Disappeared
My biggest objection to the traditional commission model has always been the relationship between the work performed and the value of the property.
Suppose two similar homes require roughly the same amount of marketing, communication, paperwork and negotiation. One sells for $500,000 and the other sells for $1 million.
Under a percentage-based model, the compensation tied to the second property can be significantly higher even though it may not require twice the work.
Why?
Because percentages are funny that way.
A percentage sign is tiny. The check it produces is not.
This is why I have always believed real estate compensation should be evaluated like every other major household expense: What am I getting, what is it worth, and is there a less expensive way to obtain the same result?
Longtime readers already know that I once included high-end real estate agents among the jobs I considered particularly overpaid.
Subtle, I know.
That doesn’t mean every agent is overpaid. A skilled professional who develops an effective pricing strategy, creates excellent marketing, finds qualified buyers, manages difficult negotiations and keeps a complicated transaction from imploding can provide substantial value.
But the seller should be able to identify that value.
Simply entering a property into a listing system and waiting for another agent to bring the buyer may not justify a large fee, especially when the homeowner is doing much of the preparation, cleaning, decision-making and schedule disruption.
Then again, compensation models aren’t identical everywhere, and neither are the responsibilities associated with them.
My 1997 California Sale Isn’t a Canadian Instruction Manual
My sale took place in Southern California under the practices and legal framework that applied there in 1997.
That FSBO experience should not be treated as a step-by-step guide for somebody selling a home in Canada today.
Canada is not simply the United States with friendlier cash and better manners.
Real estate is regulated provincially. Forms, disclosure practices, terminology, listing access and the roles played by lawyers or other professionals can differ depending on where the property is located. Commission arrangements also vary by province, brokerage, service package and individual agreement.
Canadian homeowners may encounter true private sales, flat-fee listing arrangements, limited-service packages, fixed-fee representation and traditional full-service models. Those services are not interchangeable, even when their advertisements make them sound as if they are.
For example, paying a brokerage to place a home on MLS® and REALTOR.ca does not necessarily mean the seller is receiving pricing advice, negotiation support or full representation. It may provide valuable exposure while leaving most of the actual work and responsibility with the homeowner.
Anyone north of the border considering this route should start with a practical breakdown of the available options and responsibilities before assuming that an American FSBO story from 1997 applies directly to a current Canadian transaction.
Trying to follow my old California playbook word for word would be like using a Los Angeles road map to find a coffee shop in Quebec.
You may eventually get somewhere.
But not before annoying everyone else in the car.
FSBO Is No Longer an All-or-Nothing Decision
One of the biggest misconceptions about selling without a traditional agent is that the homeowner has only two choices:
- Pay for full traditional representation.
- Do absolutely everything alone.
That was never entirely true, including in my case.
I hired an attorney because I wanted someone qualified to negotiate and protect my interests. I relied on the title company for technical work. I found the buyer and managed the sale, but I paid for expertise where I believed it mattered.
Homeowners can take the same approach today.
An FSBO seller may decide to hire:
- A professional photographer
- An appraiser or pricing consultant
- A home inspector
- A real estate lawyer
- A staging consultant
- A flat-fee listing service
- A professional to review offers
- An agent for negotiation or transaction support
- A full-service representative charging a fixed or reduced fee
There is no trophy for doing every task personally.
Nobody receives a merit badge for taking listing photos in bad lighting or drafting legal clauses after watching a six-minute video.
The objective is not to prove that you can sell a house with no assistance whatsoever. The objective for FSBO sellers is to control costs while obtaining enough qualified help to complete the transaction properly.
What Hasn’t Changed Since 1997
Even with better technology and more service options, the FSBO seller still has to solve the same basic problems.
Pricing the home
This is where emotion can become expensive.
Homeowners know every improvement they have made, every repair they have paid for and every Saturday they sacrificed to keep the lawn alive.
Buyers don’t care.
They compare the property with other available homes and recent sales. The seller who prices according to personal memories rather than market evidence may spend months wondering why nobody recognizes the imported kitchen faucet’s emotional significance.
Preparing the property
A private seller competes against homes represented by people who may have experience with staging, photography, listing descriptions and buyer psychology.
An FSBO sign in the yard and a prayer are not a marketing plan.
The home has to be clean, accessible and presented in a way that helps buyers imagine living there.
Managing inquiries and showings
Some inquiries will be serious.
Others will come from curious neighbors, recreational house browsers and people who begin every negotiation by offering approximately the value of your garden shed.
The seller has to answer questions, screen interest, arrange access and follow up without becoming irritated.
At least not visibly.
Negotiating objectively
Negotiating your own home is different from haggling over a television or used car. The numbers are larger, the conditions matter, and emotional attachment can interfere with sound judgment.
Even so, almost everything is negotiable, including the price and structure of the professional services used during a sale.
That applies to the buyer’s offer too.
The highest price is not always the best offer if it comes with weak financing, difficult conditions or a closing date that creates another expensive problem.
Managing the paperwork and closing
Finding a willing buyer is only part of the job.
The agreement, disclosures, deposit, conditions, inspections, financing and closing all have to be handled correctly. The exact process depends on the jurisdiction.
That is why I used an attorney in 1997, and it is why I would involve the appropriate legal professional again.
Saving money is good.
Saving money by signing documents you don’t understand is less good.
Who Should Consider Selling Without Traditional Full Service?
I would seriously consider going the FSBO route again if:
- I had enough time to manage the process.
- I understood the local market.
- I could obtain reliable pricing information.
- I was comfortable speaking directly with buyers.
- I could remain objective during negotiations.
- I had access to qualified legal help.
- I was willing to pay separately for photography, listing exposure or other services when needed.
- The property and ownership situation were reasonably straightforward.
- The potential savings justified the effort and risk.
Having a likely buyer would make the decision even easier.
When I sold my home in 1997, finding the buyer was my main responsibility. If a seller already knows who is interested, paying a large percentage of the sale price for full marketing services may be difficult to justify.
The key word is “may.”
Who Should Pay for More Help?
I would be much more inclined to hire experienced representation if:
- I had little time to manage inquiries and showings.
- The property was difficult to price.
- The sale involved tenants, estates, multiple owners or unusual legal issues.
- I was buying another home at the same time.
- The market was moving quickly.
- I expected multiple offers with materially different conditions.
- I was uncomfortable negotiating.
- A failed transaction would create serious financial consequences.
- The professional could clearly explain the service being provided and why it was worth the fee.
There are excellent real estate professionals. There are also poor ones.
The license does not tell you which one is standing in front of you.
That means sellers still have homework to do, even when they decide not to handle the sale themselves.
They should interview multiple professionals, compare services, ask who will perform each task, understand the contract and negotiate the compensation.
The worst arrangement is not necessarily paying an agent.
The worst arrangement is paying a large fee without knowing what you are buying.
So, Would I Sell My Own Home Again?
Yes, I would seriously consider it.
I would not automatically hire a traditional full-service agent merely because that is what homeowners are expected to do. I would begin by determining which parts of the sale I could manage competently, which parts required professional expertise and how much each service was worth.
Then I would compare the total cost and risk of the available options.
Maybe I would choose a private sale and go the FSBO route.
Maybe I would purchase listing exposure and hire a lawyer.
Maybe I would select limited-service or flat-fee representation.
And yes, I might even hire a traditional agent if that person demonstrated enough skill, effort and market knowledge to justify the compensation.
Hey… I’m skeptical, not unreasonable.
My opinion from 1997 about FSBO has not changed as much as it has matured.
Homeowners who have the time, temperament and ability to manage a sale should not assume that paying a traditional percentage commission is their only responsible option.
At the same time, doing it yourself does not mean doing it blindly, cheaply or completely alone.
Whether you are in California, Canada or anywhere else, the real question remains the same:
What work needs to be done, who is best qualified to do it, and what is that work actually worth?
After all, it’s your house.
More importantly, it’s your money.