Hello all - this is my first post in this forum.
I owned a couple of four-family buildings back in the 90s, but nothing since then except for my own house. I’ve been debating getting back into real estate, either to buy, fix, and flip, or to buy, fix and hold (as rental).
The fix and flip model is appealing to me in some ways, but I’ve always wondered a bit about the economics of it.
Specifically, there are a lot of transaction costs involved in buying, and later selling, a piece of property. There are agent commissions (~6%), title research/insurance, professional inspections, and finally, a level of due diligence by the buyer to make sure they don’t mess up in some way - the last is not a hard cost, but a time cost. Still, time costs money, effectively.
I’m omitting financing costs. I’m fortunate enough to have my own money and not to have to spend the time and money to procure bank financing, but I know that this is an additional cost for many investors.
All told, I’d ballpark the round-trip costs at about 10% of the property’s price. Now, of course, any property buyer (even the ultimate owner-occupant) will have transaction costs, but by being a middleman, I’m turning it from a single sale (foreclosing bank to owner-occupant) to a double sale (foreclosing bank to me to owner-occupant), thereby adding two times the transaction costs.
Given ~10% in transaction costs, it becomes much more difficult to find attractive deals - you have to recoup the transaction costs, PLUS the fixup costs, PLUS any profit you want.
How does this analysis strike you?
Is 10% a reasonable ballpark for this?
Do you pay a full 6% to agents?
Do you typically get professional inspectors, or do that yourself?
Do you buy title insurance, or do the title research yourself and ‘self-insure’?
Anything else I’m missing that could increase/decrease transaction costs?