I'm getting ready to sell a sfh and I'm wondering if it might be

better to put a good tenant in there first. It might be attractive to

someone looking to get in the landlord game. I would think, too,

that it might make the property more valuable. What do you think?Thank you.!!

Was there something lacking in yesterday's answers? ;)

To summarize on the vacant side of the argument--

* It will show better if empty

* You won't have to worry about anyone who has an incentive for it to not sell

* People probably don't want to be stuck with your tenant

* LL's prefer to set their own rental prices, not be stuck with your rents

* You can sell it to an owner-occupant, even though the area is heavily renters, so you consequently have a bigger pool of prospective purchasers

* It's bad business to rent something that is just going to be sold three months later

To summarize on the rented side of the argument--

* Your buyer may be bound by a commercial loan that requires their purchase have a tenant already in place

* You don't want to go for several months without rent while you wait for your purchaser

No!!!!!!!!!!! Bad idea if this is a single-family house. If it's a duplex or apt building then yes. But single-family no.

By selling it with a tenant, you limit the population of buyers to ONLY investors. That's a small portion of the people interested in your house. Also if this is a new tenant, there won't be a payment history and the buyer will assume you filled it with a warm body to make it look more successful. I prefer to screen my own tenants and not be saddled by the previous landlord's ability to screen, or their lease (if any). If the previous landlord was lazy, then I have to retrain the tenant too. Plus, while vacant, it's a good time for me to do any improvements and capture full market rent and not start off behind the 8-ball.