Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 4 - Buyer beware - A plea from the Committee
4.1
In this report, the Committee has endeavoured to
set out a regulatory scheme which will give property investors the same
protection given to investors in other asset classes. By imposing a licensing regime, and the
regulation of commercial behaviour and practice by licensees, the Committee
hopes both to develop the legitimate property investment advice industry, and
to force property spruikers out of the market.
4.2
There are, however, inevitable limits to what
can be achieved by a regulatory scheme.
In 2004, the Senate Economics Committee aptly quoted the Appeals Court
of Massachusetts, which stated:
What is unfair is a definitional problem of long standing, which
statutory draftsmen have prudently avoided.
It is impossible to frame definitions which embrace all unfair
practices. There is no limit to human
inventiveness in this field.[127]
4.3
No regulatory scheme, without being tyrannical
in nature, can completely shut down the use of deceit and manipulation in commercial
practice. While the proposed regulations
will make operation more difficult for spruikers, it is inevitable that they
will remain and do their best to skirt this, or any other, regulatory scheme.
4.4
Once the regulatory scheme is in place, it will
remain necessary for consumers to be alert, to look to their own interests, and
to approach anything which looks "too good to be true" with a healthy
scepticism.
4.5
In this context the Committee notes the pertinent
suggestion by the Real Estate Institute of Australia
that the recommendations of the 2004 Consumer and Financial Literacy Taskforce
be enhanced to include 'a stronger focus on property investment (which receives
less coverage than investment in other asset classes)'.[128]
4.6
The Committee recommends that the Government
take heed of this suggestion when implementing the Taskforce's recommendations.
Recommendation 7
4.7 The Committee recommends that in implementing
the recommendations of the 2004 Consumer and Financial Literacy Taskforce, the
Government includes a stronger focus on property investment.
Recommendation 8
4.8 The Committee recommends that the Government
continue and expand its programs to enhance financial literacy among consumers
and to increase financial advice available to consumers.
4.9
The Committee makes the following specific
appeals to Australians considering property investment.
Seminars are marketing exercises
4.10
Legitimate property investment seminars are
usually held by legitimate property dealers trying to encourage investors to
invest in property, and in particular to do so through them. The seminars are a marketing exercise. Of course, marketing is legitimate – our
economy is awash with well-regulated marketing strategies enticing consumers to
buy all manner of things. But seldom are
consumers asked to pay to receive advertising.
We do not pay an admission price to watch television advertisements. We do not pay to receive junk mail. The product sellers pay for their
marketing. Why should marketing property
investment be any different?
4.11
Be wary if the seminar presenter encourages you
to enrol in further training or educational courses. These can be expensive. Investigate the course content carefully and
the credentials of the people delivering the course content. Even with advertised 'money-back-guarantees',
many consumers have experienced difficulty in obtaining refunds.
Check the internet
4.12
In many cases, people who have been stung by
spruikers tell their stories online. The
Australian Consumers Association (www.choice.com.au) regularly provides
warnings about spruikers. Your States or
Territory's Department of Consumer Affairs or Fair Trading may do the
same. Profit from the experiences of
others.
Choose your own lawyer and accountant
4.13
You should immediately be suspicious if a
property promoter offers to arrange a lawyer to give you legal advice and do
the conveyancing for you, or an accountant to give you tax advice. If the lawyer or accountant is receiving
multiple – maybe dozens – of referrals from this developer, then whose
interests will they have at heart? Will
they provide you with good advice, or will they act in a way which ensures the
continuing flow of referrals?
4.14
If you choose your own lawyer and accountant,
hire them and pay them yourself, you know which side they are on.
Get your own valuation
4.15
Don't believe what the promoter tells you about
the real price – and don't believe the bottom line number on a valuation
provided to them. If you choose and hire
a valuer yourself, and they answer only to you, then you have the security of
knowing whether you are paying a fair price.
"Two-tier marketing schemes" are only able to exist because
people believe inflated information about the value of a piece of property.
4.16
At the very least get a copy of the valuation
done by the bank or lending institution, and immediately ask questions if that
valuation is appreciably different from the purchase price. But if the promoter is also arranging finance
through his own sources, be sceptical of the valuation provided by that linked
institution. It is always better to get
a valuation from an independent valuer.
There may be a cost involved, but at least you will have a much better
idea of the real value of the property.
4.17
The Committee received evidence that the
disclosure of valuations by lending institutions to prospective borrowers would
be of significant benefit to consumers.
Such disclosure would alert borrowers if the price they were paying was significantly
in excess of the valuation. It would
make 'two-tier marketing' by property spruikers much more difficult. Apparently banks and credit unions provide their
valuations to borrowers if they insist, but it is not a commonplace practice.
4.18
The Committee agrees with this evidence, and
recommends that the disclosure of valuations by lending institutions to
prospective borrowers should be made mandatory.
Recommendation 9
4.19 The Committee recommends that the disclosure of
valuations by lending institutions to prospective borrowers be made mandatory.
Get your own finance
4.20
Beware of linked finance arrangements. Beware of any finance arranged by anybody
other than yourself or your own financial advisers. If you cannot independently go out and arrange
finance from a finance provider completely external to the property investment
scheme, then this is a very strong signal that you should think carefully
whether this investment is right for you.
4.21
Property investment by its nature usually
involves large amounts of money. Be wary
of taking on high debt levels. Realise
that property is usually a long term investment and allow for the fact that
interest rates and other economic factors may go against you, at least for a
term of the projected investment.
Don’t be rushed
4.22
During its inquiries, the Committee formed the
view that one of the simplest ways to tell a property spruiker from a
legitimate property investment adviser is to observe whether they are trying to
rush the consumer into making a deal. A
legitimate property adviser will have no difficulty in allowing a consumer time
to reflect and consider their options. A
legitimate property adviser will have no difficulty in allowing a consumer time
to arrange their own valuation, finance and lawyer. Even if a deal falls through while these
processes are underway, it is better to miss out on a deal than to rush into an
ill-considered investment decision.
Missing out on a deal will not lead to financial ruin – but an
ill-considered investment may well do so.
4.23
If your "adviser" is trying to rush
you into making a deal, you should think about why. Are they trying to stop you from getting an
independent valuation? Are they trying
to stop you from getting independent financial advice? Are they trying to rip you off? The answer, unfortunately, is likely to be
yes.
Demand advice about downside risk
4.24
Every investment without fail carries downside
risk. Markets can both rise and
fall. A legitimate property investment
adviser will be able to describe to you the risks associated with an investment. A spruiker will focus on the potential gains,
and will be dismissive of risk. There
are always downside risks. If your
adviser won't tell you about them, it is legitimate to ask what they don't want
you to know.
Understand that your home is at risk
4.25
A substantial number of investors secure their
investment loan with equity in their home.
4.26
In principle, there is nothing wrong with a
consumer borrowing against the equity in their home. But if you do so, you must understand that if
the loan goes into default, your home is at risk. If something goes wrong, and you have secured
the loan against your home, then you could lose your home.
4.27
Home equity is important. The considerations are even wider than the significant
physical and physiological elements involved in people living in their own
homes. Home equity is very often the
core of a family's wealth and more than the titleholder have a legitimate
interest, such as spouse or partner and offspring.
4.28
The Committee feels that, given the social and
economic importance of home equity, a suitable cooling-off period, say 14 days,
should apply to any loans for investment in property which are underwritten by
equity in the borrower's home.
Recommendation 10
4.29 The Committee recommends that any loans for
investment in property which are secured by home equity should be subject to a waivable
14 day cooling off period.
Summary
4.30
The Parliament could not, without being
draconian, implement regulations to cover every possible source of unfair spruiking
conduct. Consumers must not simply rely
on regulators. Instead, a partnership
between consumers, regulators and industry bodies is required. The scheme proposed by this Committee is
likely to make operation more difficult for spruikers, but no amount of
regulation can remove the need for the buyer to beware.
Recommendation 11
4.31 The Committee recommends that ASIC conduct
targeted advertising and educational campaigns to alert consumers to the risks
associated with property investment in general, and with get-rich-quick
spruikers in particular.
Senator Grant Chapman
Chairman
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|