Property investors lose hundreds of thousands of dollars through unregulated real estate advice

Apartments under construction in South Brisbane

ABC – RN By business reporter Michael Janda for: The Money
Updated Fri 23/10 at 9:44am

The expression “safe as houses” is now meaningless to property investors Matt and Peter. The two men both invested in newly built apartments via the same Sydney-based property research and investment firm. The experience is an ongoing financial nightmare for Matt, whose dreams of buying a home to live in have been put on hold because the debt on his investments is worth more than the properties. “Recently my wife and I were interested in possibly purchasing our first home in Sydney, so thinking about selling both investment properties,” he tells RN’s The Money. “I rang my real estate agent in Townsville and she told me that it probably wasn’t the best time to sell because the exact same property that I have recently sold for $150,000.”

Matt bought his apartment new for $289,000 around six years ago, on the advice of the firm. In 2016, he paid $504,000 to buy a one-bedroom flat on Lygon Street in the inner-Melbourne suburb of Brunswick off-the-plan. When it came time to settle last year, the bank valued it at $450,000. Again, it was on the advice of the same property research experts.

For Peter, one investment through the company was more than enough. He paid close to half-a-million dollars for a flat he now estimates to be worth around $400,000, based on the rents he’s receiving, which keep falling. “It did come with a rental guarantee — so, for the first three or six months we received $495 a week,” he explains. “As soon as the rental guarantee finished, the property dropped to more of a market value, which was around $470, and every time a tenant moves out the rent drops. “We’re now down to about $430 and the real estate agent is saying to me: ‘You’ll get more options [for tenants] if you drop it to $410 or $400.'”

Planners, accountants, brokers make big bucks. Even though residential real estate has generally been a strong investment for people over the past few decades as Australia went through its biggest ever property boom, plenty of people have lost money, especially buying off-the-plan or new developments.

But what is truly disturbing about the cases of Matt and Peter — and thousands of others like them — is not that they bought new properties and lost money, nor even necessarily the ‘investment’ seminars that convinced them to do so. Rather, it’s how they came to be at those seminars. When Matt told his then-accountant about a $30,000 inheritance he’d just received, the financial professional sensed an opportunity. “He invited me to an event — I guess you could say networking, but it was a property event — to possibly spend that inheritance on a brick-and-mortar house,” he says. In Peter’s case, it was his then-mortgage broker.

“My business got really, really busy and because I was so busy I had some cash that I wanted to invest,” he tells The Money. “My partner at the time also was pregnant and we were going to have a child and we thought, ‘Oh we better do something quickly to invest some money we had,’ and time was very limited. “Our mortgage broker/financial adviser at the same time reached out and said: ‘There’s a seminar coming up, would you like to come along?'”

Both Matt and Peter got sold on the prospect of hassle-free property investment but they ended up with financial disasters, and they want others to learn from their mistakes. Listen to their stories and what the experts say on The Money.
Peter later learned from some of the documentation around his purchase that this broker had received $4,000 in exchange for that referral. Matt isn’t sure what his accountant got out of the property sales, but is quite certain he received some payment.

Independent financial planner Bruce Brammall, based in Melbourne, says he’s constantly receiving offers from developers and the property ‘research and investment’ firms they sometimes use as sales agents. While he bins them, he’s concerned others succumb to the temptation. “Way too often, large amounts of money [are] paid to hangers-on in the industry or people such as financial advisers or accountants or mortgage brokers to assist in finding clients to purchase the development properties,” he observes. “They can be up to 7, 8, even 10 per cent of the value of the property.

“It wasn’t rare, and it certainly was happening in Melbourne in the last couple of years, where an $800,000 property may well have had a $70,000 or $80,000 commission paid to a financial adviser, mortgage broker, accountant, etc.” Lawyer Michael Catchpoole — a partner at major firm Corrs, Chambers, Westgarth — says the scale of these payments can mean consumers get conflicted advice that isn’t in their best interests. “More often than not, these seminars are free because they’re effectively promotional,” he says.

“Where it becomes murkier is where those commissions are sufficiently large that there’s a sell-at-any-cost culture associated with them. “Or, alternatively, where there’s confusion or expectation in the mind of the purchasers that the property seminar provider is acting in their interests or is an honest broker.”

Property investors beware.

Financial planners, mortgage brokers and accountants are being offered big bucks for referrals to firms selling overpriced units. Mr Brammall says the sheer size of these commissions, as well as the advertising costs and developer’s profit margin, are the main reasons why most off-the-plan or newly built properties are terrible investments. “Property spruikers, property developers are there to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to make a profit,” he says. “The majority of the time — whether it’s inside a self-managed super fund or to those who are purchasing in their own name — the cost becomes pretty clear fairly early on and it’s largely been a disaster. “I have not seen good stories come out of the property development industry.”

Talking about his property investment mistakes is an emotional experience for Matt, as he ruminates on the implications for his financial future. “All I can do is work hard between now and whenever there’s light at the end of the tunnel,” he says, choking up. “Hope to be able to pay off the mortgages one day, and maybe still be at a loss but at least not have the mortgage cloud over my head, and just that sting in the back of your throat when you have made a bad investment.”

Self-managed super funds are an attractive target
While Matt and Peter purchased their properties as individual investors, some people with self-managed super funds (SMSFs) are also tempted into these kinds of real estate investment, and others are even encouraged to set up an SMSF to buy.

SMSF facts:
ATO figures show there are almost 600,000 self-managed super funds in Australia. Between them, these funds have assets of $748 billion, more than either industry funds or retail funds. ASIC says it takes around 100 hours a year of work just to meet the basic legal compliance required for an SMSF. The Productivity Commission found that $500,000 is a reasonable minimum balance to consider setting up an SMSF due to the costs involved.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission commissioner Danielle Press says putting all your retirement eggs in the one basket of residential property is very risky. “We know that property prices go up and they go down, we know that superannuation should be a diversified portfolio, so across a spread of different assets, and if you’re holding a single asset in your retirement fund then you are exposing yourself to significant risk,” she warns.

This is one reason why ASIC has taken legal action against property investment advice firms to restrain them from encouraging people to invest through setting up SMSFs. Another reason why ASIC has targeted this practice is that it is one of the few areas where these firms can actually breach the law, because many of their activities are beyond regulation. That is because real estate is not defined as a financial product in the Corporations Act that ASIC enforces, meaning that virtually anyone can provide advice about it without requiring an Australian Financial Services Licence. “The financial advice sector is regulated by ASIC, so we are looking very closely at the advice that’s given, we’re monitoring that, and we ensure that licensees are reputable — or try to ensure that licensees are reputable,” Ms Press explains.

“Property advice is carved out of that legislation, so they’re not covered in the same way, which means that the quality of advice and the best interests duty may not exist to the same degree.” Private civil litigation is also not a realistic option, according to Mr Catchpoole, who says “there is effectively an immunity for the promoters of those schemes”.

“The litigation process for private individuals is prohibitively expensive, is time consuming, it faces a number of barriers because it is not necessarily a clear-cut case that someone who’s promoting a particular property has contravened the law in a way which is compensable,” he says.”Often these claims are borderline uneconomic, because they’re not of sufficient amounts to justify the legal costs, and often the people who have these claims are not necessarily in a position to pursue those costs because they don’t have access to funds.” even if an investor wins against such a firm, there is every chance it has minimal assets to pay any compensation and the individuals behind it will simply set up a new company to keep operating. Ms Press says that means consumers need to ask some questions if they are referred to property research or advice firms and their seminars before they part with any money or commit to an investment.

“I’d be ensuring that that adviser is not linked somehow to the property or property developer that they are asking you to invest in,” she suggests.

Mr Brammall has simpler advice.

“I’d recommend people run a million miles.”

 

Brisbane Apartment prices lower than a decade ago

 

There's a popular perception that investing in bricks and mortar is a one-way bet, but that hasn't been the case for many Australian home owners, with Brisbane unit values are lower now than a decade ago.

Key points:

  • Couple bought Brisbane apartment for $432k in 2011, sold it for $430k this year
  • Analyst says New Farm is a highly desirable suburb, but Brisbane market has seen negative growth over last decade
  • Over the next two years Brisbane will have added about 20 per cent more apartments

Lisa Foley and her husband bought their first home in the sought-after, inner-city suburb of New Farm in 2011.

It's an older-style, two-bedroom, one-bathroom brick unit in a complex of about 40, but the location — on one of the suburb's best, leafiest streets — was hard to beat.

However, when it came time to sell that unit earlier this year, the full force of Brisbane's apartment downturn hit home.

The couple bought the apartment for $432,000, and it was initially listed in the high-$400,000 range. 

But, after months on the market, the asking price was slashed to the mid-$400,000s. It was finally sold for $430,000.

Ms Foley said, when they moved in to their first home, the idea that it would sit on the market for three-and-a-half months and sell at a loss just six years later was unfathomable.

"We knew it was an older-style unit," she said.

"We did invest some money in it before we sold it, so we put some new carpets in, we repainted, we did a little bit of work to the kitchen and bathroom.

"So we did put money in as well, but we thought we would be safe because it was on Moray Street in New Farm."

The homeowners aren't the only ones surprised by losing money in such a popular neighbourhood.

A modern sleek white kitchen in an apartment

When they applied for a business loan, their bank put a much higher valuation on the apartment.

"We had it valued by our bank this year, when we were purchasing the business, before we did any work to it, they valued it at $460,000," Ms Foley said.

"I guess I was always under the impression that a bank valuation was a more conservative valuation as well, so we thought on the basis of that valuation that we would get a little bit more than that."

Tim Lawless, the head of research at property analysis firm CoreLogic, was also a bit bewildered.

"It is surprising — New Farm is a really highly desirable suburb," he told ABC News.

"It's inner-city, it doesn't have anywhere near the supply concerns that you'd find in say a Fortitude Valley or a South Brisbane or West End."But when you look at the overall Brisbane market place we've seen negative growth over the past decade."

Mr Lawless said the woes for Brisbane apartment owners are nothing new.

"The last 10 years we've actually seen house values rise by about 22 per cent across Brisbane, but unit values are actually lower than what they were way back in 2007," he said.

"In fact they've been down by about 3.3 per cent over the past decade."

Things can only get ... worse

But he said things are set to get worse, not better, over the next two years, because Brisbane will have added about 20 per cent more apartments than currently exist in that time.

"It's never been this high and, in fact, it's about double the long-term average at the moment," he added.

That is exactly what Lisa Foley thought when considering the lowball offer."The feedback that we got was that it was going to get worse, so we should sell now," she said.

Ms Foley is convinced that Brisbane's apartment construction boom crippled the sale of her first home.

"I'm no expert but I'd have to think that was the biggest problem for us," she said.

Retaining her New Farm property as a rental investment wasn't a viable option either because high vacancy rates mean tenants are currently calling the shots.

"There were so many other new apartments going up offering things like a month's free rent or, I heard of one, they were giving a $1,000 credit card to new tenants coming in, so that was a concern for us."

Surely this is just a Brisbane problem?

Given that overbuilding is the key problem, many analysts argue that price falls will be restricted to areas such as inner-Brisbane, where development has seen a massive peak.

Tim Lawless is certainly of the view that over-development is far more of a problem in Brisbane than in Melbourne or Sydney.

"Melbourne's actually seeing a larger raw number of units, but that city's well along a densification path and the uplift in total stock is only about 15 per cent [versus 21 per cent in Brisbane]," he said.

"Then you've got Sydney, where there's about 95,000 units about to come online in the next two years, but that's only a 12 per cent uplift in stock."

Unlike Brisbane, in the last few years those cities have also benefited from stronger population growth and flourishing state economies which have helped to shore up demand for new high-density residential developments.

"Over the past five years, about 75 per cent of Australian jobs have been created across New South Wales and Victoria, only about 15 per cent of national jobs are being created in Queensland," Mr Lawless added.

But there are signs of softness in the seemingly invincible Sydney market — figures from Domain showed the first quarterly price fall in almost two years, with house prices off 1.9 per cent and unit prices down 0.8 per cent.

The resource-reliant capitals of Perth and Darwin have already seen far larger declines — unit prices in WA's capital are off 7.7 per cent over the past year, while Darwin units are more than 30 per cent cheaper than a year ago.

Melbourne, Canberra and Hobart are still on the up, but given the levels of development underway and planned, any drop-off in population growth could see the booms unwind.

Tim Lawless believes there are early signs of improving jobs growth in Queensland and the severe housing affordability constraints in Sydney could help resurrect the Brisbane unit market, but he warned it will take some time.

"The typical house value in Sydney is just over $1 million — it's $1.74 million — whereas in Brisbane it's just over $500,000," he observed.

"So you can understand why people in Sydney will be cashing out of that marketplace and moving towards south-east Queensland."

But if people start leaving Sydney and Melbourne because they have become too expensive, then the price falls seen in places like Brisbane could gradually spread.

One in Five double dipped on FHOG

 by Jessica Irvine (SMH) 13/10/17
One in five recipients of a now abolished $5000 "new home grant" double-dipped on the scheme to receive multiple grants, including 1500 people and 1869 companies who pocketed more than five grants each.

First home buyers were not eligible for the grants, which were introduced by the Baird government in 2012 and pitched as a way to boost housing construction.

But economists have been highly critical of the scheme, saying it boosted the bottom line of builders and further inflated property prices.
A total of 83,151 grants worth $416 million were handed out under the controversial scheme, which was shut down by the Berejiklian government on June 30 after criticism from former Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens.

In a review for the government, Mr Stevens was critical of all grants to home buyers but singled out those going to non-first-time buyers as particularly wasteful. 

"It is important to note that at present about half of the grants made by the government do not go to first home buyers: they go to those buying their second or subsequent home, if it is a new dwelling," he wrote in his report to the Premier in May. "There may have been a case for this to assist the building industry during the financial crisis, but the builders don't need that demand stimulus now: what they need is faster processes for converting zoning and development applications into construction and an ability to respond to those segments of the market that will accept smaller, lower-cost dwellings."

Independent economist Saul Eslake said it was possible the scheme had led to "some marginal increase in supply" but "the most significant effect would likely have been to fatten builders' profit margins by something close to the amount of the grant".

Initially unlimited, the scheme was modified in 2014 to exclude foreign buyers and to introduce a cap of one grant per buyer per year.

During the five years of the scheme, there was a total of 131,203 recipients. A single grant could go to more than one recipient, for example a husband or wife.

Of the total recipients, 23,341 – or 18 per cent – received more than one grant, the figures show.

Of these multiple recipients, 3,378 pocketed more than five grants each, including 1509 individuals and 1869 companies.

Shadow treasury spokesman Ryan Park described the figures as "staggering".

"It must have finally dawned even on them – Berejiklian and [Treasurer] Perrottet – that it was not a good look to give away tens of millions of dollars to help people get their fourth or even fifth home, while hundreds of thousands of people were struggling to get a toehold on the property ladder," he said.

"If you're looking for evidence that this government has failed to honour its pledge to tackle the housing crisis, then here it is."A spokesman for the Treasurer pointed to record new housing construction and approval figures in NSW.

"When Labor was in government they were averaging 2,666 approvals a month. The Berejiklian-Barilaro government is averaging 4,679 approvals a month, or a 76per cent increase," the spokesman said.

"The New Home Grant scheme, introduced to stimulate supply in the market, is being phased out from the July 1 this year, having been replaced by a package of reforms including stamp duty exemptions and reductions for first home buyers.

"Labor's empty words on housing affordability ring hollow after 16 years of inaction when they were in government."

Previous information provided by the department revealed that postcodes on Sydney's urban fringe were the biggest recipients of the grants, including Camden, Spring Farm, Cambridge Park, Marsden Park, Liverpool and Campbelltown and Kellyville.

Developer Kickbacks

John Collett, THE AGE, Money 17 April 2015

Off-the-plan apartment developers are paying mortgage brokers up to $20,000 for each lead that turns into a property sale.
It is not just mortgage brokers who are receiving kickbacks for handing on names of their clients to property developers. Money is aware of inducements offered to accountants. The referral fees do not always have to be disclosed, leaving unsuspecting consumers vulnerable to being steered into property investments where the broker has a conflict of interest.

One mortgage broker from inner Melbourne, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the going rate was about $10,000, although he had been offered as much as $20,000. A mortgage broker from Sydney, who also did want to be named, said the going rate was up to 3 per cent of the purchase price of the property. The brokers fear that they will be ostracised by developers if they go public. Another source, who works in the marketing arm of an off-the-plan developer, told Money that developers pay referral fees of up to 7 per cent of the purchase price, usually in two parts: part of the fee on exchange of contracts and the remainder at settlement. “There are large broker groups and also financial planners who have made a lot of money over recent years out of referral fees” he says. Sometimes, the referral fees are paid to mortgage brokers whose main business is marketing apartments on behalf of developers. They will run seminars spruiking off-the-plan apartments and will provide mortgage-broking services among other services. Often the company will talk-up the tax benefits of holding the investment property in a self-managed superannuation fund and will set one up for the investor as well.

Referral fees can be worth more to brokers than the commissions paid by lenders for selling the lenders’ mortgages. Peter White, the chief executive of the Finance Brokers Association of Australia (FBAA), says referral fees are “probably wide-spread”. However, he frowns upon the practice of taking referral fees.He says brokers are paid upfront commissions of about 0.5 per cent of the value of the home loan being written, or $1500 on a $300,000 mortgage. And there is usually an ongoing, or “trail” commission of about 0.15 per cent, or $450, a year. “That is for doing a month’s work from interview to settlement [of the loan] and maybe longer,” he says. “How do you justify $10,000 or more as a referral fee for flicking a name and number to a developer?”

Jan Kirstein, a broker and principal of Greenlight Home Loans in Townsville, and a volunteer director of the FBAA, receives offers of referral fees from developers but does not take them. “The reason is that we do not want to be compromised,” Kirstein says. “We want to give impartial advice to people,” he says. If he did take developer referral fees there could be “issues down the track” if something goes wrong with the property investment. “We have been going since 1998 and we have a lot repeat business,” he says. Kirstein says referral commissions also inflate off-the-plan apartment prices.

It is not just mortgage brokers that are the target of property developers. Money has seen a contract from a property marketing company offering accountants $1500 for each of the accountant’s clients referred to the marketing company that results in a property sale. The company appears to be one of these newer “composite” businesses offering all types of services, including financial advice and mortgage broking but aimed at selling off-the-plan apartments.

Developer referral fees do not have to always be disclosed. John Denovan, a partner with law firm Gadens, which specialises in financial services regulation, says if the broker makes the referral at the same time as arranging finance, any referral fees have to be disclosed to the client. He says if a broker makes a referral where there is no credit advice being given, credit laws do not apply and any referral fees would not have to be disclosed.

Sydney: Is Your House Earning More Than You?

News Corp, 4/8/2014 by Kirsten Craze

Property prices in some Sydney suburbs have skyrocketed by more than five times the annual household income in a year, making thousands of homes much higher earners than their residents.
While the greater Sydney house price median increased by $71,000 in a year, according to RP Data figures, the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ average full-time adult earnings report puts the Sydney’s household income at $77,923. But some specific pockets of the harbour city have had house price medians leap by as much as $600,000.

Continue reading

The New Footscray

SMH, 13/8/2013 by Simon Johanson

A pocket of Footscray will become a satellite city of 5000 people living in more than a dozen high-rise towers after recent amendments to Melbourne’s planning scheme.

But the new scheme may allow towers up to 25 storeys high on the banks of the Maribyrnong River, prompting anger from nearby residents.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy has cemented controls for a small sandwich of land between the Maribyrnong River, Hopkins Street and Williamstown railway line that is set to become a forest of 18 tall buildings near Footscray’s town centre.

Continue reading

Hot School Zones Drive Up Prices!

Editorial, The Age, 12/07/2014

Competition for property in sought-after school areas is intense – some buyers say, “zone first, house second”.

These days, securing a seat in a classroom at a low-cost but high-performing government school is as much a real estate drawcard as sparkling en suites, backyard pools and posh postcodes.
Homes in established zones, including those for Balwyn, Camberwell and McKinnon secondary schools, have long been in frenzied demand with mum and dad buyers. But there are emerging school hot zones across Melbourne, according to agents.
Parents who desire a quality education for their kids – but without elitism – are driving up the price of top school-zoned properties, even in suburbs that are not traditionally classed as blue ribbon, according to agents.

Buyers keeping one eye on real estate ads and the other on VCE and NAPLAN results will do everything in their power to secure a house in a leading government school zone, agents say.
With limited housing available within tight neighbourhood boundaries, ferocious bidding and bullishly fronting agents at packed open for inspections is not uncommon.
And agents say with competition pumping up prices by 5 per cent in emerging zones like Alkira Secondary College in Cranbourne North, and by up to 20 per cent in traditionally in-demand pockets like Balwyn High School, that means budgets are sometimes pushed to the limit.
The price difference between a home in a desirable zone and one outside the zone, even just a street away, can be hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to buyers’ advisors.
Northcote High School and Alkira Secondary College – formerly Casey Central Secondary College – are more recently in-demand government school zones, driven by consistently strong academic results.
As a school’s reputation improves, agents feel the trickledown of demand almost immediately, said Nelson Alexander sales director Arch Staver.
He said houses in sought-after school wedges almost always outperform the median price for the suburb.
“Some people who I have spoken with, they want the academic equivalent of a private school but perhaps without a sense of eliteness,” Mr Staver said. “They want to capture the academic standard of a private school with an earthy and more local environment.”

Continue reading