Full disclosure and property investor protection
We live in a crazy world where we are encouraged to invest and fund our own retirement but are not provided with adequate information or legislative protection to assist us to do so.
People who are looking to enter the property market are forced to rely on patchy information, as disclosure of sale results is not mandatory and access to past sales is hidden from view. In addition consumer protection laws for property investors are almost non-existent. As the wheels of the property market begin to turn this is the reality property investors face.
Currently there is no obligation for real estate agents or vendors to disclose sale results to the public. For years the industry has hidden behind privacy concerns but consider this, even a property sold via a public auction can be undisclosed. If you are watching the auction you would know the result but because of privacy concerns the vendor can elect to hide the result. Have you ever heard of anything so ludicrous!
Lack of regulation enables practitioners to sell investors a product or concept, under the guise of providing advice without taking into account an individual’s personal or financial circumstances.
On any weekend as many as 10% - 20% of all auction results are not disclosed. Imagine if the board of BHP was to keep that much information hidden from the market place. There would be up roar and rightly so!
Further the historical growth of an individual asset is a key piece of information anyone buying property needs to know to make an informed decision. However what the property last sold for is usually very hard for the average punter to find. Again imagine if you were looking to purchase some BHP shares but had no access to historical values. It would be very difficult to work out fair market value.
But it gets worse for property investors. Legislation administered by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) provides protection for investors in shares, managed funds and super. Financial planners are required to consider each client’s personal and financial situation, investment knowledge and risk tolerance before giving recommendations on strategies or products. They must also provide a rationale for the recommendations, and disclose fees and commissions they will receive if the client acts on their advice.
Investors in direct property, however, receive no such protection from the nation’s investment watchdog. This is a glaring anomaly given that, according to the Tax Office, around 1.5 million Australians declare rental income for investment properties.
The ASIC Act’s rationale for excluding direct property from the definition of what constitutes a ‘financial product’ is that — unlike shares, super and managed funds, where investors entrust day-to-day control to a third party to generate a return — direct property investors retain direct control of decisions and returns.
The fact that direct property investors retain control of their assets doesn’t mean they are any more likely to make sound investment decisions. On the contrary, the absence of a third party increases the need for inclusion in ASIC’s safety net.
Lack of regulation enables practitioners to sell investors a product or concept, under the guise of providing advice without taking into account an individual’s personal or financial circumstances.
The regulator’s attitude to direct property as an asset class is clearly out of step with the way it’s being utilised as an investment in the wider community. It’s time the legislation was amended to recognise direct property as a financial product and give property investors the same level of protection and access to information as those holding other asset classes.
The time is ripe for the nation’s corporate watchdog to step up to the plate. When investors turn their attention to property, they’ll be in a better position to make informed investment choices and less prone to the fallout from lousy investment advice.
