Investor Warning

<html><body>
Investors should seek an independent second opinion when investing their super savings in property, according to the Real Estate Buyer’s Agents Association of Australia (REBAA).
The industry body’s president Jacque Parker urges investors to question advisors offering inflated property values and guaranteed rents.
“The real estate industry has always attracted its fair share of ‘shonky’ selling agents and it’s disappointing to hear advisors accepting kickbacks from developers under the guise of “financial advice” and taking advantage of innocent investors,” says Parker.
REBAA’s warning comes amid reported claims of advisors receiving higher than standard commission payments for recommending off the plan residential apartments as self-managed super fund investments.
Earlier this year, property commentator <a href="/expert-insights/investing/29276-standby-exclusive-tips-from-the-experts-on-how-to-spot-a-dodgy-operator" target="_blank">Neil Jenman told Property Observer</a> that "property spruikers are getting commissions ranging up to $50,000 per property".
Parker advocates engaging an accredited buyer’s agent for a second opinion on property investments. Buyer’s agents do not sell real estate but specialise in finding, evaluating and negotiating property purchases on the behalf of buyers.
 “The old saying ‘if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is’ certainly applies here,” said Parker.
“If you are an investor who is considering investing your superannuation in property, then we would highly recommend you get an independent second opinion from a buyer’s agent.
“Independent buyer’s agents do not sell real estate or accept any kickbacks from other sources for doing so.
“If they do and they don’t disclose this to the buyer then they are contravening Section 47 of the Agents Act.”
Parker claims that using a buyer’s agent can save investors thousands of dollars.
 
</body></html>

jrichardson-uRX5hFdKfN

Don’t be lured in by “one stop shop” SMSF advisors: REBAA

<html><body>
AMP is axing new mortgages to property investors with five or more properties.
It continues the lender crackdown on borrowers with multiple dwellings.
The Australian Financial Review reports AMP is also tightening scrutiny of all loan applications and banning new loans to investors whose property related income, which is typically rent, is more than half of their total declared income.
AMP is also decreasing the maximum amount of verified gross rental income it will accept for loan-servicing purposes from 80 to 70 per cent for properties in higher risk zones, such as inner city high-rise apartments.
The number of households with an investment property grew at the height of the property boom, especially in 2014-15-16, according to analysis by the Australian Taxation Office, although the numbers with a big portfolio does remain comparatively limited. 
Investors with big portfolios increased by about four per cent to about 45,000 with four properties and 20,000 with six properties in the most recent data.
It kicked off in the 2014-15 financial year the number of investors with five or more properties grew by 7.5 per cent – almost double the rate of growth over the previous nine years.
Of the 11 per cent of the adult population with investment properties in Australia, more than half of those are now owners of two or more properties, according to data included the RBA’s Financial Stability Review.
One in 10 investors own three or more properties, the central bank said, based on analysis of Australian Taxation Office data.
Professionals such as teachers, lawyers and accountants are the biggest group of investors by professional grouping – these groups account for 22 per cent of property investors in 2014-15.
Managers and professionals together – the two highest-paid groups – account for 37 per cent of all investors in property and have close to the highest level of negative gearing.
The most highly negatively geared group of workers is machinery drivers and operators – they account for just 3 per cent of property investors but 74 per cent of them are negatively geared.
The data showed a marked increase in the age of property investors, with the number of over-60s in the market almost doubling in the 10 years since 2005 to now account for about 22 per cent of all investors.
Property portfolios valued at $2 million in popular Sydney and Melbourne suburbs are generating weekly returns of less than $752 after deduction of expenses, according to recent analysis by chartered accountant and adviser William Buck.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

AMP stops new mortgages for investors with sizeable property portfolio

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
It is easy for those of us who have ignored emails from Nigerian princes or refused to transfer money on behalf of an online love interest to scroll past stories about scams, thinking it could never be us.
But so far this year, Australians have reported losing more than AU$76 million to all types of fraud, with phishing scams being the most prevalent. Given fraud has one of the lowest reporting rates, this is likely to be the tip of the iceberg.
From the outside, it’s difficult to understand how fraud occurs, and why some victims send large sums of money to offenders or take other drastic actions. It’s easy for a rational person to identify these situations as fraud.
Too often, we focus our attention on the culpability of victims in these situations. But it’s the offenders and their actions we should be focusing on. How exactly do fraudsters get victims to do such outlandish things?
Grooming the victim
In many cases, it’s a culmination of efforts that result in the victim sending money or complying with a fraudster’s request. Some offenders target specific victims and build a profile of them through online or offline tracking.
In other cases, the contact may start as random, but the fraudster will work hard to establish trust and build rapport.
There is research to support the concept of “hyperpersonal” relationships, or ones that are developed more intensely and quickly online compared to offline. Online communication lacks the non-verbal cues that could raise suspicions on the part of a victim.
Further, there is power in the written word. Several fraud victims I interviewed in my research told me they saved all their chat logs with their offenders from the first contact. Re-reading these conversations allows them to feel a deeper connection to the words – and the person sending them – compared to a verbal conversation.
By being persistent and patient with their contact, fraudsters raise few red flags when they ask a victim for money. Many victims come to believe the situation they are being presented with and the reason behind the request.
Social engineering techniques
Online offenders are also able to identify a weakness or vulnerability in a person relatively quickly and decide on the appropriate strategy to exploit this.
The use of authority to gain trust and compliance is commonplace. Offenders will take on the identity of a person or organisation and use this to threaten victims into submitting to their requests. Fear can be a strong motivating factor.
This is why so many people fall for phishing emails, or those that appear in our inboxes from a bank or government organisation. These emails say there is a problem and threaten a negative consequence (such as the closure or freezing of a bank account) if their instructions are not followed.
A sense of authority has been clear in the recent scams targeting Chinese students in Melbourne who have been tricked into staging their own kidnappings. The victims receive calls from the Chinese “police” or some other authority and are told there is a problem with their visa, or that they have been involved in criminal activity.
In order to prove their innocence, the victims are asked to send money. Or, they are directed to stage their own kidnapping, with the intention of extorting money from their families. The threat of deportation and jail time are powerful motivators for victims, who genuinely fear for their safety.
The use of scarcity – the idea of a limited offer – is another successful technique of fraudsters. By implying their request has a limited timeframe for response, or that the promised reward is limited in availability, they compel people to respond.
Examples of scarcity are commonly seen with lottery scams and sales frauds. Earlier this year, for instance, Scamwatch reported that fraudsters were advertising pedigree breeds of puppies for sale, often demanding money up front to cover transport or medical costs. Victims were duped out of over AU$300,000 in a single year.
Coercive control
The use of psychological abuse tactics by online fraudsters also helps to explain why they have so much power over victims despite a lack of physical proximity.
Richard Tolman, a professor of social work at the University of Michigan, identified nine techniques of psychological abuse used by offenders in situations of domestic violence. In an exploratory study, my colleagues and I were able to apply many of these to the context of fraud.
In these cases, offenders employ abusive techniques in their communications to gain compliance at the beginning and maintain it throughout the fraud. In my research, several victims reported being verbally abused when they questioned the nature of the relationship or refused to send money.
Several victims felt the offenders were deliberately leading them to question themselves or their own judgement. This destabilisation is not exclusive to romance fraud and can allow offenders to exploit victims over long periods of time.
Fighting against fraud
The pervasive nature of these tactics is difficult to guard against. Most people do not believe they are vulnerable to fraud and are not aware how they could be deceived. Offenders rely on this.
There is also a strong stigma attached to falling prey to scams. Victims are often blamed for their own circumstances and losses. This exacerbates the suffering they’ve experience at the hands of the offender.
It’s important to raise awareness of the pervasiveness of this type of fraud and the methods used by offenders to target victims. Promoting a culture in which we can openly talk about fraud without judgement or blame is critical to achieving this.

After all, offenders rely on the silence of victims most of all to continue committing these crimes. In order to break through the silence, we need a better understanding of the techniques they use and more work to identify successful countermeasures and prevention messages.
Cassandra Cross, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Queensland University of Technology
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-get-away-with-fraud-the-successful-techniques-of-scamming-99523" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

How to get away with fraud: the successful techniques of scamming

<html><body>
The Federal Court has imposed civil penalties of $70,000 each on the directors of Storm Financial, Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis, who were previously found by the court to have breached their duties as directors.
They were also disqualified from managing corporations for 7 years.
This draws to a close ASIC's Storm-related litigation, which has included investors receiving compensation in relation to losses suffered on investments made through Storm. 
Storm Financial operated a system of advice, created by the Cassimatises, in which 'Stormified' clients were advised to invest substantial amounts in index funds, using 'double gearing' (Storm Model).  Clients would usually take out a home loan and a margin loan in order to purchase units in index funds, create a 'cash dam' and pay Storm's fees.  Clients were then encouraged to take 'step' investments over time.  In late 2008 and early 2009, many of Storm's clients were in negative equity positions, sustaining significant losses. 
The Townsville based Storm collapsed in early 2009. 
In the original judgment, Justice Edelman had found that a sample of investors who were advised to invest in accordance with the Storm Model, received advice that was inappropriate to their personal circumstances. Each of those investors were over 50 years old, were retired or approaching and planning for retirement, had little or limited income, few assets and had little or no prospect of rebuilding their financial position in the event of suffering significant loss.
Justice Edelman found that the Cassimatises had each engaged in a course of conduct which amounted to one breach of the requirement that they exercise their powers as directors with the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would have exercised in that situation.  The maximum penalty for a breach of directors' duties (s180) is $200,000.
ASIC commenced this civil penalty proceeding against the Cassimatises in late 2010. The trial took place between 30 May and 30 June 2016.  In August 2016, Edelman J handed down judgment in relation to liability against the Cassimatises, finding that they had each breached their duties as directors.
In September 2012, ASIC entered into a settlement agreement with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to make available up to $136 million as compensation for losses suffered on investments made through Storm. The $136 million was in addition to payments of approximately $132 million, and other benefits that CBA had already provided to Storm investors under its Resolution Scheme.
In May 2013 ASIC secured $1.1 million in compensation on behalf of two former Storm investors, Barry and Deanna Doyle.
In May 2013, ASIC intervened in the application for Court approval of the settlement of the related class action brought against Macquarie Bank in respect of Storm as it had concerns about the fairness of the settlement arrangements.  On 12 August 2013, the Full Federal Court agreed that the distribution of the settlement sum was not fair and reasonable to all group members.  Under a revised settlement, Macquarie Bank agreed to pay $82.5 million by way of compensation and costs.
In September 2014, ASIC entered into a settlement agreement with the Bank of Queensland Limited to pay approximately $17 million as compensation for losses suffered on investments made through Storm.
</body></html>

Storm Financial's Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis cop $70,000 civil penalties

<html><body>
Financial services provider The Trust Co is against debenture company Angas ­Securities’ move to draw out repayments to investors and has called for receivers to oversee attempts to return the $135 million owed.
Angas will ask investors at a meeting in Adelaide to wait two years for returning their money, but Trust Co, owned by wealth manager Perpetual, has told investors it expected losses.
It may call on the Federal Court for a receiver to be called in depending on support for Angas, The Australian reported.
Trust Co wrote to its more than 2,000 investors that the corporate regulator and Trust had “carefully considered” the Angas plan and raised concerns about the adequacy of the document, which had not been “fully addressed”.
The trustee said there was a risk that debenture holders may not receive any “significant” payments from Angas until the end of June 2019. It said investors should brace for losses, writing that “Angas will not return a ­surplus and will in fact be unable to pay 100c in the dollar”.
Angas has paid back $15 million against the $145 million promised this time last year. The trustee said valuations relied upon by Angas were out of date, “in some cases by many years”.
Trust Co raised concerns about excessive spending, saying Angas had spent $16.2 million running its business in the last two years and had forecast spending $12.1 million over the next two years.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Trust Co seeks receivers to oversee Angas Securities’ repayment schedule 

<html><body>
The Federal Court has today found that the Townsville directors of Storm Financial, Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis, breached their duties as directors.  The Court also found that Storm Financial provided inappropriate advice to certain investors. 
Since around 1994, Storm Financial operated a system created by the Cassimatises, in which what ASIC considered to be "one-size-fits-all" investment advice was recommended to clients.  The advice recommended that clients invest substantial amounts in index funds, using "double gearing".  This approach involved taking out both a home loan as well as a margin loan in order to purchase units in index funds, create a "cash dam" and pay Storm's fees.  Once initial investments took place, "Stormified" clients would be encouraged to take "step" investments over time.
By the time of Storm's collapse in early 2009, approximately 3,000 of its 14,000 client based had been "Stormified".  In late 2008 and early 2009, many of Storm's clients were in negative equity positions, sustaining significant losses. 
The case that ASIC advanced against the Cassimatises centered around a sample of investors who were advised to invest in accordance with the Storm Model.  ASIC alleged that the advice provided to those investors by Storm was inappropriate to their personal circumstances, considering that each of the investors were alleged to be over 50 years old, were retired or approaching and planning for retirement, had little or limited income, few assets and had little or no prospect of rebuilding their financial position in the event of suffering significant loss. 
Among other things, it was also alleged that Storm failed to properly investigate the subject matter of the advice given to those investors.  As such, ASIC also alleged that Storm failed to do all things necessary to ensure that the financial services covered by its licence were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.
ASIC further alleged that because the Cassimatises were responsible for the day-to-day significant decisions in relation to the provision of financial services to Storm's clients and exercised a high degree of control over its systems and processes, they had caused Storm to contravene its obligations under the Corporations Act and did not exercise their powers as directors of Storm with the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would have exercised in that situation.
In a 217 page judgment, Justice Edelman found that:
<ul>
<li>Storm provided advice to certain investors, that was inappropriate to their personal circumstances and failed to give such consideration to the subject matter of the advice and did not properly investigate the subject matter of the advice given.</li>
<li>
"A reasonable director with the responsibilities of Mr and Mrs Cassimatis would have known that the Storm model was being applied to clients such as those who fell within this class and that its application was likely to lead to inappropriate advice.  The consequences of that inappropriate advice would be catastrophic for Storm (the entity to whom the directors owed their duties).  It would have been simple to take precautionary measures to attempt to avoid the application of the Storm model to this class of persons." (paragraph 833)</li>
</ul>
Commissioner Greg Tanzer said, "This is an important decision which emphasises the importance of directors' duties to ensure that they do not cause the companies that they control, to breach the law.  The decision also highlights the significant obligation on financial services licensees to provide financial advice that is appropriate to the persons to whom it is given."
The matter will be listed for a further hearing at a later date to determine what civil penalties and disqualification orders should be imposed on the Cassimatises as a result of the breach of their director duties.
Background
ASIC commenced this civil penalty proceeding against the Cassimatises in late 2010.  The trial took place between 30 May and 30 June 2016.
In May 2013 ASIC secured $1.1 million in compensation on behalf of two former Storm investors, Barry and Deanna Doyle.
In September 2012, ASIC entered into a settlement agreement with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to make available up to $136 million as compensation for losses suffered on investments made through Storm. The $136 million was in addition to payments of approximately $132 million, and other benefits that CBA had already provided to Storm investors under its Resolution Scheme.
In May 2013, ASIC intervened in the application for Court approval of the settlement of the related class action brought against Macquarie Bank in respect of Storm as it had concerns about the fairness of the settlement arrangements.  On 12 August 2013, the Full Federal Court agreed that the distribution of the settlement sum was not fair and reasonable to all group members.  Under a revised settlement, Macquarie Bank agreed to pay $82.5 million by way of compensation and costs.
In September 2014, ASIC entered into a settlement agreement with the Bank of Queensland Limited to pay approximately $17 million as compensation for losses suffered on investments made through Storm.
</body></html>

Storm Financial's Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis breached director duties

<html><body>
The listed Western Australia developer Finbar will report its lowest full-year profit result in almost a decade, after revealing $13 million of impairments to commercial and residential investment property it owns in Perth and Karratha.
Finbar, which has a $1.84 billion pipeline of apartment projects mainly in Perth, anticipates a 23 per cent slump in operating profit in the year to June, down to $21 million compared with $27.4 million last year. 
After writedowns, Finbar's after-tax net profit will be $8 million, its lowest result since 2007.
While off-the-plan apartment sales remained strong – with the company finishing the year with a record $451 million of pre-sales, up 11 per cent on the previous fiscal year – the investment portfolio bore the brunt of the weaker office rental market in Perth and the collapse in rents and property values in the Pilbara mining region.
Western Australia’s leading apartment development company during FY16 settled 453 apartments with a combined sales value of $318 million across all wholly owned and joint venture projects.
The company has also finished the year with record presales of $451 million, an increase of 11 per cent from the previous year, and the largest year-end pre-sale contract level in the Company’s history.
Finbar Managing Director, Darren Pateman said the year had been a more subdued year with respect to property market activity in Western Australia however our projected result reflects a solid operating performance.
“Notwithstanding the softer local economic and market conditions, we expect to deliver a respectable operating profit finishing the year with a strong balance sheet with no residual debt on stock completed and held for sale.
"The biggest anticipated negative impact on our reported net profit will be the non-cash effects of the revaluations of Finbar property held for investment income purposes.
"Whilst our property occupancy rates are high and rents achieved are above market, the impact of a reduction in prevailing market rents State wide have had a negative impact on external valuations,” Mr Pateman said.
The portfolio, valued at about $120 million in February, comprises more than 7000 square metres of office space in East Perth and nearly 3000 sq m of office and about 8000 sq m of rental apartments at its Pelago complex in Karratha.
The company reported a "distinctly active market for completed stock" as Finbar anticipates good cash flow from the sale of completed stock held for sale and is earmarked for redeployment into FY2017 project commencements at Aire Apartments in West Perth and Civic Heart in South Perth.
Finbar has a $1.84 billion project pipeline with projects currently under construction including, Aurelia in South Perth, Concerto in East Perth, and Motive in West Leederville.
</body></html>

Western Australia developer Finbar to report lowest full-year profit in decade

<html><body>
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released their quarterly Authorised Deposit-taking Institution (ADI) Property Exposures data for March 2015 earlier this week.  The data always provides a valuable insight into current and historic mortgage lending by domestic ADIs and this quarter’s release was no different.  Given the heightened vigilance from APRA around investment lending and overall lending standards as well as recent changes to mortgage policies from many banks, the latest release from APRA may also signal a cyclical peak in investment lending as well as interest-only mortgage lending.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4819" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-14.jpg" alt="Chart 1" width="500" height="180">
Based on the value of all outstanding mortgages by households to Australian ADIs, there was $852.5 billion outstanding to owner occupiers (65.4% of all housing loans) at the end of March 2015 and $450.2 billion to investors (34.6%).  Over the 12 months to March 2015, the total value of outstanding mortgages to owner occupiers has increased by 7.2% compared to a 12.4% rise in outstanding credit to investors.  This represents a reduction in the annual rate of increase in owner occupier lending over the quarter and the greatest rise in investor lending since September 2010.  Much like other data received more regularly, the chart indicates that there remains significantly more momentum in the investor lending space than that for owner occupiers where growth is more moderate.  With changes to investment lending criteria now being adjusted we are likely to see a slowing of that rate of change over the coming quarters.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4820" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-23.jpg" alt="Chart 2" width="500" height="182">
At the end of March 2015, a record high 38.6% of loans outstanding had an offset facility, up from 35.4% a year earlier.  Also a record high was the 37.4% of all outstanding mortgages which were interest-only, up from 35.4% a year earlier.  Just 0.2% of all outstanding mortgages were reverse mortgages and 2.3% were low documentation which was down from 3.1% a year earlier and at a record low proportion.  Other non-standard loans accounted for just 0.1% of all outstanding mortgages.  It seems that more and more mortgagees are accessing offset accounts in order to reduce the interest payable on their mortgages and maximise repayments of the principal while interest rates are so low.  The data also indicates that a high proportion of lenders are accessing interest-only mortgages which seem somewhat counterintuitive at a time when interest rates are so low.  Following APRA’s letter to ADIs in late in 2014 they specifically called out interest only lending as a risk and we would expect that over the coming months these types of mortgages will become harder to obtain.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4821" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-33.jpg" alt="Chart 3" width="500" height="179">
The average balance on all outstanding mortgages at the end of March 2015 was $243,500.  The average balance has increased by 3.6% over the past year, its fastest annual rate of growth since the year to June 2012.  Loans with an offset facility ($290,600) and interest-only mortgages ($315,100) have much higher average outstanding loan balances.  The annual growth in average outstanding loan balances has been slightly more moderate for mortgages with an offset and interest-only mortgages at 3.3% and 3.4% respectively.   The annual rate of growth for mortgages with an offset is the fastest since September 2012 and the rate of growth for interest-only mortgages is at its fastest pace since September 2010.  Encouragingly, the data indicates that outstanding balances are reducing for low documentation and other non-standard loans as they become less common.  Over the past year the average balance has fallen by -2.9% for low-documentation loans and by -6.7% for other non-standard loans.  With mortgage rates low and fewer of these loan types being written it seems those that have these types of loans are continuing to pay down these mortgages at a fairly rapid pace.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4822" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-43.jpg" alt="Chart 4" width="500" height="181">
Turning the focus to new loans written over the March 2015 quarter, 63.0% of the total value of new lending was to owner occupiers and 37.0% was to investors. The proportion of new lending to investors has fallen from a record high of 37.9% in the June 2014 quarter.  Based on this data it suggests that growth in demand for both owner occupier and investment lending may have peaked.  The annual change in new owner occupier and investment lending was recorded at 9.3% and 15.4% respectively.  The annual change in owner-occupied mortgages is growing at its fastest pace since March 2014 while the annual change in investment lending has been trending lower over the past two quarters.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4823" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-51.jpg" alt="Chart 5" width="500" height="180">
Over the March 2015 quarter, 0.7% of new loans approved were low-documentation, 42.3% were interest-only, 0.1% was other non-standard loans, 42.2% were third party originated loans and 2.8% were loans approved outside of serviceability.  The 42.3% of new loans which were interest-only was down over the quarter with the proportion at its lowest level since March 2014.  The data also seems to reflect the slowing of growth in investment demand, remember that interest only loans tend to be (but not always) reflective of lending for investment purposes.  The ADIs seem to be increasing the usage of their broker channels with 42.2% of loans originated by third parties.  With 2.8% of new mortgages approved outside of serviceability over the March 2015 quarter, this was down from 2.9% over the previous quarter.
In terms of the annual change in new lending, the value of new low documentation loans approved rose 31.1% year-on-year, interest-only loans rose 19.7%, other non-standard loans fell -24.3%, third party originated loans increased by 14.9% and loans approved outside of serviceability increased 25.2%.  Although low documentation and loans outside of serviceability make up a small overall proportion of lending, the significant increase in lending for these loan types over the year is a potential cause for concern.
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4824" src="https://blog.corelogic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Chart-61.jpg" alt="Chart 6" width="500" height="183">
Looking at the loan to value ratios (LVR) of loans written over the March 2015 quarter,  25.7% of new loans had an LVR of less than 60%, 41.4% of loans had an LVR of between 60% and 80%, 21.7% had an LVR of between 80% and 90% and 11.1% had an LVR of 90% or more.  The 11.1% of new loans with an LVR of more than 90% is the lowest proportion since December 2010.  The 25.2% of mortgages with an LVR lower than 60% was the highest proportion since June 2013.  This falling proportion of loans above 90% LVR suggests there are proportionally less high-risk mortgages being written.  It should be noted that around a third of all new mortgages written (32.8%) had an LVR of more than 80%.
Looking at the year-on-year change in mortgage lending by LVR bands, mortgages with an LVR above 90% were the only segment to record a fall down -7.8%.  Mortgages with an LVR below 60% were up 18.6% year-on-year, LVRs of 60% to 80% were up 12.4% and LVRs of 80% to 90% rose 13.9%.  The 18.6% rise in mortgages with an LVR of less than 60% was the largest since December 2013, the 12.4% rise in mortgages with an LVR of 60% to 80% was the lowest since March 2013, the 13.9% rise in mortgages with an LVR of 80% to 90% was the lowest since March 2013 and the -7.38% fall in mortgages with an LVR greater than 90% was the largest fall since March 2011.
Given that we have recently seen many banks starting to implement changes in their lending policies, mostly focussed on investors we would anticipate that investor and interest-only lending will likely moderate over the coming quarters.  The decline in higher LVR lending is an encouraging development given a focus on mortgage serviceability at this time of low mortgage rates.  The increase in lending outside of serviceability and low documentation loans over the past year is likely to be an area of scrutiny for APRA over the coming months.
 
<div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled"> </div>
</body></html>

ckusher-ujnxiKuFQs

APRA data shows new low doc loans potential cause for concern

<html><body>
Sydney has been ranked the third most unaffordable major property market in the latest annual Demographia International Housing Survey.
Melbourne took sixth spot on the unaffordability index.
Hong Kong was ranked the most unaffordable place to buy a house, followed by Vancouver.
The report noted historically, the median multiple had been "remarkably similar" in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, with median house prices from two to three times median household incomes.
"However, in recent decades, house prices have been decoupled from this relationship in a number of markets, such as Vancouver, Sydney, San Francisco, London, Auckland and others," the report said.
<a href="/images/2015/01/19/unaffrodabe-jan-19-one.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="/images/2015/01/19/unaffrodabe-jan-19-one.jpg" alt=""></a>
Source: Demographia
The US was the most affordable place to buy a house of all the countries surveyed, with 14 major property markets ranked as being affordable.
New Zealand property values rose 4.9% last year, less than half the pace in 2013, according to recent QV figures, but Auckland ranked ninth.
The 11th annual Demographia survey analysed 86 major property markets in New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland and Singapore.
<img src="/images/2015/01/19/unaffrodabe-jan-19-two.jpg" alt="">
Source: Demographia
The most affordable major metropolitan markets in 2014 were in the United States, which had a moderately unaffordable rating of 3.6. 
Canada and Ireland were rated "seriously unaffordable," with a median multiple of 4.3, along with Japan (4.4), the United Kingdom (4.7) and Singapore (5.0). Australia (6.4), New Zealand (8.2) and Hong Kong (17.0) were severely unaffordable.
Hong Kong's median multiple of 17.0 was the highest recorded (least affordable) in the 11 years of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey.
Click to open in new window: 
<a href="/images/2015/01/19/unaffrodabe-jan-19-three.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="/images/2015/01/19/unaffrodabe-jan-19-three.jpg" alt=""></a>
Source: Demographia
Again, Vancouver was second only to Hong Kong, with a median multiple of 10.6.
Housing affordability in Sydney deteriorated to a median multiple of 9.8, which was followed by San Francisco and San Jose (each 9.2). 
Melbourne had a median multiple of 8.7 and London (Greater London Authority) 8.5. 
Three other markets had median multiples of 8.0 or above, including San Diego (8.3), Auckland (8.2) and Los Angeles (8.0). 
For the 11th year in a row - each of the years the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey has been published - all of Australia's five major metropolitan areas were severely unaffordable.
Sydney's median multiple of 9.8 was a substantial increase from last year's 9. It was based on an $812,000 median price and an $82,800 median household income.
Housing affordability also deteriorated in Melbourne, rising to a median multiple of 8.7 in 2014 from 8.3 in 2013, based on $658,000 and $75,900 income. Housing affordability deteriorated slightly in Adelaide (from 6.3 to 6.4 based on $410,000 median and $63,600 median income), Perth (from 6.0 to 6.1 $535,000 and $87,200) and Brisbane (from 5.8 to 6.0 $465,000 and $78,000). 
The top 10 most unaffordable city markets in the world:
1. Hong Kong 2. Vancouver 3. Sydney 4. San Francisco 5. San Jose 6. Melbourne 7. London 8. San Diego 9. Auckland 10. Los Angeles
Source: Demographia
Among all 378 markets, there were 98 affordable markets, 88 in the United States, five in Canada, three in Ireland and, for the first time, there were affordable markets in Australia, <a href="https://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf" target="_blank">perhaps the only surprise</a> in what has been a highly repetitive predictable survey.
The most affordable surveyed Australian market was suggested as Karratha, in Western Australia's Pilbara, with a median multiple of 2.6. Kalgoorlie, also in Western Australia was judged the second most affordable Australian market, with a median multiple of 2.8. 
"These improvements appear related to resource industry related demand decreases," the report's author Wendell Cox noted.
But amid the smaller surveyed markets Tweed Heads sat in the highly unaffordable at a 9.1 median multiple and Port Macquarie, with a median multiple of 8.2. 
In 2008 the survey suggested Australia was perhaps the least densely populated major country in the world, but state governments there have contrived to drive land prices in major urban areas to very high levels, with the result that in that country housing in major state capitals has become severely unaffordable.
House price data for Australia is from multiple sources, the most important being the Real Estate Industry Association of Queensland (Queensland Market Monitor), the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, the Real Estate Institute of South Australia, the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia, Australian Property Monitors, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and various real estate internet web sites.  
The report noted in Australia, housing affordability multiples have been published that compare average household incomes and median house prices. 
"To make valid comparisons between international markets, it would be necessary to also calculate these "average/median" multiples for the markets outside Australia to which comparisons are made (and to provide historical data). However, "average/median" multiples have been inappropriately compared to median multiples," Wendell Cox advised.
"This treatment portrays Australian housing affordability, which is among the worst in the high-income world, more favorably than the reality." 
While Property Observer takes housing affordability seriously, the results of the report are, as noted, predictively repetitive. So which of the three most expensive cities would you prefer to live in? 
{mijopolls 75} 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Only Hong Kong and Vancouver dearer than Sydney's severely unaffordable housing: 11th Demographia 2015 survey

<html><body>
Perth’s home owners have been reminded by the Building Commissioner to check the registration of painters, in particular, before paying them to carry out work priced over $1,000. If property owners do not undertake this due diligence, they may face being ripped off.
According to Building Commissioner Peter Gow, they are continuing to receive details of unregistered painters obtaining business by distributing flyers and going door-to-door offering services. Just recently, home owners in Willetton and Sorrento have provided reports of this activity.
Sub-standard and overpriced work could be the result of getting involved with an unregistered painter.
“In most parts of Western Australia, carrying out painting work valued over $1,000 requires a registration and any advertisements offering major painting work should contain the painter’s registration number,” Gow said.
“The Building Commission and our colleagues at Consumer Protection receive frequent complaints from consumers who have handed over money to an unregistered painter only to be left with overpriced and substandard work – or in some cases, no work at all,” he said.
“The best way for consumers to protect themselves from dodgy painters is to ask to see their accreditation and independently verify it before agreeing to any major work on their property.”
For those concerned, a quick check on the Building Commissions registration portal will <a href="https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/building-commission/find-registered-building-service-provider" target="_blank">be able to find registered painters</a>.
Other signs to watch for are headings such as “full roof painted” for a value in excess of $1,000, and sometimes a 1800 phone number and no trading name could be warnings home owners could check out for to determine whether they are operating illegally.
Always check for credentials before agreeing to any work.
“These unregistered traders are difficult to track down for a refund or to make a warranty claim if you’re not satisfied with the work and are breaking consumer law by not observing a 10-day cooling off period for unsolicited sales,” Gow said.
“Most building work valued over $20,000 also requires the builder to be registered in WA and all plumbing work must be carried out by a licensed plumbing contractor,” he said.
You can report anyone you know to be offering unauthorised work via the Building Commission:1300 48 90 99 or <a href="https://mail.privatemedia.com.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=Ultkv_vW706GgICQ1Lr4DMvqpdX_AtIIb4VbQ_7izJOeO3QJXpzOHTVog-kX_Y62w6VPR2gnEM8.&amp;URL=mailto%3abcinfo%40commerce.wa.gov.au">bcinfo@commerce.wa.gov.au</a>.
</body></html>

Investor Warning

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Investor Warning

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News