Your Investment Property forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Spruikers? ‘I hate the word’

Notify me of new replies via email
Your Investment Property | 28 May 2013, 12:00 AM Agree 0
A top property investment adviser has criticised claims that his industry is dominated by spruikers, but others warn that more regulation is needed
  • David M | 28 May 2013, 12:46 PM Agree 0
    Mate, if you want to be treated differently. Here is a tip. Charge a professional fee for your service and if the right property attracts a commission - rebate to this to the client - and the potential for a rebate can form part of your selection process rather than mandatory for you to get paid. Until then my friend, you are a spruiker.
  • John | 28 May 2013, 01:06 PM Agree 0
    If you were really independent and helping buyers wouldn't you offer established properties as well? Only a person charging a fee, not getting a commission from a developer and offering access to a wide range of properties can truly be helping investors and working in their interests.
  • Thong | 28 May 2013, 02:41 PM Agree 0
    It's always everyone else that's a spruiker, except them. Regulate the industry and no one needs to prove themselves any more. If you're a 'adviser' and think you're not spruiking, pass some kind of test and we'll believe you!
  • Brian Clarke | 28 May 2013, 03:10 PM Agree 0
    Please note the third paragraph. Blue Wealth (Dr Tony Hayek) offers weekly & bi-weekly Seminars on the Blue Wealth Property website that are available to the public. Also the term "spriuker" can be applied to some of Blue Wealth "referrers". Matt George, a property invesment adviser & mortgage broker, previously a "referrer" of Blue Wealth properties was banned last week by ASIC from engaging in credit actvities for 8 years & providing financial activities for 3 years.
  • Wayne, Real Property Advice | 28 May 2013, 03:46 PM Agree 0
    The previous comments are spot on. Property providers, my generic term for anyone being paid by the vendor, manifest themselves under all sorts of models. Yes, some are certainly better than others but at the end of the day the potential for conflict of interest is all too real. It invariably involves new property and the initial and opportunity costs to consumers are often ugly. Percentage payments as quoted above or flat payments of $9,000 or even more for little more than a referral are horrifyingly common. Vested interests and commissions (irrespective of disclose) will ultimately corrupt. Isn't that why financial planning has the history and reputation it has - and is finally seeing (some begrudgingly) the value of fee for service?

    It's the same for mortgage broking. Far from being proffered as a good example and justification for their remuneration model, commission only broking suffers from the same inherent weakness. I know, I was one for 17 years and saw many of the same drawbacks including so-called advice based on the highest commission paying lender.

    Financial product manufacturers as well as aggregators/ dealer groups have been criticized for their inappropriate pressure if not overt direction to their members/ advisers so I'd take zero comfort from any due diligence that any lender or broker may have done. They have commercial imperatives, too.

    In truth, full fee for service, for any profession that is serious about being truly professional and completely client-focused, is the most transparent, most ethical and ultimate client friendly model. Anything less is a compromise. It's all well and good to protest that you're not a property spruiker and 'Hey, it's not me, it must be those other guys' but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

    However, I must also caution those calling for regulation as sort of panacea to the serious problem of property being sold under some semblance of advice. It hasn't work for financial planning, as a prime example (pun intended), with some arguing it's been a spectacular failure, so why would it be different for property? You can regulate for ethics and morals, nor can successfully regulate against corruption or incompetence or, for that matter, client laziness or stupidity. So, be careful what you wish for.
Post a reply