Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Poll: Is Australia in the midst of a housing bubble?

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 24 Jun 2011, 01:00 AM Agree 0
Is Australia in the midst of a housing price bubble, as some economists are arguing? It's the last day for you to have your say!
  • Lynne | 07 Jun 2011, 10:53 AM Agree 0
    Why not just let accountants do finance as well and cut brokers out completely - Ridiculous!!!!
  • Blacky10 | 07 Jun 2011, 11:34 AM Agree 0
    In todays business world I believe a degree is the minimum requirement a broker should have.
  • Goodo | 07 Jun 2011, 11:36 AM Agree 0
    Another way that the MFAA is trying to justify their existance. with ASIC now as the governing body they will soon go the way of the dinosaurs.
    Good ridden to a useless waste of time & money
  • sidbroker | 07 Jun 2011, 12:04 PM Agree 0
    I don`t know why anyone would think it was necessary to get a degree to become a broker and join an industry that already has a lot of brokers looking at other options in terms of a better career. To go to university i would suggest it would be better to look at other options and especially look at a career that offers a higher level of security.
  • Marcus | 07 Jun 2011, 12:38 PM Agree 0
    Whilst the Diploma is fully acceptable as a minimum standard to maintain quality people in this industry, I think that the suggestion of a degree is overkill. What's the next standard going to be "double degrees" ??? Why not throw in Financial Planning qualifications too?
  • Greg Dodd | 07 Jun 2011, 12:46 PM Agree 0
    Judging by the standard of the Cert III and Cert IV courses it would be a "Light" Degree.
  • What Next Joe !!! | 07 Jun 2011, 03:29 PM Agree 0
    I cannot believe that a supposed industry leader like Joe Sirianni and the MFAA are suggesting a degree qualification to become a broker. If these people are fair dinkum then industry experience is what is required and on the ground training. What about getting experience working for a lender or established broker for a minimum of say three years as being more appropriate. Do they really think that someone can go to Uni study for who knows how long and then come out and deal with the many and varied scenarios an average broker deals with on a daiy basis. I say pull your heads in MFAA and go and talk to your members and find out their thoughts before coming out with these absolutely ridiculous suggestions.
  • Fez | 07 Jun 2011, 08:54 PM Agree 0
    Seems like a sesible approach for the future. I think the big question will be when this will happen rather than if?
  • DOUG 10 yrs in broking | 08 Jun 2011, 07:27 AM Agree 0
    Absolutely ridiculous! I completed Cert IV in 2008 and it was an absolute joke , other than keeping the training industry propped up I didnt learn a thing. I am now completing my diploma and once again am finding it a waste of money having a focus on Commercial Lending! Are bank staff going to be forced to have the same education levels? MFAA what a waste.
  • StPeter | 08 Jun 2011, 12:37 PM Agree 0
    The only relevance this will have is to the MFAA justifying their importance Joe
  • The V Man | 08 Jun 2011, 12:39 PM Agree 0
    Totally agree with "What next Joe!!"
  • Mike | 08 Jun 2011, 12:45 PM Agree 0
    I have a degree, and although I think the educational standards need to be raised, having a degree does not make you a better broker. It would be interesting how many of the top 100 have degrees. By the way, I have written in excess of $300 million, and that was not because I have a degree.
  • Garry | 08 Jun 2011, 12:47 PM Agree 0
    After 15 yrs in the industry as a broker I have seen some absurd finance structures created for clients and absolute rubbish finance applications sent to the banks. MFAA have always been obsolete and will continue to be so. ASIC are now the industry body and as far as I am concerned they will do what is right - I hope. Uni degrees will be a waste of time because the broker gets his education working with clients and seasoned brokers and not from a text book. The Cert IV is pathetic and is purely aimed at beginners and the Doploma is not much better. If the industry as a whole is serious than all involved and that includes those in the bank branches need to do the Uni course as they are far worse than most of the brokers in the industry. It should be one rule for all of the industry.
  • Laurie | 10 Jun 2011, 11:55 AM Agree 0
    I was AT the conference and heard what Joe said. It was a comment he made. He did not state that it was going to be MFAA policy for us to hold degrees. I think some of the comments above are way over the top and you need a reality check. Maybe if some of you had attended OUR industry conference you would have a better idea of just how relavent the MFAA is and what it has done for our industry. How can you be serious about your business and not attend our annual conference is nothing short of amazing. How can you keep your pencil sharp and not attend to find out what is happening in our industry. Are you a professional or not?
  • Brad | 10 Jun 2011, 12:43 PM Agree 0
    Maybe the degree should be for a higher qualification, like a "Certified Practicing Broker", but not just to be a broker. It doesnt make sense as degrees take 3 years to complete. And after doing a uni degree I would expect to walk into a high paying job. Unfortunatleyy that isnt how the industry works and higher incomes come from success and time....
  • KG | 10 Jun 2011, 01:15 PM Agree 0
    I wonder how many would attend the conference if there weren't any CPD points attached?
  • PC | 16 Jun 2011, 12:55 PM Agree 0
    A Degree needed just to know how to fill out an application. We are not doing anything different to what we did in the 90's. We will be more qualified than those in credit departments who make the decisions.
  • Brad from Toowoomba | 16 Jun 2011, 02:23 PM Agree 0
    I work harder for less money. I work longer hours. My wife has to work full time and I have a son in year 1. I have been a broker nearly 10 years and now someone in the MFAA thinks it would be a good idea that I need to have a degree! I think this proves they do not have a clue what is happening in the real world of brokers. Do they understand how hard it is for us at the moment? I need to worry about getting leads, filling out a mountain of paperwork now and trying to keep my business going. I don't need some University professor trying to tell me how to write a loan after I have been doing it nearly 10 years. Start worrying about real issues instead of trying to make life even more difficult for us.
  • Tom C | 20 Jun 2011, 02:27 PM Agree 0
    How much more change can the industry cope with, I think the timing of such a talk regarding qualifications for the future is out of whack. What's next, the industry needs to be left alone and provide a service to the public, if Brokers dont have the required experience they will not survive the market, a degree will not improve their chances of earning a living and providing a service.
  • Peter White - FBAA | 20 Jun 2011, 02:56 PM Agree 0
    Treasury has set the minimum requirement at Cert IV for a very good reason so to cater for all person in the industry not just mortgage brokers. If you are an ACL Holder this is likely to be increased to needing to have a Diploma but that hasn't happened as yet. There is enough on everyone's plate at the moment without unnecessary increased obligations. That being said I would encourage people to do it if they believe it is beneficial to their business, but nothing not even a piece of paper beats experience. FBAA wont change it's policy on this (you need Cert IV only) unless forced to by ASIC enforcing increased obligations from Treasury (and only when it happens)
  • countrybroker | 21 Jun 2011, 01:55 PM Agree 0
    In regards to the housing bubble , I kive and work in a Major Provincial city in Vic. (It is Very Cold). We are starting to see signs that the bubblew is bursting especially in the top end of our market.
  • Martin J. Rollins MPIA | 22 Jun 2011, 12:26 PM Agree 0
    RE: The Bubble... we have (about three years) been warning and writing of GFC2 and the Australian Bubble.

    To know what is coming, you just need to keep an eye on the U.S., China, and Europe.

    Real debt and the growth of it will lead to GFC2 (and a Credit Crunch)... it's almost a certain bet.

    A Mining boom will not shield us from the massive correction that is coming... I personally have always been gob smacked at those in this country citing property demand as the single measure and saviour.... the old Supply-Demand rules will not apply shortly, the "System" of economics itself is about to be challenged, how we value shareholder-driven companies will go through a large re-think and Banks and their larger negative attributes will be violently exposed. Even our Governments will be forced to re-think National safe debt levels.... real equity and the growth of it will become the new paradigm.

    We would ask that all of you take note of households, their already stretched budgets and all the lagging indicators (Melbourne Institute for example)pointing in the direction of where demand will be curtailed... the simple truth is, if you can't afford to Purchase ( or make repayments... this is the hidden problem currently occuring)a home due to burgeoning personal costs of living(new taxation/rising costs of living) people will just re-adjust their wants... i.e. disengage.

    Although anecdotal at this stage, we believe a whole generation will stall, delay and wait many years before they purchase a home. We think this group-think will grow, and in a decade from now resemble how many approach property ownership in Europe. Kids now are watching all this pain and are talking amongst themselves about 'not being on the treadmill of debt'. This constitutes a Game Changer for all of us, and leads to less participation, which in turn will erode our economy of both the viscosity and dynanism it requires.... in other words, it's like pouring a litre of sand into your engine; it might be going but its performance will be woeful.

    GFC2 is coming, get your homes in order.

  • Garry | 22 Jun 2011, 02:06 PM Agree 0
    I would say we are in the process of rationalisation. If incomes dont allow people to spend large amounts then house prices will stagnate as they currently are. As a long term investor across 2 states I have seen this before. Prices will again increase - just sit and wait and dont panic.
  • sidbroker | 24 Jun 2011, 11:55 AM Agree 0
    To Martin Rollins. Your thoughts are appreciated. How can we all move forward with high interest rates?? I can see no logical and acceptable reason for it. The reserve bank seem fixed on keeping us under their thumb and it that really going to help in the long term? Also with the way we live financially being affected and penalised on the back of a strong mining sector with high rates why are we not receiving dividends for our minerals to compensate??
  • M. Rollins TO Sidbroker | 27 Jun 2011, 01:23 PM Agree 0
    There's not much we can do regarding the RBA, and in-the-main they do a very good job... albeit sometimes after the horse has bolted, but that's the nature of lagging indicators.

    You here from time-to-time, how we have a two speed economy and the Mining boom provides a 'essentially' large distortion (Hm, even a bubble) to one side of our economy, whilst other sectors (Retail) shrink.... the one you and I see is directly connected with retail, we call them homeowners.

    I personally have a bit of ground somehwere in the centre... in that I don't think interest rates should be our nightly news, nor our focus for selling mortgages... that's a game developed by banks a long time a go.... I think we should collectively develop a VERY different point of difference.

    I've always thought we have this all wrong.

    I truly believe what we need is more support, government funding, and systems that help-show-teach people how to disrupt compounding... in my experience, disrupting compounding is a game that home-owners can play whilst ignoring the nightly news on rates.... and, really keeps their minds on what's really important (owning their homes fast) and not chasing the next lenders weekly special (and getting sucked into the refinance game).

    Disrupting compounding actually comes from what I call 'equity based thinking' i.e. understanding the very nature of how lenders make money (compounding) and then actively designing a homeowners budget-income/s to disrupt how compounding works.... this system essentially leverages the mortgage in the homeowners favour, taking it away from helping the bank.... a natural by-product of disrupting compounding is that it gently starts to decrease the real debt, compounding the savings and if you maintain the leverage, it pays the home off much faster.

    We call this: Mortgage Planning

    As for your comments regarding Mining Dividends, wouldn't it be great if Government allocated some of the royalties to each and every homeowner and regularly contribute to their mortgage... inturn decreasing our National debt, increasing our savings and rebuilding our equity..... then we don't need to become the next Greece or need austerity measures down the track.
Post a reply