APRA’s investment loan growth cap short-sighted
Australians investing in real estate to grow their personal wealth are being targeted by the Australian Prudential and Regulation Authority (APRA), and harassed by the banks, MoneyQuest believes.
The finance specialist’s managing director, Michael Russell, said APRA had “burdened” the banks with the 10 per cent investment loan growth cap that was introduced in 2014 without considering unintended consequences.
“APRA’s response to reign in investor housing has been so short-sighted, that it’s further fuelled my support of uninterrupted markets,” Russell said.
He said curbing investment housing demand lead to the increased investment loan interest rates of new and existing investment loans.
Russell noted that towards the end of each month some banks were becoming so fearful of breaching the cap that they were electing to cancel purchase settlements and rebook the next month.
“When this happens the consequences can be particularly dire, not only for the purchasing investor but particularly for the unfortunate vendor who is often dependent upon the sale of their property to fund a simultaneous purchase,” he said.
“The vendor of that second purchase is then an unwilling participant in the collateral damage that is impacting for too many hardworking everyday Australians.”
Russell said if APRA was intent on interfering to cool the housing market then it must consult will all stakeholders to minimise the short and long-term distress of everyday Australians.
“That’s right, these everyday Australians who are investing in real estate to grow their personal wealth, are being targeted by APRA and harassed – under APRA’s instructions – by the banks,” he said.
“…My question to APRA and the Federal Government is ‘Do you really want every day Australians to stop saving and investing in property in favour of doing nothing and praying the Government can fund their massive pension liabilities in the years to come?’”
Recommended for you
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
New Zealand’s financial regulator is following the footsteps of its Tasman neighbours and proposing to conduct a review on improving the accessibility of financial advice and advice business models.
