Mortgage broking firm changes Chinese advertising
A mortgage broking firm has changed its Chinese language advertisements after concerns by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
The Melbourne-based Elite Mortgage Brokers made statements during October 2014 to March 2015 in Melbourne Property Weekly and on its website.
ASIC was concerned the statements were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. The statements made were:
- 100 per cent success rate;
- Pre-approvals within 15 minutes;
- Melbourne's largest Chinese mortgage broker; and
- Matching all of banks' interest rates.
ASIC was concerned the statement claiming "100 per cent success rate" were likely to be misleading because they suggest that credit will be provided to all applicants. Lenders or brokers that are subject to responsible lending obligations generally cannot claim that all applicants will receive credit.
ASIC deputy chair, Peter Kell, said all representations made in advertising of credit related products must be accurate and able to be substantiated to avoid consumers being misled.
"This extends to ensuring consumers from non-English speaking backgrounds were not misled or deceived by advertising in a foreign language," Kell said.
"ASIC monitors all forms of advertising and will continue to monitor advertising targeted at non-English speaking consumers."
Recommended for you
The corporate regulator has issued infringement notices to three AFSLs whose financial advisers provided personal advice to a retail client while unregistered.
Rather than taking a controlling approach, the latest generation of overseas private equity deals is helping advice firms to achieve their growth ambitions, three commentators have said.
Private wealth firm Fitzpatricks Group has appointed a newly created head of product, who previously spent 20 years at CFS, to bolster its range of investment options.
The Financial Services and Credit Panel has made a written direction after advice regarding non-concessional contributions meant an individual was forced to withdraw over $330,000 from their super.
