<html><body>
Is it a case of banks don’t know what’s going on, or is it more a statement they don’t want to know? Pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee and read on. Don’t forget, your comments are welcomed and be sure to share them.
There are three main issues that banks appear to be very silent on and the question that is fitting in this property-climate is simply: “why are they so quiet?” A question which begs a straight answer; especially with the concerns surrounding foreign and local property investors buying newly built property and pricing local first-time-home-buyers out.
The three concerns and issues I refer to are:
·     Rental guarantees
·     Overly inflated commissions and
·     The scourge of the financial industry sector, selling property without a real estate industry license.
My immediate guess is, if you are riding the “Gravy Train” of “Overseas &amp; Local Investors” why should these seemingly illegal practices be of concern to banks? Again and for now, I’m just speculating that; it’s best to turn a blind eye than it is to confront what may well be considered unfair and unjust to local home buyers. After all, first-time-home-buyers aren’t the flavor of the month to all concerned, now are they?
It is my strong belief that the three topics noted, create an unfair advantage that has driven property values sky-high as developers reach for the skies.
Why is this unfair? I have previously discussed in other articles, “Rental-Guarantees” and “Overly-Inflated Commissions” are ultimately paid by the investor.
<a href="https://mail.privatemedia.com.au/owa/redir.aspx?SURL=buh8exBazU3bNSloPOr0rrJNNQesJNSotxGFO7YMkRixynWPdWzSCGgAdAB0AHAAOgAvAC8AdwB3AHcALgBsAGkAbgBrAGUAZABpAG4ALgBjAG8AbQAvAHAAdQBsAHMAZQAvAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGEAdABpAG8AbgBhAGwALQBpAG4AdgBlAHMAdABvAHIAcwAtAGIAZQBpAG4AZwAtAGQAdQBwAGUAZAAtAHMAeQBkAG4AZQB5AC0AYQB1AHMAdAByAGEAbABpAGEALQBlAGQAdwBpAG4ALQBhAGwAbQBlAGkAZABhAA..&amp;URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.linkedin.com%2fpulse%2finternational-investors-being-duped-sydney-australia-edwin-almeida"> </a>Ha! And you thought the developers were generous and paid for these right? Therefore, driving the values of the newly built properties upward.
Now allow me to break it down for you.
Rental guarantees:
What is common amidst most of the activity surrounding the sales of newly built property is the rental guarantees. Some rental guarantees are lasting for as long as 3 years.
It is my belief that any incentive made by the vendor or the agent to enhance the sale, the incentive has to be disclosed and must also form part of the contract of sale. The inducement being the rental guarantee but this is not limited to a rental guarantee.
In my time I have also seen cars and furniture packages form part of sales incentives, all in the aim to entice the investor to buy.
Inflated Commissions:
Yes, I know I speak out a lot about this very subject but when spruikers earn 5 times what the local agent earns in one sale, there has to be something wrong. If I don’t speak out, will the REI NSW step in or any of the REI’s for that matter?
I stopped holding that breath 4 years ago.
Nevertheless, the banking bodies should take note as their clients (the investors) are ultimately paying for this.
I also note that most of my endeared friends that have created this negative impact on the local home front, all sell newly built property. An arena where highly inflated commissions can and are paid out.
Selling without an industry license:
The temptation is just too great and the grass is greener on the other side. When so much money is at stake we have seen; brokers, accountants, financial planners and advisers jump the fence to moonlight as real estate agents as they lead their clients astray.
Again, this is an area where the banks should focus on, as local investors fall prey to the rogues within the financial sector.
A closer eye and perhaps a magnifying glass should be used to review contracts especially when the buyers are: Trustee Companies for Self-Managed-Super-Fund (SMSF) Trusts. More to the point when the property is new as this is the territory where these rogues, feast and boast about the high commissions earned.
Rental guarantees, overly inflated commissions and spruikers selling real estate without a license under the guise of calling themselves property-marketers: should send alarm bells ringing through the banking sector. But once more, why is there so much silence surrounding the very issues that have overly inflated the value of a new property in Sydney?
Getting to the nuts and bolts
Unethical real estate agents, spruikers, property marketing companies and the scourge of the financial sector; all have been ensnared by the prize of the high commissions and in turn lure investors by creating false perceptions of property: growth, demand, under-supply and high return on investment. How? By the simple use of instruments (such as rental guarantees) outside of the contract of sale and therefore, making the transaction questionable and unconscionable.
The falsely represented, high priced, new property sales ultimately filters down to established homes and we have what I refer to as “property-osmosis”. Property osmosis is an upward pull of established property's prices, caused by the exaggerated values of the surrounding new developments.
Most people are also under the impression that Overseas-Investors are paying for their properties with 100% cash. However, that it is not the case. Most investors buy property with a high deposit and borrow 50-60% through a loan vehicle.
In actual fact, Chinese citizens can only take up to $50,000 out of China through legal channels. However, there are means and ways to take $200K-$400K without much fuss.
Therefore, banks are more than happy to lend at 60% Loan to Value Ratios, as they are well secured even if the market dips by 20-30%. As you can see, there is very little risk for the banks.
Then there are our home grown Local-Investors that have been enticed to buy. Their property investment guides as previously mentioned are mainly, property spruikers and financial experts that assist in creating (SMSF) schemes to buy property. These vehicles also requiring low LVRs to purchase.
Typically, the SMSF schemes may borrow 70-80% to buy the investment property. Again the banking sector feeling secure on all counts.
What banks and Industry bodies need to do
The first and foremost prudent demand banks should place on the real estate industry is, for the “Sales Inspection Report and Agency Agreement” to be disclosed. Disclosure of what the “AGENCY” is being rewarded for the sale, will provide a twofold and strong indication to the valuer if there are any hidden agreements not being revealed.
·     Overinflated commissions
·     Payments made to agent/agency to cover rental guarantees and other incentives not disclosed in the Contract of Sale, which are passed on to the investor.
A copy of the agency/corporation license, should also accompany the contract of sale when providing the relevant documentation to the valuers. For the bank valuers to properly asses the true value of the property.
·     An agency or business name on the front page of the contract inserted after "Vendor's Agent" does not represent that the agent holds an industry license.
Perhaps at this very moment there is simply too much at stake to curve these questionable practices. The banks, financial institutions, real estate agents and we may also include the government, are all making too much money on this gravy train, to really care about our local first home buyers.
I am troubled nonetheless to think that all these practices that may be considered highly questionable if not illegal, have and continue to go on and right under the very noses of the banking institutions.
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
 
</body></html>

ealmedia-arK4DBYLjS

Banks turning a blind eye: Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
We can educate “ignorance” but “stupidity” is another ball game.
Allow me to share with you two scenarios. I will in turn give you the opportunity to ponder which of these is made through ignorance and which one is made through stupidity personified. Like always, pour a cup of coffee and read on.
First scenario: 
I attended to a home in the Northern Beaches to provide a Comparative Market Analysis (CMA) and bid for the vendor’s custom. Like always, local agents were also called in.
After discussing the process and the method of sale with the vendors, they began to enlighten me about my competition. Names withheld to protect the dummies. 
The following is a short transcript of the discussion. 
Agent (A): What has the out-of-area agent (Me) told you the home is worth? 
Vendor (V): After recommendations made; fixing and cleaning parts of the home, he felt $1,500,00-$1,600,000 is achievable and would advertise along these lines. 
V: What do you believe the home is worth?
A: The figures sound right. But we would not advertise it like he suggests.
V: What do you suggest? 
A: We would auction the home and ask for offers above $1,350,000.
V: But you told me the house was worth between, $1,500,000-$1,600,000. 
A: Yes that’s right, but we don’t want to scare any buyers/enquiry and we can work them up at the auction. 
Second scenario: 
We have on the market a home for sale, in Eastlakes. As usual, other than normal enquiry, we also receive enquiry from agents that are curious. Agents that work in the area, their patch. 
The conversation went along these lines.
Local Agent (LA): Hi, I noticed you have a property in the area, I was told you had sold it? If so, what did it sell for? 
Me: Not sold as yet, but presently working with two offers. How can I help you?
LA: Well, I’m a local agent and I have listed a home around the corner, just wanted to see what you sold your home for? 
M: Nice, how does it compare with my one?
LA: Very similar but land a bit smaller. Also fully renovated and 4 bedrooms, single level. 
Me: If I can ask, what’s your price guide? 
LA: We are quoting $1,500,000-$1,800,000.
Me: Wow, that’s a very broad price-guide isn’t it?
LA: Well it’s hard to determine the value of property.
Now, you tell me which one of these agents is ignorant and which one is simply stupid. Or do you think both fall in the same category? Or perhaps the words arrogant and deceptive spring to mind? 
One thing is for sure; not all vendors are sympathetic to “under-quoting” and deceitful marketing strategies. Nonetheless, is it up to the vendor to guide the real estate industry into best practice, or up to the professional? 
What I can say to most of my realtor friends is; if the kitchen is too hot, then go back to selling used cars and take the nonsense of charging vendors for the sale and marketing fees with you.
 
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

Ignorance or stupidity? Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
What if the property sold at the reserve? How much could this have cost the vendor? Applying the what if? test.
If I was to say I was taken-back by the response provided by the auctioneer to a tweet I commented on it would be an understatement. Allow me to share with you the event; so quickly pour yourself a coffee and read on. 
Reports were floating, or should I say flying, around on social media over the weekend about the great achievements and results of an onsite auction in Granville. In the main, it was all to do with praise of the selling agent and the creative selling techniques I refer to as “sleight of hand illusion” to sell property, to be candid.
The fundamental questions asked by me on twitter, of the auctioneers tweeting, were simple and basic. Was it a case of “underquoting” or was it “ignorance” by the agency to not know the true value of the land? 
I didn’t believe the questions noted above, were out of line. Particularly when I looked at the facts of the auction campaign and paralleled these with results achieved. 
One thing is for sure: we can rule out “market forces” for the out of line result, as the tolerance on such a notion would be as I have previously mentioned in other articles, a mere 11% variable from the “price-guide”. A tolerance that is within the prescribed tolerance guides set in the State Agents Act VIC and FT NSW. 
The facts:
<ul>
<li>The property is advertised as having a lot of development potential </li>
<li>Agent seemingly appears to be targeting developers and the neighboring club</li>
<li>Property called on the market at $1,250,000 and sold for $2,781,000 </li>
<li>The achieved sale percentage above reserve is equal to 123% approximately</li>
</ul>
Now, somebody, I believe got it totally wrong. On face value it appeared like a classic case of “underquoting” but unless the documents signed by the vendor with the agent, which determines the price-guide are made public, we may never know. 
However, in this case I am leaning more to the belief that some agents simply don’t know the value of land. The value of the land with development potential in the current market, is what I am referring to. In the alternative, value of property that is not common to the local agent, such as the initial Millers Point auction fiasco.  Where the property owned by the State Government was gifted away. 
Reports of auction results
As we read through the different stories being published about the sale, there are conflicting accounts and statements that make one wonder if the correct price-guide and reserve was set. You may form your own opinion as you read on.
Working on land-banking and any other form of land acquisition by developers, to determine values may be as simple as: understanding “gross realization” of the project to be built on the land being acquired, determining “construction costs” and with all this, taking into account possible lot yields due to “State Planning” and “Council Planning” changes to zoning. 
In basic terms; what will be the “Return On Investment”. No developer likes to work on anything less than to double their money on what the land cost them. 
In essence, I am leaning to the belief that the property was misrepresented to be worth anything less than $2.5 million, particularly when we apply the Regulation’s tolerance factors on the face value of the end result. 
The question remains, what did the developers attending the auction know that the agent didn’t know, to turn up in droves? Now this is why a professional is used, to know and be in control and not allow the sale to be reliant on, a whim and a prayer or hope of a sunny day. 
My first question
But the question will remain however; was the agent aware and well versed in what was going on, as I received the tweet reply from the auctioneer? See below. 
My second question
The second question is: why was this tweet deleted from the auctioneer’s twitter-handle soon after it was sent to me as a response? Don’t you just love conspiracy theories? 
The What-If Test
However, the seriousness of the present situation stands. A problem that is amplified at the auction under scrutiny, highlighted by the results achieved. 
Agreeable, and although the results are beneficial to the vendor, this is a problem in the Real Estate Industry and one that demands closer attention. 
The concern once again is best explained and highlighted when we apply the What-If Test. 
<ul>
<li>What-If, the property was sold for $1,250,000 because it was presented with such a low price-guide in the first place, and</li>
<li>What-If, as the auctioneer replied: the agent got it right. As I understand, in pricing it low to attract the interest it got? </li>
</ul>
Now, What-If you are reliant on an agent or agency that is not aware of: council changes, market forces and true land values? What-If, the result is no more than the price the agent advised you, when they presented you with a market appraisal and set the price guide? 
In this instance, we may never know if it was a case of under-quoting or sheer ignorance, unless FT NSW investigates the reasons behind the 123% discrepancy in price-guide to end-sale. Like me, I’m sure you too are left with the thought: under-quoting or the agent got it wrong? 
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

Underquoting or industry ignorance? Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
How does a property-valuer come up with distinct values of the same property and all within four weeks?
Background: 
A couple were splitting up amicably and both accepted to explore the opportunity to buying each other out. Each party made loan applications to separate lenders for finance. Both parties agreed to buy the other out at $520,000.
First Valuation - Strike one:
The first attempt at financing the purchase was made and a property-valuer was engaged by lending body to provide a valuation report. The mortgage broker received notice that the valuation report provided to the bank, stated the value of the home was only: $500,000.
Second Valuation - Strike two:
A week later, the second party attempted to obtain finance with a different lender and the lender appointed their panel valuer. The valuer on their panel, so happens to be the same valuer. BINGO!! You guessed it, the valuation came back at $500,000.
Third and Final Valuation - Strike three?
The subject property is placed on the market. The agency suggested a cleanup of the garden and staging of the home. A keen purchaser exchanged contracts at $545,000.
The new purchaser’s lender sent their panel valuer, 4 weeks after the first valuation was obtained, now wait for it: YES, the same valuer appeared on the scene.
This time however, the property valuation report came in at contract price: $545,000.
What happened from the first to the third valuation other than; mowing lawns and a simple make-over?
Leave me your thoughts:
Before you go jumping to conclusions and for the savvy mortgage brokers out there, here is a little more background information;
<ul>
<li>The couple had approximately $180,000 equity in the home.</li>
<li>The new purchaser obtained a 95% LVR on their mortgage. Figures disclosed to the agent at the time of purchase. </li>
<li>The property settled on or about three months ago; time calculated from publishing of this article.</li>
</ul>
Now please: this is your turn to enlighten me with what just happened? I welcome your comments and this with great anticipation. 
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

How can property valuations be miles apart? Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
Now, if you are not a believer in being prepared and you don't feel that the property market will drop; put that coffee mug away. Click back to your Facebook page. Danger, read this at your own peril.
For the rest of us, it's time to pour ourselves a fresh cup of coffee, and look at the property market trends. Trends that we have been discussing for over 12 months now, and have been preparing our readers for: i.e. the changes in market forces.
Here we are, moving into 2016 and again, economists with invested interest in the property market continue to spruik the “steady property growth” in Sydney and the “she’ll be right” lines.
Our readers, followers and clients, on the other hand have been preparing for the reality of what is about to “slap” many economists in the proverbial face and a lot of investors, rip holes in their back pockets.
Sydney Property Snapshot: Auction Result Saturday 30 January 2016
There are a number of key take-aways from the transaction report or “on the market history” shown above (Source CoreLogic RPData). I will concentrate on three of these as follows.
<ul>
<li>Vendor's &amp; Agent's Expectations:</li>
</ul>
We may on the one hand say, vendor’s expectations were being fueled by the main-stream-media’s property reports, coupled with the crazy prices being paid by our friendly Chinese investors and home grown investors wanting to jump on the "Gravy Train".
Expectations also adding to real estate agent's promises of achieving high prices.
Prices again being fueled by buyer's fear of missing out, coupled with the notion of huge under-supply as well as beliefs of  “not enough land”. Then there are the ongoing beliefs of: high migration intake and that "interest rates won’t go up anytime soon: therefore, commit now". My favorite "HUGE rental squeeze".
The above mentioned beliefs as you well guessed, primed the market and created a foundation for this property bubble. A foundation that supported the comparable sales in the area, in most instances; prices that reflected the initial “Above $730K” prices being advertised i.e. the prices being paid at the height of the market.
<ul>
<li>Agent’s Marketing &amp; Sales Strategy:</li>
</ul>
The main strategy I want to review, is the one carried out by the second agency. In simple language: “what the hell were they thinking in taking the property to auction” and for a second time?
I can only say; yes, I’m sure the vendor is now conditioned and perhaps even bullied into being a “motivated vendor”.
<ul>
<li>Drops and Market Conditions:</li>
</ul>
However, we can see on the surface by the evidence presented in the recent auction reports, vendors are moving into very precarious territory when taking property to auction on an agent’s ‘whim’. And, you have to be careful who you appoint as the real estate agent and the auctioneer, if that is the method you are told is the best way to sell your home.
Again, the table above shows two key points: the first, the drop in asking to highest bid value and the second, the number of days on the market.
The passed-in bid, is reported to be $650,000 by the second agent. A significant drop and contrary to the first agent's initial asking price which was for: offers above $730,000. WOW ...
We can see a significant drop of willingness for people to commit now. A difference of almost -12% from the height of the market in 2015, to now. But, there is more room for a further drop.
I point out; we are only a month into 2016.There will be more carnage to come. Carnage that will take out many vendors that are not vigilant.
For Now: Is it a matter of...
<ol start="1">
<li>Signs of the times?</li>
<li>Real Estate Agent's flawed marketing strategy?</li>
<li>Auctioneer's ignorance? OR</li>
<li>All of the above?</li>
</ol>
More than ever before, I urge you as vendors and agents; do your homework. Ask yourselves as agents, the fundamental question which is pertinent to obtaining the best price for your client: is an auction campaign still the best way forward, for your vendor?
Vendors, again more than ever, be proactive and ask the agent about the number of registered bidders leading up to the auction day. If none are registered then ask whether you should still be going to auction. Meet the auctioneer and ensure they go through the property, days before the actual auction date that is.
Most of all vendors, do not be afraid to question the agent's reasoning for the marketing strategy they want you to embark on. It may well cost you 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars, if you don't.
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
 
</body></html>

Predictions to rip a hole in your back pocket: Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
Sydney may have forgotten Natalie Jean Wood. But Real Estate Agents haven’t forgotten to underquote; when it comes to auctioning a property.
I definitely have something to say about what I perceived may well be, blatant underquoting strategies used in the marketing of the Surry Hills property: 139 Kippax Street, <a href="/expert-insights/buying/surry-hills-terrace-listing-of-the-woman-sydney-forgot">the home once owned by Natalie Wood</a>.
It will take more than a coffee to calm me down, particularly after my client spent $4,000 doing Due Diligence (DD) prior to the auction.
The price guide that was given to me and other interested parties I spoke with at the time, was: $550,000-$650,000.
First cab off the rank, and to immediately dispel any misconceptions you may have. Misconceptions about me being a disgruntled buyer’s agent and particularly since I didn’t purchase the property, on behalf of my client.
<ol start="1">
<li>Part of the DD we undertook revealed that land in the area was worth approximately $10,000-$11,000/sqm.</li>
<li>There was some value in the building regardless of what the refurbishment works would cost, and</li>
<li>We were under no illusion that we would obtain the home for the lower end of the price guide which was given.</li>
</ol>
It’s not rocket science
It’s not rocket science to work out property (price-guide) values that are closer to true market values. To ascertain these we look at the following:
<ol start="1">
<li>Land value as compared to other sales in the local area.</li>
<li>Value of existing structure/building (taking into account what is required or not required to be altered, changed or fixed) and integrity of existing structure.</li>
<li>Aesthetic values including but not limited to: visual appeal, location, heritage, charm or story behind the property, views and surrounding landscape and demographics.</li>
<li>Calculate costs to repair/refurbish/build and compare with current properties on the market and recent property sales. properties that would be of similar ilk.</li>
<li>If still in doubt? call a professional valuer for their opinion.</li>
</ol>
Therefore, for an agent or agency to hide behind the worn and dated argument of “no comparable sales” is just sheer ignorance or intentional use of sleight of hand tactics. I have written about these issues previously.
1) The what-if test. 
2) Dumb to underquote and dumber not to know property values.
Dialogue with agency
Correspondence and conversations with the agent, all led us to believe that the agent truly didn’t know the value of the property. On the alternative, we also thought that there may be an underlying driver to draw a crowd. We know the latter to be under-quoting.
If other buyers were going to be persuaded by either one of the above premises, we believed that this would work in our favor.
The low-ball price-guide may actually keep the value of the property low, this is what we presumed anyway. We felt that the low price-guide coupled with the added features of the home; the circumstance of the deceased owner and the dilapidated condition of the property, was a mix that would work in our favor.
Nonetheless, our limit was set at $900,000 and this took into account our estimated land value as well as the intrinsic and heritage value of the property. Yes, and the history that came with the home.
Again, we knew that the agent was off the mark completely. However, the agent insisted that the “buyer’s feedback” was $550,000-$650,000 and with the interest obtained, it may reach the $700,000 mark. I beg to differ.
A professional agent would have done and assessed the value more along the lines of $850,000-$900,000 and thus presenting a correct price-guide. A guide that is not reliant on; “buyer’s feedback” nor left to ignorance. But, I was not engaged to teach them how to do their job.
Don't you just hate it, when you call an agent and ask for the 'price-guide' and they respond with: don't know at this point in time, once we hold a few opens we will gauge the "buyer's feedback". Get real !!! and moving on...
The outcome
Well, my buyer was not successful; as much as I tried to slow things down, there were others that wanted the property at all costs. The home sold for $1,105,000.
One may well say, ‘market forces’ were at play once the auction reached and went beyond the $950,000 mark. 
Warning to agents
Now, if you really want to accept the argument that: any so called out-of-line sale price is influenced by the lack of comparable sales to go by and play the ignorance card, or even take ill advice from vendors? Perhaps it’s time a Professional Valuer was called in, to assist you.
Obtaining and contracting the services of a valuer, is a better option to support and protect you as you. After all, you are the professional real estate agent. Don't hang your hat on statements such as: "market forces" nor "the vendor made me do it" in the belief that these will protect you from prosecution.
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

Sydney may have forgotten Natalie Jean Wood, but real estate agents haven’t forgotten to underquote: Edwin Almeida 

<html><body>
To this day, I have not seen any financial planner, accountant, or other financial specialists offer secondary stock to their SMSF client when their client is being referred to buy property.
What I have seen are many financial professionals moonlighting as real estate agents and offer new stock to their clients in droves.
My belief is that many are attracted by the extremely high commissions being offered, some as high as 6%-8% of the value of the property. A standard commission paid to an agency is on average 1.7% as reported earlier in the year.
Now if I read correctly, our own representatives from the REIA believe the lines are blurred on our side: “Our involvement with this inquiry was at the request of the committee, although the REIA has been pro-actively working to address community and industry concerns about the blurring lines between real estate agents and the provision of financial advice,”<a href="/guides/the-blurring-line-between-real-estate-agents-and-smsf-advice"> said the REIA</a>.
Property marketing companies may blur the line but they are not the majority of what I call the “real” real estate industry. I’m of the opinion that the lines are blurred on the side of financial planning (FP) and the finance sector and there should be tighter controls there, or at least be on-par with the onus placed on the real estate industry.
As real estate agents, we work under very close scrutiny by the authorities when it comes to offering any form of financial advice. In a nutshell, we can’t offer any financial advice. Even hints in our marketing of property by using such terms as 'great investment opportunity', 'great rental returns', 'awesome growth potential' and even 'investors dream' may get an agent into hot water.
However, many financial professionals moonlight as real estate agents. It appears that individuals in the financial sector and property marketing companies can state all of the above under their governance. They can also refer property without being holders of real estate licences. Ironic, unfair, unjust? however seemingly true. It’s a marketing fee, a referral fee that they get and not a commission. Semantics I know, yet a major loophole in the regulations that needs to be closed.
I have had many discussions with Tim McKibbin from the REINSW with respect to these issues over the years. I have been assured the REINSW is lobbying to have these issues resolved. Closing these loopholes couldn’t come soon enough. 
A lawyer friend of mine says: "If you don’t want to be fined and serve time, don’t have a licence and you have a better chance to keep under the legal radar." Wow, I guess these words echo very loudly in the halls of many financial institutions and property marketing companies pushing new property to SMSFs.
We also have the reversal, an agency<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/shock-as-real-estate-franchise-enters-financial-planning-market-20140916-10hljo" target="_blank"> Ray White looking to move into the financial planning sector</a>. In my humble opinion, this move is a recipe for major disaster. However this is a path chosen by one group. If this is a means by the agency to get a piece of the action where very high commissions abound in the sale of new properties to SMSFs. If it is, all I can say is “watch this space” and good luck.
Some real estate agent will be tempted to flirt with massive fines and law suits as they step into a paddock where they believe the grass is greener. But I am one to believe most, if not all, that work in the space of “secondary stock” were “normal/standard” commission are paid will not be tempted to flirt with danger, nor have time to see if the grass is greener on the other side.   
Edwin Almeida is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for<a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank"> propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

When it comes to SMSFs, blurred lines favour financial planners not real estate agents

<html><body>
Soon we will be hearing more and more about the big sister of underquoting and this will be overquoting, and it bites.
Be warned, unlike the roar that politicians and our Real Estate Industry (REI) make about underquoting, this one will bite deep and hard into the pockets of REA’s and their offices.
Now that I have your attention, pour yourself a cup of coffee and read on. I will explain what overquoting entails. I will also explain the dangers it poses to both vendors and agents.
Overquoting
<ul>
<li>For most agents working in our industry, the term overquoting is mainly referred to as: buying the listing.</li>
<li>Buying the listing in turn refers to: informing the vendor that their property will sell for a lot more than what the market is demanding or dictating at the time.</li>
<li>The purpose of overquoting is: to obtain a listing under false pretense of a high sales price. Higher than the estimated values placed by other agents in the area.</li>
<li>The REA’s intention is: to eventually “condition” the vendor to accept less, as the buyers inspecting the property, offer what the market is truly dictating.</li>
</ul>
Underquoting serves the function to condition the buyers to believe they will buy the property for less, as low price guides are given by REA's. The agents on the other hand, hope that the auction frenzy will motivate them to pay more as they add competition to realistic buyers.
Underquoting, as a form of bait advertising, is a marketing process readily used in a heated property market.
The use of overquoting by the agent, is to win the listing and to have the chance of selling the property. The sales process which precedes winning the listing conditions the vendor to accept less than what the agents originally quote in their Comparative Market Analysis (CMA).
Overquoting is a form of deception used by agents, to convince vendors to sell through them and their office.
What will vendors do?
Now please pay very close attention as this is what I mean when I say overquoting will bite and bite hard.
Vendors will not sit back and take it on the chin, unlike buyers when they are deceived by bait advertising.
When vendors believe that their properties have dropped in value, as they compare the agent’s CMA to what is being offered, vendors will act and take action against the agent.
Real estate agents (REA) will soon find themselves in hot water and face litigation.
In the case of underquoting, the accumulated losses of individual’s time and money as a buyer, may total around $1000 on average. A loss, that may not necessarily warrant time and effort, to report the REA that is believed to be underquoting.
On the other hand, a perceived loss of $10's of thousands of dollars, to a vendor, will warrant a claim against the agent.
I have written about this in the past and have said; until losses justify time and effort spent by consumers, to lodge claims with the authorities, REA’s will do as they please.
However, be warned for what is to eventuate and is just around the corner.
Some REA’s will take it in their stride and heed this advice but some will also believe they are above the law and the authorities. It won’t surprise me to see the same REA’s that underquote lead the way to overquoting practices. Sadly most will again be members of the REI's.
The difference this time folks, it won’t be a toothless tiger on their case, it will be a vendor determined to be compensated.
 
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

Overquoting set to bite: Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
Real estate offices and real estate agents will diminish by 20 percent-30 percent in the next year.
With property (for-sale) listings, so low and a phenomenon never experienced before in parts of Sydney; how can real estate agencies survive? 
For a large number of Real Estate Offices (REOs), sale of property commissions, makes up to 60 percent-80 percent of their revenue. Some rely purely on sales commission, to keep their doors open for business.
After recently, reading numerous articles and LinkedIn discussions about low property numbers that are on the market for sale I began to reflect on discussions I held as far back as 12-15 months ago with industry colleagues.
At the time I made the following prediction, and that it would eventuate by end of financial year 2016. 
<ul>
<li>We will see at least 20 percent of REOs close down.</li>
<li>These will be made up of REOs that rely on pure sales to keep their doors open.</li>
</ul>
One brand I have been particularly observant of is McGrath Real Estate. This brand even listed on the ASX and mostly due to its success accredited to: reported high sales figures. How will they cope in a changing landscape where sales become scarce?
The crux of the discussions with colleagues, were in relation to the shrinking property market, due to various market forces:
1)     Property-Marketing companies on the one hand ramping up sales of property; and
2)     The financial institutions on the other, also selling real estate.
Both sectors moving into the real estate sales due to high commissions, paid out directly by developers. I can say, even in the good times, the average real estate selling agent missed out on listings. Most listing of new developed property went, has gone to and is still going to property-marketers. The local Real Estate Agents miss out.
Property that is new to the market, where commissions can be inflated, became attractive for “direct sales campaigns” to unsuspected investors. In essence, the typical local real estate office has lost 30-40% of sales due to “marketeers and the financial sector invasion.”
Now, add to the invasion of our industry, the current low numbers in secondary stock sales as evidenced in article/photo below. Also as reported across the media and journals.
I refer to historical low number of sales listings in Sydney. 
These are established properties that have almost disappeared overnight. Parramatta alone has had an attrition of up to 47 percent less property on market. These figures were calculated across June-to-August. The number of agents has not changed however.
Parramatta, has 176 registered real estate offices according to the Yellow Pages. According to Domain, there are 172. Either way, it is a concern that should not be taken lightly. Specially when we can safely say that there are 2.5 selling real estate agents in each office.
A concerning trend also witnessed across the face of Sydney metropolitan area.
Some agents are commenting on a 30 percent drop in numbers across the Lower North Shore and other areas. These numbers are generated by comments on LinkedIn, made by agents that have worked in these areas for 10-20 years.  
Only last week, I sat with a colleague from Blackktown and she informed me and was troubled by the fact that her office only had two properties for sale. She doesn’t have a small operation, and runs a well-established brand.
In the same area, other brand-name agencies have reduced their local paper advertising from 3 pages down to half a page. They just don’t have any property listings for-sale in their books. What they do have is 5 selling agents in their office.
Notably, the above becomes the recipe or the ideal conditions for an attrition of selling agents and very tangibly, offices that only rely on sales to survive.
It will be a hard fall for many, and for others that place a lot of trust in property-sales-offices. Another call, another prediction; all in a day as I share my thoughts over a coffee with friends.  
Warning to the industry
Keep an eye on other Industry-Disruptors such as Purplebricks RE. Don’t underestimate what they are doing and focus on how you can best serve the diminishing clientele base you have. That is, if you want to survive the for-sale listing famine.
If you want to stand out from the many agencies in your patch; do something different. Offer a level of service that others will find hard to match. Again, only if you want to stay in the industry past EFY 2016 and not be a casualty of the changing face of real estate.
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
 
</body></html>

Real Estate offices closing down in Sydney

<html><body>
Unlawful and unethical marketing strategies, which are at the heart of a large percentage of auction campaigns, will be the demise for many vendors.
A failure for vendors and a bigger failure for the real estate industry. 
No price guide. Is it the new under-quoting?
Ignorance or blatant disregard?
To begin, when agents seemingly don't understand nor can confidently form an opinion about property prices, they should seriously get out of the industry and go back to selling cars.
Pushing vendors for an auction campaign and all because agents fail to understand the dynamics of real estate and appraising property is not the method to achieve the best outcomes. Confusion and misdirection does not lead to clarity.
In my many dealings with local agents, I have found that many agents not onl do not understand how to appraise property, they also don’t understand property marketing 101. Both are essential in the process to achieve the best result for vendors.
For many, the quickest and easiest method is to “take the property to auction.” Real estate agents see this as the fail-safe method. The good old, “I can’t be blamed for the low price – its market forces…” excuse.
In my opinion, achieving the best outcomes for the vendor is not about; speed of sale nor how easy it would be for the agent to manage the sale.
The above therefore translates to being a major issue for vendors. My reasoning will be summed up in this article, and under the following four points. 
Why so many agents push for auction campaigns
1)     When many agents push for “auction campaigns.” What do they really want to achieve?
a.     Tie-up the vendor and have them commit to accept a price on the day. All due to the vendor’s large expenditure in their auction marketing campaign.
b.     They don’t want to work for the vendor for long and rightfully earn the commission.
c.     There is a belief that when a property is auctioned off; the market dictates the best price on the day. This, in turn, forces the vendor to accept anything on the day. Even if it is below what buyers were willing to pay. See tweets by @REshortsell
2)     Agents have in the past, purposely and will continue to under-quote the property to draw a crowd. To the vendor this appears as;
a.     A good turnout. Therefore, whatever the final bid is, determines the so called value of the property on the day.
3)     Agents have purposely under-quoted to draw a crowd, and to the buyer this appears as;
a.     A need to bid and bid emotionally, due to an overwhelming fear of missing out on the property. Thus creating, the control needed for the agent to show the vendor the bidder’s participation; to give the illusion of success.
4)     Agents want a quick turnaround and a quick commission fix.
a. Auction campaigns run for four weeks and the agents are guaranteed a commission at the end with great certainty. This is all due to the pressure placed on the vendor, as noted above. Pressure also added by the large marketing fees paid to run the auction campaign.
Now to the nut-and-bolts: Why this article? Why today?
I attended an recent auction in Parramatta. This auction was one promoted by a local, prominent and brand-name agency. What I was witness to will make Fair Trading NSW take special notice.
I will detail the conversations and the agent’s arrogance below. One may also note, his ignorance or even deliberate arrogance in regards to the auction process.
Conversation with the listing agent: words to the effect;
Me: Do you mind telling me the price-guide?
Agent: I can’t disclose the price-guide because the vendor won’t allow me to.
Me: If you can’t disclose the guide, then what is your opinion of value of the property?
Agent: I can’t say as there are no comparable sales in the area. [Keep in mind; this is advertised as two bedroom penthouse unit in Parramatta with a large balcony]
Me: Really, no comparable sales?  Couldn’t you base it on square meters, location and perhaps aesthetic value?
Agent: No! There are no comparable sales and I don’t know what it would sell for. [I heard something similar with respect to well documented auctions at Millers Point…]
Me: In the agency agreement; you must have given the vendor a price-guide, right?
Agent: Yes, we have to [by law].
Me: So, you must, as an agent, be able to form an opinion of the value of the property; I’m not going to hold you to it.
Agent: I don’t have to disclose what I gave to the vendor to you. And besides, there are no comparable sales. If you wanted a price-guide, you should have called me before the auction.
Me: I did call you twice; you told me the new legislation doesn’t allow real estate agents to give price-guides. Why is that?
Agent: It’s against the law and Fair Trading NSW guide lines tells us not to give guides.
Me: Is that so… But you gave the vendor a guide right? Can you show me the agency agreement, or tell me what you wrote on it?
Agent: No, I don’t have to show it to you.
The agent turns away and focuses on other potential, interested and registered bidders.
Buyer: Will the building next to this one, block out the view, when it is completed?
Agent: No it is against the law to block out the views, that’s why they are building it in two sections.
I smiled and shook my head as I walked away in total disbelief of the conversation I just had and the one I overheard. A conversation not dissimilar to the one’s where agents “spruikers” tell investors that they have insurance cover for 7 years, in high-rise apartment blocks. And pigs fly…
The outcome:
There was a crowd of approximately 26 people. The opening bid was $850,000. Subsequently, the property was passed in at $860,000 with only one bidder; whom strangely bid against himself.  
Overhearing the agent’s discussions with both the vendor’s representative and bidder at the time; we found out:
1)     The reserve had been set at $950,000 by the vendor and on the day.
2)     The agent's sale expectations was closer to the $1,000,000 + due to other sales.
3)     The agent also miraculously, appeared to know (had a revelation one might say) what other similar units in the area were being sold for.
Surprise, surprise. It appears the agent did give the vendor an estimated value of the property. One that was a lot higher than what it was passed in at.
For now we are noticing more and more; agents like this one, hide behind their misinterpretation of the FT NSW guide lines and what the guide lines were purposed for.
Furthermore, when more and more buyers are educated to counter the foolish, unethical and illegal tactics used by agents in their auction campaigns; buyers gain the advantage. Agents in turn, place their vendors at a high risk of losing $10’s if not $100’s of thousands of dollars.
Foolishly, both the agent and auctioneer, further allowed the property to be passed in at a low price. A price lower than the reserve. No vendor-bid was given, to help in maintaining a better chance of achieving the desired result, when the sale reverts to a private-treaty sale.
Why did they get a low offer in the first instance? This was all because the agent wanted to draw a crowd. No price-guide is the new under-quoting.
Well, in this auction, the “dumb and dumber” tactics backfired and more will continue to fail like this auction campaign.  Perhaps it’s time vendors made agents more accountable, particularly when they are charged high marketing fees.
Nonetheless, the losers in all this and like many other auctions, are the vendors. The vendor placed his trust in a professional that would guide them on the best method of sale.
The agent failed to both: to provide the best service to the client and present an ethical marketing campaign to engage the consumers (the buyers). Buyers want transparency, not the smoke and mirrors approach adopted by foolish agents.
Not quoting a price guide and going to auction with so many other comparable properties on the market, was a recipe for failure.
The campaign failed: it did however, draw a very large crowd but a crowd that was not willing to play the agent’s game. They could see right through the unethical conduct of the agent.
In this case, I am familiar with the vendors. I know for a fact they would not be bullied by the agent into accepting a lower than anticipated [quoted] price.
Reasons for marketing property by an auction campaign
The main principles for taking property for auction resound so clearly, as I write this article and sip down to the end of my coffee.
1)     Uniqueness (truly no comparable sales).
2)     Motivation:
a.     Forced sale by court order.
b.     Quick and urgent sale for personal reasons.
c.     Time constraint.
3)     Development potential: building or land.
4)     An unfinished project even.
Now there are many more, however, the above is a good beginner’s guide. For the same reasons above, there are also alternate methods of sale and ones that can achieve a better outcome. This is a better outcome in relation to both the price and the way the sales process is handled.
George Rousos: Real estate trainer, course developer and compliance coach at Industry Training Consultants, shares an alternate approach to a public auctions. 
My tip for real estate agents
If in total doubt and a value can’t be determined to be within the guide lines set out by FT NSW; call a licensed valuer. A licensed valuer can assist agents that have issues with forming a realistic price-guide.
Transparency is what buyers are looking for. If some agents believe they can fool buyers; think again. Buyers more than ever, are equipped with tools to help determine price values. In some areas, buyers are also contracting the services of “buyers advocates” to assist them.
However, it must be said that some agents just don’t believe they need, nor want professional help. Some simply feel they are above the law and protected by their real estate office-brand. Some simply run on an overdose of “auction and how to crunch the vendor” seminars.
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
</body></html>

No price guide is the new underquoting: Edwin Almeida

Gold Coast developer&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/big-projects">Big Projects</a> has secured approval for its second Mermaid Beach project.

The developer, currently selling <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/the-frederick-mermaid-beach-2265-gold-coast-highway-mermaid-beach-qld-4218">The Frederick in Nobby Beach</a>, has secured approval for its next project just 1.5 kilomnetres up the road.

The new development, dubbed&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/glenelg-residences-2462-2472-gold-coast-highway-mermaid-beach-qld-4218">Glenelg Residences</a>, has been designed by BDA Architecture and&nbsp;will have just under 100 apartments across an 11-storey building&nbsp;at 2462–2472 Gold Coast Highway, on the corner of Glenelg Avenue just under 300m from the future Mermaid Beach Light Rail stop.

The apartments, a mix of two- and three-bedrooms, will sit above a retail-focused ground plane and under extensive rooftop resident amenities.

<img alt="Exclusive: Big Projects plot Mermaid Beach apartment development, Glenelg Residences" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/f_auto,c_limit,w_1440,q_75/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screen%20Shot%202024-06-11%20at%209.55.04%20am.png?VersionId=z6NV4izeuvhBSSVlY6vK6TPO1LxrFeaG" />

BDA said in its planning submission that the project is intended to support the area’s transition toward higher-density, mixed-use living. “This project offers the opportunity to generate appropriate higher-intensity development within the future Light Rail corridor of <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/mermaid-beach-qld-4218">Mermaid Beach</a>,” the submission noted.

At ground level, Glenelg Residences will include eight retail tenancies designed to activate the street frontage, complemented by a basement bar offering an additional hospitality element. Above, residents will have access to a rooftop amenity deck featuring an infinity pool, hot and cold plunge spas, day beds, and barbecue facilities.

The architectural approach adopts a restrained material palette of brick, textured concrete, and integrated landscaping, with cantilevered concrete frames and cascading planting intended to soften the built form. BDA described the design as aiming to create “a memorable sculptural mid-rise mixed-use building” that responds to both its coastal setting and urban context.

<img alt="Exclusive: Big Projects plot Mermaid Beach apartment development, Glenelg Residences" data-entity-type="" data-entity-uuid="" src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,dpr_2.0,q_auto:good/https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screen%20Shot%202024-06-11%20at%209.55.45%20am.png?VersionId=cpjIVBqcT_sujmo2UMWkVyLcQ7WGJHaQ" />

The approval comes as the City of Gold Coast continues to plan for significant population growth, with regional targets requiring more than 100,000 new high-density dwellings by 2046.

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-36" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:55d7c6ac-8e6d-4881-ad49-0ed9bf66d1cc-17" dir="auto">
Big Projects, led by Matthew and John Barrett, is part of a growing cohort of developers that deliver construction in-house, providing a high level of confidence to prospective purchasers.
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=150260]

Joel Robinson

Big Projects secures approval for Glenelg Residences in Mermaid Beach

Sherpa Group is ramping up its investment in the southern Gold Coast by lodging a development application for <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/flourish-viver-87-griffith-street-coolangatta-qld-4225">Flourish Viveré</a>, a new $350 million project in Coolangatta.

The move comes after the group’s $27 million acquisition of the 2,029 sqm site on the corner of Griffith and Warner Street, last year.

They will develop 194 apartments across a 26-storey tower, which will become Sherpa’s largest project to date.

Viveré will be the next chapter in the Flourish story, following closely behind Amargo, Oasis, and the Avenues in Palm Beach, as well as Symphony in Brisbane, all designed to deliver affordable housing in lifestyle-rich locations, giving locals a real chance to secure a residence close to the beachfront.

The HAL Architect-designed project will offer a diverse range of residences, from one-, two, and three- bedroom apartments to the premium Canopy range to luxury penthouses.

<img alt="Vivere" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c85f5a7e-a22f-4745-8def-400adb3c0b35" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-04-15%20at%209.53.43%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=OY.chur3BPExn1exQ2q8clHqWnW_CaBi" />

“The Gold Coast is undergoing a period of immense growth, with more people drawn to the incredible 
lifestyle that’s available, leading to strong growth in property prices,” said Christie Leet, founder of Sherpa 
Group.

“Our goal at Sherpa is to ensure locals are not priced out of the market in prime locations, which is why we 
created the Flourish collection.

“Flourish Vivere will form the next chapter in our portfolio, and we are so excited to be lodging the DA, marking our first project in Coolangatta.”

A signature of the Flourish developments is the communal rooftop. Flourish Vivere will showcase a private resident’s lounge, outdoor dining with barbecues and pizza ovens, heated pool, fully-equipped gym, and a wellness centre with sauna and steam room.

<img alt="Vivere" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="c09372cc-aae6-4458-af2e-f291bd19a5e5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Screenshot%202026-04-15%20at%209.53.49%E2%80%AFAM.png?VersionId=Sc_RLXl5jiff.tnadogXjQJ_WIpDjf3p" />

The project is strategically located to offer a walkable lifestyle, with the Strand shopping centre, cafes, restaurants, shops and the beach, all just a short stroll away.

“We have meticulously planned Vivere to build on the Flourish legacy, creating a truly special project,”&nbsp;Leet added.

“Wellness, lifestyle and community are at the forefront of every decision we make, and that has not 
changed for Vivere.”

With the DA now lodged with the Gold Coast City Council, Sherpa has moved quickly to secure LPS Group as the builder, offering buyers a level of certainty that is rarely seen in today’s market.

Sherpa has delivered 16 residential projects over the past seven years with a pipeline of $1 billion, with more under construction.

Sherpa takes Flourish brand to Coolangatta, lays plans for Flourish Vivere 

S&amp;S Projects is boosting its investment at Rainbow Bay to more than $1 billion after the prolific Gold Coast developer acquired a new site for $20.25 million and immediately laid plans for a new luxury apartment project in the sought-after precinct.

The site, which is the company’s fifth acquisition at Rainbow Bay in the past four years, will be home to the company’s largest project to date after delivering 3 sold-out projects and construction progresses on Radia worth a combined $215m. 
S&amp;S Projects is currently finalising plans for its latest strategic acquisition, a 1,518 sqm site located 209-213 Boundary Street in Coolangatta, with a development application expected to be lodged within weeks.

The luxury residential development will build on the company’s highly successful projects at Rainbow Bay, comprising Flow, Awaken, Esprit and Radia, with Radia currently under construction by Hutchinson Builders.

“We have been unflinching in our commitment to Rainbow Bay and the transformation we have helped drive in this incredible part of the Gold Coast, which is among the city’s most desirable residential locations,” said S&amp;S Projects founder and director Paul Gedoun.

“Our fifth project will reflect the best of what we have done so far to create a lifestyle precinct that is second to none.”

The latest development, which has yet to be named, is proposed to accommodate 88 luxury apartments in a design that will immerse residents in a unique wellness lifestyle that expands on the legacy of S&amp;S Project’s earlier developments at Rainbow Bay.

The development will feature an expansive rooftop garden and wellness centre with a resort- style pool, among a host of lifestyle amenities planned for residents.

“Rainbow Bay, with its beautiful, protected beach and alongside one of the world’s best surf breaks at Snapper Rocks, is the natural wellness heartland of the Gold Coast,” said Gedoun.

“We are taking every advantage to create a truly unique rooftop wellness experience with a natural feel for residents, offering stone features throughout and an underlying theme that emulates a botanical garden.”

The latest acquisition comes as S&amp;S Projects is at the completion of Esprit and construction continues on Radia, which are part of their significant portfolio undertaken by the company at Rainbow Bay since 2022.

The $215 million Radia, which comprises 38 apartments, is currently the flagship development by S&amp;S Projects at Rainbow Bay which is expected to be completed in 2027.

Jayde Pezet, of Pezet Matheson, which has managed sales and marketing for S&amp;S Projects across their Gold Coast portfolio, emphasised the developer’s commitment to continuous improvement and excellence.

“S&amp;S Projects continue to elevate the benchmark of luxury with each development," Pezet said.

“We have worked with S&amp;amp;S on their 4 other projects in Rainbow Bay and their approach reflects a team that is constantly learning, refining, and pushing the standard higher.

“Their hyper-local knowledge and deep expertise within the luxury property sector are what truly set them apart, allowing them to deliver projects that feel both globally sophisticated and authentically connected to their coastal environment”

S&amp;S Projects plans to officially launch its latest project at Rainbow Bay in the second half of this year.

“As we embark on our largest project yet, we have pulled out all stops to create another landmark development that truly reflects the relaxed southern Gold Coast lifestyle,” Gedoun added.

S&S buys $20m Rainbow Bay site for fifth beachside apartment project

Japandi, an emerging design trend that combines Scandinavian functionality with Japanese rustic minimalism, remains relatively untested in Australia’s residential development market.

As developers look to differentiate their projects and offer something distinct to buyers, Brisbane-based developer Lantona has embraced the hybrid style for its recently launched Toowong apartment project, <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/koya-residences-6-josling-street-toowong-qld-4066">Koya Residences</a>, with early response to the design proving positive.

Lantona entrusted Red Door Architecture and interiors practice Luma Design Co with delivering the Japandi brief. The approach blends Japanese minimalism with Scandinavian functionality, emphasising warm, restrained interiors, natural materials and clean lines. Drawing on the Japanese concept of wabi-sabi (beauty in imperfection) and the Scandinavian principle of hygge (comfort and cosiness), it creates serene, uncluttered and sustainable living environments.

These design principles are expressed throughout the Josling Street development, both in its exterior form and across the 40 one-, two- and three-bedroom residences within.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150787 project_image_fid=366229]

Koya reflects a deliberately scaled approach, with the five-storey form designed to align with the surrounding residential streetscape rather than dominate it.

“Koya is conceived as a building that sits comfortably within its surroundings. Every decision, from material selection to spatial planning, has been guided by long-term liveability and enduring relevance,” the developer said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150787 project_image_fid=366243]

Positioned within an established inner-west neighbourhood, the development sits near riverfront parklands and the Bicentennial Bikeway, while remaining within walking distance of Toowong Village and multiple public transport options connecting to the CBD, St Lucia and West End.

Lantona said the location was central to the project’s conception, pointing to Toowong’s balance of green space, transport access and proximity to major education institutions.

“<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developments/toowong-qld-4066">Toowong</a> combines river access, walkability, immediate CBD connection and a strong educational presence. That balance made it the obvious setting for Koya.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=150787 project_image_fid=366230]

Communal amenity is concentrated on the rooftop, where a shared retreat will include a pool, dining areas and outdoor spaces oriented towards neighbourhood and city views. The design allows for both private use and small gatherings, extending the living environment beyond individual apartments.

Koya enters the market at a time when smaller-scale developments are becoming less common in established suburbs, with many recent projects in the suburb shooting for the sky.

In a nod of confidence,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/builders/brisbane-builders">Brisbane Builders</a>&nbsp;has already commenced construction on the building, which is slated for completion in early 2027. Keenan &amp; Byrne is marketing Koya.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=150787]

Japandi-inspired Koya Residences launch in Toowong

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:ca872054-bfe3-4cc5-a2c8-b373d4dfeafb-2" dir="auto">
A completed Castle Hill apartment development is returning to market with an uncommon level of financial backing, positioning it as one of the more secure options for buyers in Sydney’s north-west.

Skyview in Castle Hill, originally developed by Top Place and now overseen by capital partner <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/equitifund-group">Equitifund</a>, is being relaunched following a full remediation process. Central to its repositioning is a substantial financial reserve designed to provide ongoing protection and reduce uncertainty for incoming purchasers.

At the core of this offering is an $11 million bond secured during the project’s remediation phase, negotiated by former NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler. With less than $4 million required to complete the works, approximately $7.2 million remains in reserve, with around 15 years left on the term.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=147685 project_image_fid=359134]

Rather than a typical insurance-backed structure, the remaining funds are held as cash, creating a readily accessible financial buffer should any future building issues arise. The structure is intended to provide buyers with an added layer of certainty, differentiating the development from more conventional apartment offerings.

Equitifund Executive Chairman Greg Huxley said the structure provides a level of security not typically seen in apartment developments.

“The $11 million bond established for the Skyview Castle Hill development represents exceptional value, providing genuine financial security for purchasers,” Huxley said.

“Unlike a standard insurance policy, this bond consists of real funds held in trust for the Owners Corporation, offering a tangible layer of protection and added peace of mind.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=147685 project_image_fid=359135]

The remediation process has now been completed in full, with no active rectification orders or outstanding directives linked to the project on NSW Government registers. This outcome reflects the broader tightening of building oversight across the state, while also highlighting the project’s transition into a completed, compliant asset.

In a market where many buyers remain cautious about apartment quality, initiatives like this are designed to restore confidence, giving purchasers greater certainty and a stronger sense of security in their investment.

Equitifund has since acquired the remaining apartments and is managing their reintroduction to the market. With the works finalised and a significant financial reserve in place, the project now presents with a markedly different risk profile compared to its initial release.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=147685 project_image_fid=359137]

Beyond the added security, the development is positioned in one of Castle Hill’s more established pockets. The Gay Street address places it within close proximity to Castle Towers, one of the country’s largest retail centres, as well as Castle Hill Metro Station, which now connects directly to the broader Sydney Metro network.

Equitifund National Sales Director Ben Hamblett said buyer demand in the area continues to be driven by access to transport and amenity.

“Interest from both owner-occupiers and investors in Castle Hill remains exceptionally strong, with buyers consistently prioritising developments in close proximity to the Metro station and Castle Towers Shopping Centre,” Hamblett said.

“There is a clear trend in the market, with purchasers seeking convenient access to transport and lifestyle amenities that support a seamless, low-maintenance way of living.”

[smartcode_project:default project_id=147685 project_image_fid=359145]

The apartments also enter the market at a relatively accessible price point for the area, with two-bedroom configurations starting from $995,000 and rental demand for similar stock reaching around $900 per week. This combination of pricing, connectivity, and completed status is expected to appeal to both owner-occupiers and investors seeking lower-risk entry into the Hills District apartment market.

For eligible buyers, a limited 3.50 per cent p.a. two-year fixed interest rate is currently available through Equitifund’s lending partners, providing an additional layer of affordability.

EquitiCredit Pty Ltd ACN 676 363 769 holds ACL 559289 and provides credit assistance. Finance is arranged through EquitiCredit and funded by its lending partners. Interest rates are subject to change and eligibility criteria apply. Terms, conditions, fees and charges may apply. This is not financial advice and should not be relied upon as such. Prospective buyers should seek independent financial advice.

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=147685]
</section>

Edwin Almeida

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News