Sitting on the sideling and doing nothing is betting that prices will drop. This is a bet that has failed year after year after year. Overseas economists claiming our property market is overpriced and using international comparisons is nothing new, but they fail to factor in things such the enourmous number of houses that are in slums in the US brign down the median and averge prices, far below what comparables are here. The facts are building costs are high and there is more demand than supply. These factors have been constant for some time and and there is no sign of a reversal, so what is going to cause a crash in property prices? There are definately risks, such as another financial crisis in Europe and this is a good reason to be conservative, but people who are not in the market already need to realise that it is just as big a risk to do nothing.

Hi Philip, I wasn't expressing an opinion on whether its good or bad, simply what the announcement means. My view on planning is that local Government should be totally excluded from planning and all decisions given to a statuatory authority, as the area is too political at the moment. I also think there should be higher densities around areas with good infrastructure and heavy restrictions on further urban sprawl.

Altering the UGB is just one step and doesn't mean that all the land that is affected will be rezoned. Councillors still have significant power to stop land from being rezoned and to influence density, they also seem to be generally anti development, while the current State Government has a disinclination to do anything, so don't expect a rush of land onto the market any time soon.

I don't see why people get so upset by this sort of thing. You can rest assured that anyone advertising on hear will be ripped to shreds if what they are offering is not up to standard. Why not let them put themselves up for scrutiny?

You have to be kidding me, you continue to compare a saving over 30 years to a day one figure (the initial loan figure is not a reasonable figure to use any way, because it is not the cost of the loan) and you don't think it is applicable to discount the future savings? Also, it has been brought up continually, you just choose to ignore it so you can stick to your exagerated and deceptive claims regarding possible savings.

Michael, if you want to have any credibility stop claiming BS figures for savings like 12.55%, you know very well the saving is far less than this in real terms.

Also, please explain how a  brokers services are not free when they get the same terms for the same loan, be it through a branch or broker. Banks have a cost of client acquiisition be it advertising, paying for branches and sales people or selling through the broker channel. Together they are a cost to the bank and are passed on to the banks customers, as are all the other myriad of costs they incur. It suits your argumement to seperate the cost of broker commissions from the rest, and claim the service it not free, but it is not reality.  

There has never been an argument that the p[otential dollar saving is anything but what you have stated if you use Homeside as an  example. The argument is whether the comparison to initial loan amount is a good one, and also whether companies that rebate are able to offer a level  of  service that warrants the saving.

This is true and is a good reason why comparing the saving to the initial loan amount is meaningless.

If you want to have a go at brokers over c ommissions, I'm not a good target for you because a very high percentage of my income comes from commercial and business loans where I nominate the level of payment I receive to the lender and it is fully disclosed to the borrower. I think it would be great if this was the way resi loans worked also, but its not going to happen because the banks won't deliver loans to broker clients for lower rates than they do to branch clients and clients wonm't accept paying more to go through a branch than a broker. The business models you have suggested above will never work, except as a niche area, because if they did become widespread banks would simply lower commission further.

By my calculations (using 0.5% upfront and 0.15% trail, as these are far more representative of what brokers generally are paid) if all commissions are rebated and paid into the loan there is a saving of around $60K over 30 years against repayments of almost $1.1 mill. Even without taking into account the time cost of money, which is necessary if you are using a 30 year period, this saving is relatively small. If you really do wish to "cut through the baloney, you should use statistics in their proper context. Calculating a dollar saving over 30 year and comparing it agains the initial size of a loan is meaningless and the percentage figures you continue to use a misleading in the extreme.

You also need to be more clear when you are using the term "offset". Paying money into a loan reduces interest by reducing the loan amount, it does not "offset" anything. Paying money into an offset account reduces interest by offsetting what is charged against an unchanged loan amount. This difference is very important.

Hi Lisa,

Richard has been giving you very go  d advice, why don't you just use his service rather than shopping around youself. It would be easier for you and you will most likely end up with a more beneficial loan structure than if you do everything yourself. 

Regards
Alistair  

You might have interviewed a few people but I have been in this industry for a long time, as have some of the other brokers on this forum, and I'm sure they would all back me up on this. There is simply no need for a good broker to rebate as there is not that much competition around. I have also never come accross a good and successful broker who rebates commissions, I would suggest the few you have found are not particularly common, and those that you have found are fools if their service is that good. It is often difficult to justify the time taken to service smaller clients as it is, why anyone would do so and rebate commission, particularly if they are supplying a quality service, simply makes no sense. 

Offset is not ridiculous. Lumping rebates in with the value of having an offset account and then coming up with a 15% saving is. For most people rebates received would be very small.

I'm sorry you are speaking utter garbage. There are a range of fixed and variable costs that go into all business a bank does. They are able to allocate the exact cost of commissions to broker originated loans, but this does not mean that it is a cost to the customer. You have admitted yourself that it is not. Doing so suggests that the customer is paying extra to use a broker, they are not. P erhaps you should suggest that bank staf rebate some of their wages to customers.