Readers’ comments about our articles on wrapping
There have been many comments about our articles on wrapping; a few nasty, some confused, but most supportive.
Below are some of the comments, with a brief reply from Neil Jenman.
In your typical scare mongering tone you fail to acknowledge one vital piece of information:
Most wrappers aim for the purchaser to re-finance with a bank within 1-2 years and at most 5 years. If the property did not appreciate in value enough for this strategy to work than nobody would win. The investor would not get his/her capital gain and the purchaser would not have a place to live in that would eventually be his or hers. The fact of the matter is that the property market is red-hot at the moment and most properties under vendor finance appreciate well past the profit we add on.
Let me ask you a question: Would you rather rent and throw your money down the drain, or pay a similar or slightly higher rental figure to own your own house?
I bet you don’t print this response in your update message to your subscribers.
You Neil are a showman who is trying to whip up business for your real-estate empire. I applaud you though – you have come up with a very clever marketing gimmick similar to Dick Smith’s “buy Australian” campaign.
Neil’s reply: Leave Dick out of this. I’d rather pay rent than be ripped-off with inflated interest and a jacked-up price, all on the pretence of ownership.
I hope you are able to alert the masses to this particular scam quickly. I can tell you it is spreading rapidly now. We are bound to hear more as the battlers start to get kicked out in due course.
I was made aware of this wrap scam two years ago on an internet discussion forum. The problem at the time was finding lawyers sufficiently bereft of moral fibre to assist these vultures. I bought a manual supposedly with property investment advice which turned out to be on wraps.
Any person with an ounce of ethics would not touch this.
Keep up the good work.
Neil’s reply: In the sixties, I heard a businessman saying to a lawyer (who was telling him that something was dishonest), “If I want a moral opinion, I’ll go to a priest. I came here for a legal opinion.” How times change.
Hi Mr Jenman,
I follow your written material with interest. You run a refreshing ‘across shore current’ in today’s silliness of the property boom hype and ensuing bad behaviour from both sides of the transaction.
I read with heightened interest your Wrap thoughts.
I am about to commence my first with my husband and as we gather our due diligence about us I see our future customers are very much at the behest of our behaviour on a bad day.
Thank you for pointing out another point of order where if our finance fell over and the Wrapee was left with nothing, they would be in the same situation your German fellow. Appalling.
Mr Jenman, there are however some good folk amongst us conducting Wraps. Birds of a feather……
Best wishes to you and I continue to read your columns with interest.
Neil’s reply: A sweet and ethical person attracted to an unethical act. I fear this person may have been to what is becoming known as ‘a WRAP-RAT’s seminar’.
WRAPPER WITH “INTEGRITY”
I strongly object to the majority of comments made in your articles about “wrapping”. Why do you only highlight all the negatives about wraps and not all the positive stories about successful wraps done by professional wrappers with integrity.
I know of some of them and I am about to become one by doing a deal that will provide a genuine “win-win” outcome for both parties involved. I could make just as much money selling the property now instead of wrapping it, so I am certainly not trying to rip anyone off.
I believe wrapping is a great alternative for people that are unable to qualify for finance to own their own home. Are you kidding when you say that “if these battlers could genuinely afford to buy a home, many would have qualified for a loan from mainstream lenders”. Mainstream lenders only loan to a certain type of person that fit their stringent criteria, not people that can genuinely afford to buy a home.
I found your articles very offensive and feel that because you don’t agree with wraps you are providing an extremely biased view of them. I don’t appreciate these sort of articles as it gives the genuine “wrapper” a bad name unnecessarily.
I would appreciate a response to this email.
Neil’s reply: By not being on the title, the battlers have no protection. All the wrapper does is charge inflated rent with the promise that if the battlers survive this rent burden, they then have a chance of buying the home at an inflated price. It is an expensive and high risk scheme where the battlers’ fate is in the hands of the wrapper.
WRAPPERS & TV
I hope you get to read this.
Your website is excellent. I hope many Australians are fortunate enough to discover it.
I was reading some of the stories on wraps and wanted to add a comment about something that infuriates me.
It seems obvious that these ‘frauds’ are just out to squeeze as much as they can out of the less informed.
But then you get shows on television about how these people are out there to help battlers reach the greatest dream of home ownership. I sat there in awe at how negligent this is. Don’t they realise these same battlers will be appearing on these current affairs shows saying how they were left destitute when they lost their home from not making the massive repayments, and the original ‘so called’ heroes will be running away, refusing to speak to the camera!
Keep up the good website.
Neil’s reply: In the constant-deadline world of television, it is hard to get complicated issues exactly right. I saw this story. The wrapper was so shallow. He gloated at the mention of kicking people out.
By Neil Jenman, June 20, 2003
As previously declared, I admit my self-interest (or bias) having seen the trauma of wrapping. However, despite my personal experiences, nothing I have been told has convinced me that wrapping (in its current form) is anything other than an unethical scheme that preys on the unfortunate.
A major point of ethics is INTENT. I concede that some wrappers have good intentions. I do not agree, however, with the statement that “The majority of wrappers are ethical”. It is my opinion that most wrappers are deliberately preying on people in unfortunate circumstances. Their motive is greed. Wrappers profit from the losses of battlers.
We will soon release our findings on all the points raised in the ‘wrapping’ argument. Wrapping in its present form is certainly unethical. Soon, I hope it will be illegal.
welcome. Neil tries to read every e-mail and respond personally. We have posted some of the common questions
together with those we feel may help you. Thank you for your interest.