Key Takeaways
- Property‑coaching industry leaders argue that regulation or accreditation is needed to remove “cowboys” and restore consumer confidence.
- Ashley Dean Binnie’s companies are in liquidation owing over NZ$2 million, with former clients alleging substandard work, unmet promises, and misleading AI‑based coaching programmes.
- There is ongoing debate about whether property coaches should fall under the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), the Real Estate Authority (REA), both, or remain self‑regulated.
- Several coaches support an accreditation model requiring proven success, case studies, and a code of ethics that bars financial dealings with clients.
- The FMA’s ombudsman notes that coaching becomes regulated financial advice when it involves specific product recommendations (e.g., mortgages, KiwiSaver withdrawals).
- Financial advisers and real‑estate professionals warn that many current coaches would not meet the strict entry requirements of those regimes, citing past bankruptcies and repeat‑offender patterns.
- Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee states there is presently no evidence that additional regulation is necessary, urging concerned parties to submit concrete examples of regulatory gaps.
- Consumers are advised to verify a coach’s qualifications, understand the exact services offered, check for conflicts of interest, and seek independent legal, financial, or tax advice when needed.
Call for Regulation to Eliminate “Cowboys”
Property coaches across New Zealand are increasingly vocal about the need for industry oversight. They argue that the lack of any formal accreditation allows anyone—regardless of experience—to brand themselves a property coach, which undermines trust and enables unscrupulous operators to thrive. By introducing a regulatory framework or an accreditation scheme, the sector could filter out “cowboys” who deliver substandard services, thereby boosting consumer confidence and raising overall professional standards.
Ashley Dean Binnie’s Financial Troubles and Client Complaints
The debate gained momentum after OneRoof reported that companies linked to social‑media influencer and property coach Ashley Dean Binnie entered liquidation, owing more than NZ$2 million. Former clients claim they were left thousands of dollars out of pocket, alleging that Binnie failed to deliver on agreed‑upon property‑flip management and renovation contracts, with the work performed described as substandard. Additionally, purchasers of his AI‑focused coaching course say the system fell far short of the promises made, reinforcing perceptions of misleading marketing and inadequate service delivery.
Debate Over Which Regulator Should Oversee Property Coaching
Industry commentators are split on the appropriate regulatory body. Some contend that property coaching should be supervised by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) because much of the advice overlaps with financial guidance—particularly when coaches recommend specific mortgages, KiwiSaver withdrawals, or insurance products. Others argue that the Real Estate Authority (REA) is the more natural home, given the sector’s focus on buying, selling, and renovating property. A third view favours self‑regulation through a sector‑wide code of ethics, claiming that existing statutes already provide sufficient consumer protection.
Industry Voices Supporting Accreditation and Self‑Regulation
Ilse Wolfe of Wolf Property Coaching insists that anyone calling themselves a property coach must demonstrate proven success, citing case studies and satisfied clients as evidence. She believes a formal accreditation process would prevent novices from teaching after a single flip. Steve Goodey echoes the call for change but prefers a self‑regulated model anchored by a code of ethics that prohibits coaches from lending to or borrowing from clients and mandates transparent disclosure of any financial interests. Goodey warns that bad actors tarnish the reputation of the entire field, making it look like a haven for “cowboys.”
Financial Ombudsman’s View on FMA Applicability
Financial Ombudsman Susan Taylor clarifies the boundary between coaching and regulated financial advice. She states that offering general educational material or broad investment strategies does not trigger FMA licensing requirements. However, once a coach gives a specific opinion or recommendation on a financial product—such as a particular mortgage structure, KiwiSaver withdrawal for a first‑home purchase, or related insurance—the activity falls under the FMA’s remit and the coach must obtain a financial‑advice licence. Taylor welcomes clearer regulations to dispel the current “murky” distinction.
Perspectives from Financial Advisers and Real‑Estate Professionals
Debbie Roberts, owner of Property Apprentice and a qualified financial adviser, notes that many existing coaches would struggle to meet the stringent entry criteria for financial‑adviser licensing, especially the prohibition on prior bankruptcies. She observes that several coaching businesses have undergone multiple bankruptcies and re‑branded, questioning how their owners can sleep at night. Roberts urges the FMA to step in to protect consumers from dodgy operators, while also acknowledging that those engaged in sourcing and on‑selling property deals should fall under the REA’s purview.
Government Stance and Ministerial Comments
Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee maintains that, at present, there is no evidence that additional regulation is required. She points out that the FMA, REA, and existing consumer‑protection laws already cover many of the activities performed by property coaches. McKee invites anyone who believes the current legal framework is insufficient to submit concrete examples to her office for review, suggesting that targeted adjustments may be preferable to a blanket new regulator.
Advice for Consumers on Due Diligence
Kristine King, chair of property law at the New Zealand Law Society, advises prospective clients to conduct thorough due diligence before engaging a property coach. Consumers should clarify exactly what services are being offered, verify the coach’s qualifications to give legal, financial, or investment advice, understand the fee structure, identify any potential conflicts of interest, and ascertain what recourse exists if the advice proves faulty or causes loss. King reminds readers that purchasing property is often the largest financial commitment they will make; while a coach can provide education or strategy, specialist legal, financial, and tax advice should still be sought from appropriately qualified professionals when those issues arise.