A warning from the Property Investors Council of Australia has put a spotlight on the surge of unlicensed financial advice around property strategies. This is no niche compliance issue—it’s a market-structure problem fuelled by an advice gap, social media distribution, and incentive-heavy sales models. Expect sharper ASIC scrutiny and a reputational shakeout that will punish the careless and reward disciplined operators. Here’s what boards, brokers, advisers, and platforms need to know—and do—now.

Key implication: Unlicensed financial advice in the property ecosystem is moving from fringe irritation to mainstream risk. For lenders, brokers, developers, buyer’s agents, and fintech platforms, the liability now extends beyond their own conduct to the influencers, referrers, and content ecosystems they enable. The businesses that institute advice-grade governance—even where they aren’t giving financial product advice—will secure distribution partnerships, insurer confidence, and lasting brand trust.

Market context: the advice gap meets influencer distribution

Australia’s advice market has shrunk materially since the Royal Commission era. Industry data shows the number of registered financial advisers has fallen from a peak near 28,000 in 2019 to roughly the mid‑teens today, creating an affordability and access gap. At the same time, demand for property guidance remains robust: ATO data indicates around 2.2 million Australians own a rental property, and mortgage brokers now intermediate roughly 70% of new home loans. Where licensed advisers exit, informal advice fills the void—often via social media, seminars, and lead‑gen funnels dressed as “education”.

Influencer economics amplify the trend. Global influencer marketing spend has surged into the tens of billions of US dollars, rewarding content designed to nudge behaviour. In finance, that nudge can cross the legal line: when content steers a decision about a financial product (e.g., gearing strategies, trusts, SMSFs, debt structures), it likely constitutes financial product advice under the Corporations Act and requires an Australian Financial Services (AFS) licence.

Regulatory posture: higher bar, broader perimeter

ASIC has repeatedly cautioned about “finfluencers” and unlicensed advice, including specific guidance that online content designed to influence financial decisions may trigger licensing obligations. Enforcement has also evolved: the regulator routinely monitors social channels, uses data analytics to identify mass‑marketing patterns, and has shown willingness to pursue both individuals and businesses that promote or facilitate unlicensed conduct. Civil and criminal penalties can be significant, including potential bans, fines, and for individuals, criminal liability.

Expect tighter scrutiny in three areas: (1) property‑linked advice funnels that bundle “education” with product distribution (e.g., referrals to developers or mortgage products); (2) conflicted remuneration masquerading as “rebates” or “consulting fees”; and (3) cross‑border digital promotions that reach Australian consumers without local licensing. Internationally, the direction of travel is clear: the UK’s FCA has tightened rules for high‑risk promotions and social media advertising; in the US, the SEC has sanctioned celebrities and influencers for promoting investments without proper disclosures. Australia is unlikely to be an outlier.

Business impact: margin, liability and insurer scrutiny

For legitimate operators, unlicensed advice undercuts compliant players on price and speed, while pushing up the risk premium for everyone else. Three immediate impacts stand out:

• Distribution and revenue: Lead‑gen partners that drift into advice create legal exposure for any party benefiting from the funnel. If a referrer’s pitch includes implied recommendations about gearing or product selection, downstream revenue can be tainted.
• Insurance and access to capital: Professional indemnity insurers are increasingly combing through marketing collateral, referral deeds, and influencer contracts. Poor controls translate into higher premiums, tighter exclusions, or refusal to cover specific activities.
• Reputational contagion: Consumers rarely distinguish between a broker, a buyer’s agent, and a seminar host when losses occur. The entire ecosystem wears the reputational cost—driving up acquisition costs and elongating sales cycles.

Competitive advantage: turn compliance into a growth capability

Early movers can convert governance into a moat. The playbook:

• Advice perimeter mapping: Use a “product‑advice‑influence” matrix to classify every consumer touchpoint—content, events, scripts, calculators—by its proximity to financial product advice. Anything beyond factual information moves into “grey” and demands licence coverage or immediate redesign.
• Licensed partnerships at the core: Structure formal arrangements with AFSL holders for any advice‑adjacent activities. Embed white‑labelled licensed advice where needed (e.g., SMSF property strategies, trust structuring, gearing), with clear scopes of advice, disclosures, and conflicts management.
• Incentive transparency: Replace opaque referral fees and “marketing rebates” with fully disclosed, arm’s‑length agreements. Document the value exchange and tie payments to compliant activities, not conversions.
• Content governance as product: Treat content like a regulated product: approval workflows, audit trails, version control, documented factual‑information templates, and escalation triggers when staff or partners field advice‑like questions.

Implementation reality: a pragmatic control stack

Firms don’t need to become law firms; they need a control stack that meaningful scales:

• Policy and training: A two‑tier policy—simple, scenario‑based playbooks for front‑line staff and detailed standards for compliance teams. Train on red‑flag phrases (“best way to structure your loan is…”, “use an SMSF to buy property”) and on redirecting to licensed advice.
• Third‑party diligence: Risk‑rate introducers, influencers, and event partners. Require AFSL details where relevant, collect sample content, and audit periodically. Terminate relationships quickly when risk scores change.
• Regtech and monitoring: Deploy social listening and keyword monitoring across brand and partner channels. Keep records of approvals and takedowns; assume regulators will ask for them.
• Consumer disclosures that actually inform: Disclaimers are not a shield—but clear, prominent explanations of role (e.g., “we provide credit assistance, not financial advice”) reduce confusion and complaints.

Industry transformation: who wins the trust war

We’re heading toward a barbell market. At one end, scaled, compliant ecosystems—banks, super funds, advice licensees, and sophisticated broker aggregators—will offer “advice‑lite” guided journeys with embedded, licensed specialists where needed. At the other, niche operators will survive by being ruthlessly transparent about scope and incentives. The middle—informal “education” funnels with product kickers—will be squeezed by enforcement, insurer pressure, and platform policies that demote non‑compliant content.

Expect reputable property investment firms to distance themselves publicly from unlicensed practices and to publish codes of conduct. Licensed advisers, already vocal about unfair competition, will likely see stronger enforcement as a necessary precondition to rebuild advice affordability and trust.

Future outlook: policy shifts and platform gatekeeping

Regulatory settings are evolving. Reforms flowing from the Quality of Advice Review aim to broaden affordable advice while protecting consumers; that will raise expectations on anyone playing near the advice perimeter. Meanwhile, digital platforms—keen to avoid regulator heat—are tightening financial promotions policies, effectively becoming gatekeepers. The net effect: fewer, more professionalised voices, clearer accountability, and higher conversion value for compliant operators.

For boards, the strategic question is simple: is your growth model resilient to a world where “influence equals advice risk”? If not, the time to re‑engineer incentives, partnerships, and content workflows is now. The firms that treat compliance as a customer experience feature—not a cost centre—will win the trust war, attract insurer support, and outgrow the market when the clampdown comes.