 Bait pricing: evaluating the success of regulatory reform in advertisingValerie Kupke, Peter Rossini and Paul Kershaw International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 2014, vol. 7, issue 3, 333-345 Abstract: Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of this legislative reform in the state of South Australia (SA) through an examination of the relationship between listed or advertised price and transaction prices before and after the changes in regulation. Between 2000 and 2008, legislative changes took place throughout Australia to make real-estate transactions more transparent and to deal with misleading conduct by real-estate agents. The practice of “charm” or “bait” pricing was targeted. This denotes the under-quoting of estimated selling prices in real-estate sale advertisements which can be considered deceptive or even fraudulent. Design/methodology/approach - – The study area is Adelaide, the state capital of SA and includes analysis of first and last advertised prices and eventual selling price for > 120,000 residential sales transactions over a nine-year period between 2003 and 2011. The analysis to test these hypotheses included, first, a descriptive evaluation of the percentage price difference over time and a spatial breakdown of mean percentage price difference before and after legislation. Second, for each hypothesis, the change was tested by measuring the variance of the percentage change, with significance established through the Levene and Brown–Forsythe tests, rather than by the mean percentage change. Findings - – The results, both descriptive and statistical, support the effectiveness of the reform in legislation. Research limitations/implications - – The study has application in terms of agents as social gatekeepers and confirms the role of regulation to ensure market values are achieved and consumers not disadvantaged. With friction in the market, imperfect information and the possible behavioural responses of land agents, there may be incomplete market correction of underpricing strategies. This paper confirms the effectiveness of one such market intervention. Social implications - – Some half a million dwellings are purchased in Australia every year. Annually, in the state of SA, some 53,000 dwellings are financed to be purchased or built. These levels of purchase reflect national home ownership rates of about 69 per cent, with some 33 per cent of Australians owning their houses outright and a growing number, some 36 per cent, owners with a mortgage. Australian households also move house relatively frequently. In 2008, 43 per cent of Australians reported moving in the previous 5 years, 15 per cent had moved 3 or more times. The most common reasons for moving were twofold, either to buy a house or to buy a bigger house. These levels of purchase, home ownership and mobility underpin the importance and viability of some 10,000 real-estate services businesses in Australia; a sector which, up to 2,000, was largely self-regulated. Originality/value - – This paper is one of the first in Australia to effectively quantify the success of legislative reform on residential agency behaviour. Keywords: Australia; Real estate; Advertising; Bait pricing (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:ijhmap:v:7:y:2014:i:3:p:333-345 DOI: 10.1108/IJHMA-02-2013-0016 Access Statistics for this article International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis is currently edited by Dr Richard Reed More articles in International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis from Emerald Group Publishing Limited |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.