DESPITE a long and sometimes acrimonious campaign, it would seem that the JR companies may lose their battle with the government which wants them to assume more of the former Japanese National Railways’ debt, currently amounting to no less than
An estimated annual growth rate of 6.6% until the end of the decade will see global pension fund assets reach $57trn (€42trn), according to analysis by accountants PwC.In a report entitled ‘Asset Management 2020: A Brave New World’, PwC said the asset management industry would grow to $101trn by the end of the decade.It said, however, that the market share of assets for the management industry would not grow substantially.The growth will be driven by an increase in overall assets from affluent clients and high net-worth individuals, coming from emerging and frontier economies. Despite the majority of asset growth coming from retail areas, PwC highlighted pension fund assets as a major contributor, continuing growth seen since the turn of the century.From the $33.9trn in assets seen in 2012, the move towards the $60trn mark will be helped by a 9.9% growth in Latin American retirement assets, over eight years, and 9.5% from Asia Pacific.PwC predicted European assets would increase by 6.2% from 2012 to 2020 and that US assets would grow by 5.7%, but that both would still account for the majority of global assets, at $14trn and $30trn, respectively.PwC said, despite some defined benefit (DB) scheme assets being frozen, it would continue to represent a critical amount.“However,” the report said, ”the increase in investable assets mainly stems from defined contribution (DC) schemes created in countries of fast-growing GDP and prosperity. Pension funds will swell the total assets managed as both developed and developing countries attempt to bring more savers under the retirement umbrella.”The company also predicts that mandates, stemming from institutional investors, would continue to grow, and at a greater pace to mutual funds.Assets managed under mandates will hit $48trn by 2020 compared with $41trn in mutual funds, with the former growing by 5.7% over the eight years, compared with 5.4% for the latter.The firm predicted that, out of the $48trn in mandated assets, a significant majority would remain in active management, accounting for $35trn.Rob Mellor, who led the report’s publication, said the asset management industry had not yet focused on the future, but that shifts would begin to occur.He said managers would be unable to take advantage of the growth in assets from pension funds and high net-worth individuals unless they showed their commitment to managing assets to the best of their ability.“Strong branding and investor trust in 2020 will only be achieved by those firms that avoid making mistakes that attract the ire of investors, regulators and policymakers,” he said.“Asset managers must deliver the clear message that they deliver a positive social impact to investors and policymakers. The efforts required to satisfy investors and policymakers cannot be left to others.”
Union said while safety and risk-management still remained key overall, only 64% said it was the most important consideration, down from 79% the previous year.“The proportion of those describing their investment policies as safety-driven was as high as 84% last year, this figure fell to 77% in the latest survey,” the report said.Investment returns were now most important for 19% of investors compared to 8% in last year’s report.However, despite a growing focus on investment return, loss-avoidance still remained the key objective for 80% of investors.In line with this, risk management was seen as the most important criteria when selecting an asset management by 82% of respondents.Alexander Schindler, member of Union’s investment board, said the sentiment showed the expectation of a long-term low-rate environment among institutions.“The stronger pressure on returns has inevitably increased the willingness to take carefully calculated risks,” he said.“Given the pressure on returns, investors are now more concerned than ever to achieve superior risk-controlled performance.“Sound risk management therefore always involves managing opportunities as well.” Almost half of German institutional investors are expected to miss the investment return target set at the start of the year, once again owing to the low interest rate environment.Research conducted by German asset manager Union Investment showed banks were the most pessimistic while 49% of asset managers expected to miss targets.As a result, 43.5% of 109 investors surveyed expect to miss their 2014 target, a sentiment extrapolated over the medium term to 2018.In reaction to the burgeoning negativity among German institutional investors, Union said it had observed a growing focus on investment returns at the expense of safety and liquidity.
Accountants and actuaries have backed a UK proposal to clarify how defined-benefit plan sponsors account for a minimum funding requirement.The proposals in question are detailed in FRED 55 – draft amendments to FRS 102 – which the UK’s Financial Reporting Council (FRC) published on 20 August.They affect businesses reporting under the new UK GAAP framework of FRS 102, a financial reporting standard that will apply in the UK and the Republic of Ireland from 1 January 2015.Out of 20 comment letters from interested parties, all registered support for the FRC’s actions. However, commentators did warn that FRED 55 failed to address surplus recognition. Aon Hewitt actuary Simon Robinson said: “FRED 55 suggests that the ‘additional liability’ parts of IFRIC 14 do not need to be applied to FRS 102 but is silent on whether to consider the surplus recognition parts of IFRIC 14.“So we are left with the likelihood of diversity in this area. In my view, FRED 55 should address surplus recognition as well.”The publication of FRED 55 is the latest step in a major shake-up of the accounting framework in the United Kingdom and Ireland, which will see the introduction of FRS 102.FRS 102 is a localised version of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for Small- and Medium-sized Entities and replaces existing UK GAAP with a single point of reference.Section 28 of FRS 102 replaces FRS 17, which is a standalone accounting standard. Its new requirements apply from 1 January 2015, along with the rest of FRS 102.FRED 55 deals with circumstances where a DB plan sponsor has booked a DB asset or liability on its balance sheet under FRS 102.The approach proposed in FRED 55 potentially creates divergence in practice between UK GAAP and the application of the International Accounting Standards Board’s asset-ceiling guidance, IFRIC 14.FRED 55 says that where a defined benefit (DB) plan sponsor agrees to pay a schedule of deficit contributions, the sponsor need not look at whether it will build up a surplus in the future and then decide whether any benefit will flow from that surplus.Instead, the sponsor only has to calculate any plan surplus or deficit at the balance sheet date. Put differently, it shortcuts IFRIC 14’s two-step process.And complicating this situation is the move earlier this year by the International Financial Reporting Standards Interpretations Committee to investigate how a scheme trustee’s actions might affect surplus recognition.In particular, the committee, which is responsible for IFRIC 14, explored whether a trustee’s power to increase member benefits, or wind up a plan, would mean sponsors could no-longer book a plan surplus.The committee’s discussions during July led some commentators to fear that it might become all but impossible to report a surplus.Any such move, consultants Aon Hewitt warned in August, would leave FTSE 350 companies to take a £25bn (€31.7bn) balance sheet hit and blow a £1bn hole in net income.Those fears receded in September, however, when the committee’s subsequent discussions suggested that any changes to IFRIC 14 would hit just a small number of plan sponsors – if any.In comment letters on FRED 55, audit giant EY, as well as actuaries JLT and Towers Watson, warned that the proposals failed to deal comprehensively with practice under IFRIC 14.The advisers also said that there remains a real risk of divergence in practice emerging in this area.EY wrote: “We would therefore encourage the FRC to monitor this issue and reconsider at a later date whether it should take any action to clarify how this paragraph should be applied.”JLT argue that the draft amendment was principally concerned with the recognition of additional liabilities in respect of a schedule of contributions – the ‘minimum funding requirement’ aspects of IFRIC 14.“It does not clarify whether or not the remainder of IFRIC 14 should be referred to when deciding on whether a surplus is recognizable.”JLT also claimed that FRS 102 could be more flexible on the issue of surplus recognition than the standard it replaced, FRS 17. “The key difference between the two standards is the wording ‘agreed by the pension scheme trustees as the balance sheet date’ as, in practice, this means that the possibility of allowing for a refund is not usually available under FRS 17.“The wording of FRS 102 omits this additional detail and so implies that thereis more flexibility to recognise a plan surplus as an asset.”And Towers Watson actuary Charles Rodgers wrote: “Having clarified the non-application of one particular aspect of IFRIC 14, it would also be helpful if the FRC could indicate whether any of the other requirements of IFRIC 14 should be applied to Section 28 of FRS 102.”In addition, on a separate issue, FRED 55 confirms that entities should recognise the effect of restricting the recognition of surplus in a DB plan, where surplus is not recoverable, in other comprehensive income and not in profit and loss.Further action by both the FRC and the IFRS IC is expected in the new year.Separately, on 16 December, the FRC published a revised version of Actuarial Standard Technical Memorandum 1, its pensions communications standard.The FRC said in a statement that the new standard reflected “the implementation of automatic enrolment, legislation on same-sex marriage and to enable pension providers to more effectively take account of the impact of guaranteed annuity terms.”
The combination of those two things and the fact that they respond quite quickly to market movements means that you can get gaps. As he points out, CTAs can be three-to-five times leveraged and in contrast to risk parity a trend following strategy will be aggressively long an asset and then move to be short an asset. That does suggest risk parity strategies may not be the cause of volatility. They will always have a long exposure to an asset but just trim and manage that exposure to keep it in proportion to other exposures in the portfolio without a wholesale change in direction. But there can also be other big players including banks hedging structured products and derivative exposures which again will respond to short term changes. In contrast, risk parity tends to rebalance monthly or a different frequency depending on the manager.Risk parity approaches are essentially passive and would tend to rebalance monthly without taking a negative or positive view on assets but always trying to maintain a long portfolio across lots of different assets. So even if a risk parity approach has some leverage, it is usually tweaking at the edges to get the desired allocation. Risk parity is an example of a volatility controlled strategy that responds to changes in market volatility by increasing or decreasing leverage, so increasing equity volatility and correlation to other assets would lead to risk parity portfolios reducing equity exposures. In that sense, there is clearly a theoretical problem that when there is a bout of increased equity market volatility, there may be a case of too many elephants trying to squeeze out of the exit door. But risk parity may not be a large enough strategy to be an issue in this case.Bridgewater’s Ray Dallio argued in the wake of August 2015’s turmoil that US funds have allocated around 4% of assets to risk parity strategies, amounting to around $400bn (€360bn) – of which Bridgewater’s own All Weather Fund accounts for $80bn. Dallio estimated that if external managers cut their risk by 25%, it would result in a sale of $20bn spread across global equities, bonds and commodities. Typical equity holdings are 35%, with half being US equities so a 25% reduction would only amount to $4bn, whilst trading volumes in US equities for the period of high volatility was $200bn daily. Relative to overall trading volumes, then the impact of risk parity trading appears to be miniscule.If risk parity is not to blame for increased market volatility, then what is? Other forms of systematic trading could certainly have contributed more than risk volatility. There are certainly an increasing number of other types of trading that are possible culprits such as high frequency trading and model-driven systematic strategies. The actions of non-profit oriented players such as the ECB may also be an issue. There are immense issues being caused by central bank policies driving a lot of flows in the market. The ECB is buying tens of billions of bonds every month and investors are positioning themselves in anticipation of what central banks are going to do and that leads to very crowded one-way sentiment in the market. But for the next few years, how the UK copes with Brexit may provide a structural reason for increased volatility even if the distribution is very far from normal. Trying to model the behaviour of equity markets has become increasingly difficult and, as the Brexit vote has so dramatically illustrated, markets can be thrown completely off-course by unexpected events. It is clear they do not follow a normal, Gaussian distribution. The existence of fat tails seems to be pretty conclusive and hence a higher than expected frequency of ‘black swan’ events of which the Brexit vote is a clear example. The volatility seen post-Brexit vote is understandable, but other periods of extreme volatility are often not.A good example of recent unexplained volatility were occurrences in August 2015, when US stocks went down almost 7%.This was attributed to risk-parity strategies that were forced to sell equities as market volatility rose. A JP Morgan analyst, Marko Kolanovic, quantified the volume of potential selling by risk parity strategies in various market scenarios and came up with the conclusion that selling could have been in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Such comments resulted in a vigorous defence of risk parity by its major proponents, including from Bridgewater and AQR Capital Management.Whilst Brexit-induced volatility may be a good example of a dramatic change in fundamentals, what is also clear is that technical selling can appear at times to overwhelm any fundamental valuations creating large short term movements leading to sharp gapping in prices. The issue for the stability of financial markets is whether this market volatility has been exacerbated by particular types of investment strategies.Volatility targeting, for example, has become an increasingly widespread way of managing assets and that has implications: Adding risk as volatility goes down and reducing risk as volatility goes up can be pro-cyclical, extending a move that has already started. As one manager argued, if the euro starts rallying and the daily volatility is declining, then CTAs will be building up an exposure in a market over the course of a trend as markets that are trending will often exhibit declining volatility. When the trend ends, you see a change in direction and an increase in volatility. CTAs who follow that trend will cut their positions, first because the trend is finished and secondly because they have to reduce their position size because volatility has increased.
Keva, Finland’s largest pension fund, is linking up with Ilmarinen, Elo and other pension providers to invest €150m jointly in Finnish growth companies via a newly created fund.The three pension funds along with Finnish financial services groups LokalTapiola and Fennia have formed the investment fund Kasvurahastojen Rahasto III Ky (KRR III). State-owned investment company Tesi (Finnish Industry Investment) has also joined the new fund.Markus Pauli, Keva’s CIO for alternative investments, said: “The fund combines two things that are important to us: firstly, it has a positive effect on the whole of Finnish society as it finances and helps growth companies, and secondly, the fund gives the investors sufficient return potential, which is obviously a prerequisite for employers to invest in it.”KRR III is the third in a series of funds, with the previous vehicles having included “famous success stories”, Keva said. Examples of these companies include Nordic pizza restaurant chain Kotipizza, department store chain Puuilo and Nordic restaurant food delivery app Wolt.The KRR investment fund model involves capital investors offering growing businesses not just financing but also practical support, Keva said.Capital investors usually sit on the boards of the companies the funds invest in, meaning they are also available to give those businesses advice and guidance.Keva’s investment portfolio was worth €48.5bn at the end of 2016, according to IPE’s Top 1000 Pension Funds survey.
The action plan is designed to create a sustainable economy and achieve social and environmental goalsThis, according to the Commission, meant the investors might disregard or underestimate the long-term effects sustainability factors might have on the performance of their investments.It also said there was also a lack of transparency on how investors considered sustainability factors in their investment decision-making processes, which meant “their clients may not get the full information they need to inform their investment decisions”.The Commission cited the “unpredictable consequences of climate change and resource depletion” and the need for some €180bn of annual additional investment to achieve the EU’s climate change under the Paris agreement.This was why it was “setting out a roadmap to boost the role of finance in achieving a well-performing economy that delivers on environmental and social goals as well”.Presenting the sustainable finance action plan and other Capital Markets Union (CMU) measures today, Valdis Dombrovskis, vice-president responsible for financial stability, financial services and CMU, said the European Parliament and Council should now “accelerate” their work.He referred to getting the measures “across the finish line” before the next European Parliament elections, which are set for late May.Something for everyone? It wanted to clarify investors’ duties “to make sure they consider, in an appropriate manner, environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues in their investment decision process and are more transparent towards their clients”, it said.The Commission also cited the outcome of a consultation it carried out in 2016, saying this “suggested that institutional investors and asset managers do not necessarily consider sustainability factors and risks within their financial decision-making but tend to focus rather on financial factors and risks with a primary aim to maximise returns in the short-term”. The European Commission will put forward a legislative proposal to “clarify” investors’ duties regarding sustainability in May, it announced today.The measure is one of several key actions that form a keenly anticipated and wide-ranging action plan on sustainable finance from the EU executive.The plans are keeping with recommendations made by the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) that has been advising the Commission. Action on investor duties was recommended by the HLEG, with the Commission already having consulted on this last year. Today the Commission said institutional investors’ and asset managers’ duties on sustainability needed to be clarified because existing EU rules were not always clear or consistent. Valdis DombrovskisIn line with the HLEG’s final report, the Commission’s plan contains actions addressing a range of actors in the financial system. Dombrovskis today spoke about changing “culture and incentives” across the investment chain.Besides the measure on investors’ duties, other actions in the plan include:Establishing an EU taxonomy, or classification systemEssentially the lynchpin of the action plan, this is about definiing what are environmentally and socially sustainable activities and identifying areas in which investment could make the biggest impact “so that capital flows toward activities that contribute to sustainable development”. The Commission will present a legislative proposal on the principles and scope of an EU taxonomy in May.Such a system would protect investors by “by avoiding risks of green-washing”, according to the Commission. It has published a call for applications from “technical experts” to form a group that will help prepare such a taxonomy, in addition to other tasks.Creating standards and labels for green financial products such as green bondsThese would be based on the above taxonomy and “allow investors to identify investments that comply with green or low-carbon criteria”.Tackling corporate reportingThe Commission said it would reinforce existing reporting requirements for issuers with regards to sustainability information. It would also amend guidelines on non-financial reporting and promote best practices, but said legislative changes may be required.Introducing sustainability and capital requirementsThe Commission previously mentioned reducing capital charges for banks if they financed sustainable activities or projects, but this idea of a “green supporting factor” met with strong opposition from some stakeholders who said it could weaken banks and potentially affect financial stability.Under the final action plan, the Commission said it would “explore the feasibility” of recalibrating capital requirements for banks for sustainable investments when justified from a risk and financial stability perspective.
The UK’s financial services and pension sector regulators have pledged to “deepen” their relationship, as they launched a joint strategy to manage risks and focus on key areas of the rapidly growing UK pensions market.Addressing delegates at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association conference in Liverpool this morning, Lesley Titcomb, chief executive of the Pensions Regulator (TPR), said the supervisors have had to react to a changing pensions landscape.“Millions more people are saving, which is a great thing. We as regulators have had to adapt,” she explained.The new strategy – ‘Regulating the pensions and retirement income sector’ – will see TPR and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) focus on four key areas. It aims to assist those struggling to maximise pensions savings, prevent investments being badly managed, prevent pension funds being poorly managed, and assist people to make better financial decisions. David Geale, director of policy for the FCA, joined Titcomb on stage in Liverpool to explain the strategy was a response to “a huge amount of change” in the UK pensions market.“We felt it was important to take a step back and look at where our focus should be,” he said. “It is important that we adopt a more integrated approach and focus on joint objectives.”Geale said closer attention would be paid to customers’ access to and participation in products that support later life living. The regulators would spend more time ensuring that funds were well-funded and “invested appropriately”.The FCA director said that the regulators would also be looking at the governance and administration of schemes and levels of consumer understanding.TPR recently adopted a new approach to regulation, Titcomb told delegates.“We are redesigning our regulatory model, and the day-to-day approach to regulation,” she said. “The most public example is introducing one-to-one supervision for the highest risk schemes.”Titcomb said that the regulator was keen to underscore its commitment to being clearer, and acting more quickly, in addition to its well-documented intention to become tougher.She also outlined further detail on the regulator’s “high volume regulatory approach,” designed to enable the watchdog to keep on top of its responsibilities in a growing market.She said: “What we will be doing is identifying emerging risks and tackling that with a group of schemes to see how they respond. Only then will we be using escalating interventions for the ones that don’t respond, or are unable to demonstrate they are dealing with things.”In August, the two regulators launched a joint campaign to raise awareness of pension scams, after both TPR and the FCA were criticised for their response to issues with the restructuring of the British Steel Pension Scheme.
In response, Sunak said it was “not my job to tell anyone in this room how to invest their funds”. Protesters from climate change activist group Extinction Rebellion disrupted a UK pensions conference this morning and called for local authority schemes to divest from fossil fuel companies.Five protesters gained access to the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association’s (PLSA) annual conference for local government pension schemes (LGPS), interrupting an address from local authorities minister Rishi Sunak.After unfurling a banner, the protesters were invited to stay by PLSA chair Richard Butcher.Following the minister’s speech, Extinction Rebellion’s Bill Janson demanded action from the LGPS system’s 88 funds to divest from companies involved in fossil fuels and fracking. He claimed local authority funds had £14bn (€16bn) invested in such assets. Credit: PLSA“Each [pension manager] in their own individual funds can put in environmental or responsible investing guidelines as they see fit, in consultation with their stakeholders.”Rishi Sunak, local government ministerSunak highlighted reductions in emissions across the UK, as well as the country’s growing use of renewable energy. Earlier this month it emerged that the UK had gone more than a week without using fossil fuels for the entire country’s energy needs, a new record.He added: “These things are not straightforward. They involve change for all of us in our day-to-day behaviours and lifestyles. We have to do that in a pragmatic and measured way to make sure that we actually get the benefits.”The Extinction Rebellion branch in Swindon, where the conference was held, posted on its Facebook page after the event that fossil fuel companies were “worthless ‘zero assets’ that are literally killing people right now and threaten everyone’s lives right now”.“There is no time to left to ask politely and be ignored; this has already magnified the cost of putting our mistakes right,” the group said.LGPS funds take actionA number of LGPS funds and asset pools have been taking action to prioritise environmental issues within their investment strategies.The Brunel Pension Partnership – a £28.9bn collaboration between 10 LGPS funds – has allocated to renewable energy and impact funds in recent months, as well as backing multiple global investor collaborations on climate change and other responsible investment issues.Other pools including LGPS Central and Border to Coast Pensions Partnership have also thrown their weight behind international groups and campaigns, including the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.Individual funds have also taken significant steps with regards to their responsible investment strategies. The £842m Waltham Forest Pension Fund became the first LGPS fund to divest from fossil fuels in 2016.More recently, the £8.6bn Merseyside Pension Fund last year reviewed its investment strategy to “appropriately” integrate climate change risks.Merseyside, Brunel and the £1.3bn Islington Pension Fund jointly pledged in October to increase their allocations to low-carbon investments such as sustainable infrastructure, and reduce their exposure to carbon-intensive assets. Credit: Extinction Rebellion SwindonExtinction Rebellion campaigners outside the PLSA’s Local Authority Conference in Swindon (top) and meeting with the PLSA’s Caroline Escott (bottom)He said: “Everyone in this room represents their scheme members to the best of their ability and ensures that they’re fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities, engaging with their various stakeholders and providing them with security in retirement.“It would not be for me to tell individual funds ‘you must do this, you must do that’. That’s not how this game works. No minister… is making individual investment decisions for 89 different pension funds.“Each [pension manager] in their own individual funds can put in environmental or responsible investing guidelines as they see fit, in consultation with their stakeholders.”Sunak was pressed by Janson on the need for “direct action” to keep global temperature increases to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels – one of the main goals of the 2015 Paris agreement.The minister said: “I don’t disagree that we require some hard action… but what I completely disagree with is that we’re not doing anything about it.”
The home at 20 McIllwraith Rd, Joyner, sold for $950,000.INTERSTATE buyers have snapped up a Joyner property for $350,000 above the suburb median.Belle Property Cashmere estate agent Anna Lobley said about 60 groups viewed the 20 McIllwraith Rd home at open inspections and the vendors received six written offers before selling at $950,000. Outside is a pool surrounded by a deck.The agent said the market was performing strongly in Joyner, but there was a shortage of certain stock.“There’s a shortage of properties that don’t need a lot of work and have good flow,” she said.“They also need to have good, usable land.”Video Player is loading.Play VideoPlayNext playlist itemMuteCurrent Time 0:00/Duration 10:02Loaded: 0%Stream Type LIVESeek to live, currently playing liveLIVERemaining Time -10:02 Playback Rate1xChaptersChaptersDescriptionsdescriptions off, selectedCaptionscaptions settings, opens captions settings dialogcaptions off, selectedQuality Levels720p720pHD432p432p270p270p180p180pAutoA, selectedAudio Tracken (Main), selectedFullscreenThis is a modal window.Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.TextColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparentWindowColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaqueFont Size50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%Text Edge StyleNoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadowFont FamilyProportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall CapsReset restore all settings to the default valuesDoneClose Modal DialogEnd of dialog window.This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.Close Modal DialogThis is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.PlayMuteCurrent Time 0:00/Duration 0:00Loaded: 0%Stream Type LIVESeek to live, currently playing liveLIVERemaining Time -0:00 Playback Rate1xFullscreenJune, 2018: Liz Tilley talks prestige property10:02 The kitchen is sleek and modern.According to CoreLogic data the suburb’s median house sale price is $600,000.More from newsLand grab sees 12 Sandstone Lakes homesites sell in a week21 Jun 2020Tropical haven walking distance from the surf9 Oct 2019“The home is in a really sought-after part of Joyner, it’s a Metricon home with a great layout, and you can walk in with nothing more to do,” Ms Lobley said.“There’s a huge shed on the property that was so amazing – it was a tradie’s heaven.” There is open-plan living.Ms Lobley said the buyers were from NSW and saw the home online.“They loved it from the moments they saw it online, and felt the same when they walked through it in person,” she said.