The special resolution vote on restricting the number of board positions held by a consolidated or related group to two directors may be the spark that ignites already raised temperature levels among some members.
A 75% majority is needed to change the constitution.
Latest Comments
Total:
24
comment(s)
JRH on
23 Nov 2009 12:24 PM
Nothing will come of this to support brokers best interest, it is all about the lenders.
JRH on
23 Nov 2009 12:25 PM
Is it just me or is everyone sick and tired of the major lenders dictating everything.
Mike on
23 Nov 2009 12:31 PM
This is exactly where the MFAA has its shortcomings. The MFAA has so many lenders on its board and various commitees, that it is distancing itself from the average broker member, and it will do so at its own peril. And no aggregators do not represent brokers, aggregators represent aggregators.
Scott Beattie on
23 Nov 2009 12:31 PM
Why not have a seperate postion for lender, aggregator etc
Only a broker should be able to represent a broker. Kathy Cummings is someone who shows little or no support to brokers and constantly bags us in public domain.
If the banks want to be involved, great, but let''s create a seperate category for them rather than having a bank represent a broker
Concerned Citizen on
23 Nov 2009 12:34 PM
We should push thru another resolution to the constitution, "If you are employed or PAID (salary) by a major lender, you are disqualified from being on the board, chair, lending committee or ANY title other than MEMBER of the MFAA for reasons of conflict of interest". Only then will we (brokers) give creditabilty to the SHAM of the MFAA.
Phil on
23 Nov 2009 12:36 PM
Is this really all they''ve got to argue about?? Id like to see them concentrate on the fact that regulation will mean huge fines and jail term for brokers ( and not bank staff). Id like to see them address PI costs blowing out to financial planning levels $5000+. Id like them to work on SLA''s from banks and lender suspention if they dont meet these SLA''s. In the MFAA code of conduct it stipulates that we must lodge an application with 5 days. How can a bank take 3+ sometimes 7 weeks to then look at a file? Id like no more reduction of commissions unless its passed onto borrowers ( ie brokers sell a cheaper product) Id like them to address the higher interest rate margins now at 2.7%+ and why broker commission levels are not restored. And don''t give the excuse that cost of funding has increased, because read any banks annual report. Id like the MFAA to address banks contacting broker clients direct to try and churn the loan. One bank in particular does this at mortgage doc signing. The list goes on and on and on and on........
Dave on
23 Nov 2009 12:36 PM
Hi JRH get involved vote for what you want, organise other people to pass on their proxy''s and you could also nominate get involved if it''s annoying you that much. Let''s face it in about years time we will all be going "The MF what??".
BBB on
23 Nov 2009 12:56 PM
I support this motion ,Gerald Foley in a related article last week has it right,just imagine, the CBA, BankWest and Aussie all have a seat on the national board ,it could happen.If you want to get even more nervous , have a look at the article on page 6 of te latest Broker news featuring Kathy Cummins of the CBA.
Brokers please vote for this motion, you can use a proxy vote if you are a full member , but it NEEDS TO BE IB TODAY.
peter_qld on
23 Nov 2009 01:09 PM
Something else a certain Bank can do is start doing Title searches much earlier than the day before settlement, often resulting in settlement being postponed. How can they do this AFTER offering finance? They offer the loan BEFORE they know whether the security is acceptable or not??? I find this quite extraordinary and have difficulty beleiveing it. Which leads to another nasty conclusion - is it just that do not advise anyone until teh day before settlement? Sure, I''d love to have people who do this on the board! (Sarcasm!)
SHC on
23 Nov 2009 01:11 PM
Consider that the provider of product (lender or major shareholder of a lender, in this case) serves the profit outcome from the product, and cannot be impartial to a clients needs, ever. Brokers need to consider whose interests they serve, and hopefully it is the clients, and so their impartiality becomes a point of difference from the lenders. How can the MFAA serve both? Its like having the cigarette companies draft anti-smoking legislation. I don''t like the long term prognosis Doctor!
TFS Perth on
23 Nov 2009 01:38 PM
This should come down to a simple determination - if you''re being paid a wage from somewhere, be it the CBA, NAB or AFG, Aussie Home Loans, then you''re not a "broker". At that point, that person should not be able to sit on the board of the MFAA, as they''re on someones payroll. The rest of us "brokers" as they like to call us, that get paid on commission basis, are the "members" of the MFAA and to a very large degree, our membership fees should go to people we want to represent us to provide products and services that benefit us. To be perfectly honest, that should be other brokers, who fully comprehend the circumstances facing our industry and not some bank puppet, with a hidden agenda, who wants to tie us up in more red tape and qualifications. How come I have to have a degree in rocket science to sell a home loan (something I''ve been doing for nearly 25 years) yet the young girl down the road at the local bank branch, who''s just come out of high school and wouldn''t know 2% of what I know, has no such restrictions, or requirements and can get a far superior turnaround time, than me???
The banks have slashed our commission rates, yet the slop they now serve up to us, as far as support and customer service is abominable. I now get my customers to sign an indemnity if they want to use a major bank, so that no penalties or costs can be passed back to my business and it also gives them an idea of how poor the major banks are, when it comes to providing a service - through the broker channels. It also allows us an opportunity to place business away from the major banks, to lending institutions who do provide service, have not cut our commissions and don''t have ridiculous claw-back policies.
Perhaps it''s time the major banks put their staff on commissions and see how they fair. We might see an improvement in service standards, at least. Most of them are only working for an institution because they lack the moral couraqge and fibre to create something (like a business) and work without a net!!!
Maybe we need to create a new body to represent "brokers" and "mortgage originators" as it seems the MFAA has been hijacked by some fairly greedy institutions.
Melb Broker on
23 Nov 2009 01:41 PM
We, as brokers have allowed this to happen. We have next to no real representation any more. If we want this to change we need to take action ourselves. Why dont we set up a stste meeting in the new year for brokers only to thrash out how we can attack this crap over the next few months. The MFAA is the latest toy of the banks now and its becoming clear who the MFAA will side with regarding regulations / commission structures that fit what the banks want.
TFS Perth on
23 Nov 2009 02:10 PM
Bottom line here is that the MFAA has been hijacked by the banks. It no longer functions as it was originally intended to do - ie. give "mortgage brokers" (it''s traditional membership) a voice in the mortgage industry. Basically the previous boards (including this one) have sold us out to the highest bidder.
The way the MFAA reverted to its old label - MIA, which translates to "missing in action" - when the big banks started cutting our commission rates, was a totally pitiful sight. It was almost laughable, if it wasn''t ripping my business out from under me.
Yes - the MFAA had better go back to its original constitution and perhaps remind itself why it was set-up in the first place!
Banks cutting our commission rates, while the service levels they provide become absolutely deplorable - I know who should get the pay cut, if we''re talking about performance!!!
The banks through people like ASIC and the MFAA will tell us we have to have a degree in rocket science to sell a home loan (something I''ve been doing for over 25 years without any complaint - ever). Yet little Beccy down the road at the local XXXX Bank has just left high school and can give my client a housing loan approval on the spot and provide docs in a little over a week. Yet it takes me the best part of 3 weeks to get a client I would consider a walk up start (exisitng client with the bank we went to, LVR at 62% and an annual income of $250K, looking for $1.4M) a conditional approval. Then another week and half for the bank to order the valuations!!! What is wrong with this picture???
Maybe we should look at a new industry body / voice? The MFAA seems to have dropped the ball! Perhaps somebody willing to help "create" business, rather than rope it in, knuckle it under, imposing restrictions on its members and so on. We all work without a net - let''s put the MFAA and the lenders on commission basis and see how they fair - at least the service might improve!!!
Diomedes on
23 Nov 2009 03:33 PM
MFAA, take note, I can not find much support for the MFAA in the comments. The MFAA might feel the comments are incorrect. Perception is everything and brokers (myself included) perceive the MFAA to be compromised!!!
The fact that a supplier (bank)sits on the board of a industry body that represents the distributor (broker) would seem that a conflict of interest exists! Or at least the notion seems like bad business practice!
Erik on
23 Nov 2009 04:02 PM
Kathy Cummings already runs the MFAA SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!!!! As long as CBA has control over the MFAA, the MFAA is NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON.
MFAA represents the Banks not the LOAN WRITERS and unfortunately we have to cop it and waste our money on them. GET RID OF THEM ALL, WE DON''T NEED THEM and they only create more paperwork, more cost and have NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER. Kathy Cummings has no respect for loan writers and is just there to keep MFAA within the claws of the CBA. AFTER 3O YEARS IN THE FINANCE BROKING INDUSTRY, I don''t like to be told by CBA that I have to write a minimum amount of loans in order to stay accredited ! I thought that was why we had to join an Aggregator and loose more of our hard-earned money.
CK on
23 Nov 2009 04:39 PM
With impending Licencing, lets hope it''s the end of MFAA! They''re useless & unnecessary to any credible broker - bloody joke! I''m sick of all this beaurocratic/ political BS - can we just get on with doing what we love & do best - assisting our clients fund their goals. C''mon Lenders - see our point of view once in a while!
Concerned for Mike on
23 Nov 2009 06:00 PM
To Mike...surely you know there were only two bank reps last year on the MFAA Board out of 12 spots and now there is only one. There is one committee for lenders and two for Brokers. It''s easier to bag than support I guess.
Mr Pink on
23 Nov 2009 06:14 PM
The MFAA is an industry body, not a union.
An industry body without the input or support of the lenders will simply end up as a group of brokers standing on one side of the fence yelling at people on the other side.
In other words, a lot like this thread - lots of noise making everybody feel better but accomplishing bugger all.
Mr Pink on
23 Nov 2009 06:18 PM
The MFAA is an industry body, not a union.
Given the industry is made up of both brokers and lenders, any peak body has to involve both to work.
If you exclude the lenders all you will end up with is a bunch of people sitting on one side of the fence, furiously agreeing with each other whilst slagging off the people on the other side of the fence.
It would end up being a little like this thread; people blowing of steam, feeling better about it and accomplishing bugger all.
Last Chance on
23 Nov 2009 06:49 PM
I have been a broker for 23 years and left the MIAA to join FBAA about 10 years ago. I cannot see why brokers complain about MIAA. Everyone has known for years that it is really The Bankers Institute. Most (perhaps all) originators accept FBAA as an alternative to MIAA. FBAA is far from perfect but at least it is solely run by brokers for brokers. Have the initiative, energy and courage to buck the system and move away from MIAA it is the only way to fix the problem - thev FBAA is the first haven on stormy seas - move their now and watch it develop. 20 years ago the Insurance Broking industry was in disarray with 3 separated trade support groups these three groups merged to form NIBA and the Insurance Broking Industry never looked back. Fix it now before the new Act comes in.
Positive Broker on
24 Nov 2009 12:43 PM
Hey I agree the MFAA is far from perfect. But''s let''s get serious. If you feel that strongly about it get elected and and work from within to effect change!
Sarah Wells on
24 Nov 2009 02:56 PM
I urge any broker who is concerned for the future of our industry and they way in which the MFAA operates to do one of 2 things. Stand for election at the next round, and/or in the meantime join a committee or working party and create the change you crave. Is it easier to throw stones than it is to look under them for a solution?
GR4NT on
24 Nov 2009 04:27 PM
join the fbaa, it may not be perfect but at least they stand for brokers, you''d be fool to think the mfaa has a brokers interest at heart. its like putting kids in charge of the candy
Broker Watcher on
24 Nov 2009 06:17 PM
The FBAA is a circus.