Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Broker demands 'frank conversation' about NCCP

Notify me of new replies via email
Julia Corderoy | 28 Jan 2016, 08:12 AM Agree 0
The former CEO of the Australian Institute of Professional Brokers has penned an open letter to the regulators, government and central bank demanding a “frank conversation” about the NCCP
  • L Best | 28 Jan 2016, 09:13 AM Agree 0
    I agree with the comments made - applicants/borrowers must also be accountable and responsible for their own decisions and regulators (and the politicians that wrote the bad law - the NCCP) should stop forcing lenders to be the regulator.

    Any loan decision should be shared - an equal responsibility for the decision to borrow and the decision to lend should be 50/50 between the parties. Not a decision that is borne 100% by the lender. We are dealing with adults that should understand and make informed decisions for themselves, with guidance from their legal and financial advisers.

    Also allowing, in hindsight, to decide a legally produced and executed contract can be changed/altered/amended arbitrarily by an external dispute resolution service (that is a misnomer if ever there was one) acting as an advocate for the borrower is also a travesty of any form of justice.

    Scrap the whole Act and start again and look for a measured an equal means to regulate.
  • James | 28 Jan 2016, 09:18 AM Agree 0
    If investment loan margins were increased to cool home price growth on the eastern seaboard, at what stage in the cycle will the margins be reduced? With Sydney house prices decreasing at the largest rate since 1993 now is the appropriate time. I applaud your efforts to balance the conversation.
  • Broker | 28 Jan 2016, 09:31 AM Agree 0
    Vote #1 - Maria to become the ASIC CEO.

    The noise that we all have to listen to from ASIC and APRA of late is too stupid to be true.

  • Warren Winters | 28 Jan 2016, 10:25 AM Agree 0
    Since Federation, the regulations APRA is forcing on Australians is more onerous than ever.

    Does APRA know something that the rest of Australia doesn't? Are we headed for a Depression worse than the 1930's?

    If we are, then APRA should be telling us that! If we aren't, then APRA should but out!

    So, what is it APRA? Depression or Repressions?
  • allan faint | 28 Jan 2016, 10:28 AM Agree 0
    All correct. Only ones who are benefiting from these changes are the lenders.

    How could any rational minded person think it is better for people to rent at ever increasing amounts, rather than have the opportunity to buy and make loan repayments, that even if the rate doubled would be cheaper than the current rent payments and far cheaper than what they will be in the future, especially when inflation is considered.
  • Reality | 28 Jan 2016, 11:44 AM Agree 0
    She's spot on again. It would be great if she would start up an alternative to the MFAA or seek to become its leader.

    Fact: ASIC & APRA go to the banks when they are looking for "what should we do to counter this..." etc - have that first hand from a Bank Compliance Manager.

    Hence products become more expensive for the consumer; the banks reap the increased profits; and the economy slows; as money is restricted for investors etc.

    The regulatory authorities also assume everyone is on wages & wanting to hold every property they purchase for 30 years, when making their decisions. A real lack of knowledge as to who makes up Australia's borrowing public.
  • Reality | 28 Jan 2016, 11:47 AM Agree 0
    If we attain one of these, it will be as a result of their interference in the free market.
  • Broke Broker | 28 Jan 2016, 11:52 AM Agree 0
    Well spoken Maria Rigoni. The MFAA & FBAA need to keep their members more in the loop about what action they have taken, if any, and not be silenced by so called 'regulators'.

    There is no balance where lenders can increase their profits from capital adequacy and investment lending changes brought on by the regulators. We may well end up with economic deflation, and with car manufacturing shedding 40,000 plus jobs later this year, pain and suffering will be on the hands of the regulators.
  • Mel | 28 Jan 2016, 01:00 PM Agree 0
    Don't always agree with Maria but I do in this instance. If a client intends to pay off their home loan before their investment loan, that's just common sense and is responding to current taxation law. If you don't like it, change the law.

    Lenders have gone on a massive money grab through increasing existing investment loan rates for no good reason. It's not as if many people will be selling their investment property because rates increased so increased rates should only have applied to new investment loans if APRA actually want to rein in investment lending. No-one has given any good reason for existing loan rates to increase...
  • Stephen Dinte | 28 Jan 2016, 01:55 PM Agree 0
    As always Maria, your comments are well thought out and enunciated.

    I would hope and pray that both Siobhan and Peter (MFAA & FBAA) take these issues on board and work with our regulators to resolve what is a real problem.

    It is true to say that not all borrowers are financially savvy, but that does not mean that those who are should be hindered from achieving their goals and objectives.

    I fail to see in my everyday activities as an ACL holder how the NCCP is beneficial to the majority of my clients.
    Certainly I am not alone, as similar comments are voiced regularly at meetings by experienced and professional brokers.
  • Macca | 01 Feb 2016, 01:10 PM Agree 0
    All that red tape and it has had no ascertainable benefit for the consumer. At the end of the day the lenders make their policies the rest is BS.
  • | 03 Feb 2016, 12:13 PM Agree 0
    Maria, the NCCP Act & responsible lending accommodates the ability to do interest only owner occupied loans - I had one approved last week. It just takes an explanation and mitigants etc., but a number of lenders will.

    It's more the interpretation by lenders (and us brokers as well) that needs examination. APRA's influence certainly needs greater explanation. However, the legislation is not going to go away or be radically altered by The Treasury. Recently, it was only due to the NCCP Act that BMW Finance was able to be penalised for over-committing consumers with unreasonable terms, leading to repossessions. There is a committee that I've made submissions to that considers changes to the legislation. But, I doubt they are going to "throw it out" or change it because you can't get a certain loan approved, or that lenders are misinterpreting.
Post a reply