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

'Fat lady sings' as exit fee ban approved

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 23 Jun 2011, 06:15 AM Agree 0
The government's ban on exit fees will remain in place for 1 July, after a motion to overturn the ban in the Senate failed to pass yesterday
  • Broker | 22 Jun 2011, 12:26 PM Agree 0
    Everything the Labor government touches they stuff up. The Labor government could not even run a chook raffle. I hope the Australian's who voted for Labor realise how much of a mistake they made. Let's see what the next mistake they make is......
  • Lillianna | 22 Jun 2011, 05:57 PM Agree 0
    Once again, proof that the MFAA doesn't have as much power as they would like us to think. And their value is................?
  • Small Lender | 22 Jun 2011, 06:53 PM Agree 0
    Thanks Gov, for helping the Major Banks increase their monopoly on our Industry. The only ones that will really hurt here are the borrowers. Note to brokers, for goodness sake BAND together and become a REAL force. You're going to have to work VERY hard to keep your commissions and not move to a fee for service model. Next time a lender brings it up......shut em up! Because YOUR next!
  • James Santo | 22 Jun 2011, 08:47 PM Agree 0
    This is great news. Well done to the Senate. The 1.4% jockeys with huge commissions funded by out of step derfs and defs are finally dead. You little beauty.
  • sidbroker | 23 Jun 2011, 09:50 AM Agree 0
    to James santo, WOW you obviously don`t have a clue.
  • sidbroker | 23 Jun 2011, 09:58 AM Agree 0
    To Broker, I agree, i don`t think Swan and his buddies would be capable of running a chook raffle much less the nation. I sometimes wonder what people are thinking about when they vote labor. Historically they bring the country to it`s knee`s again and again and still some people still can`t see that witout a strong nation financially especially with our high overheads that sooner or latter they wont have a job because the businesses they work for will go out of busines and indirectly it will be their own fault. We need self made people like Malcolm Turnbull or Peter Costello to get us back on track. Sometimes we may not like the medicine but we know it is good for us.
  • Broker | 23 Jun 2011, 12:28 PM Agree 0
    Enough exposure of Phil's Head already!
  • Daniel Son | 23 Jun 2011, 12:35 PM Agree 0
    A slow and painful death awaits. Bye Bye brokers!
  • wayne | 23 Jun 2011, 12:41 PM Agree 0
    To sidbroker and Broker - I agree, I think the governmet got this wrong. But think about the comments below - all Liberal policy:
    Is it economically rational to ignore the rapid diminution of mining sub-soil assets? Is it wrong to leave something for the future generations? Should government be concerned with regional development or just let the market decide based on short-term cash-flow? These are legitimate questions that cannot be easily dismissed.

    Singapore has a per capita GDP (purchasing power parity basis) that is a remarkable 46% higher than Australia’s. All this from a nation with zero natural resources and negligible arable land. The Singapore government is very open about this success. The government has successfully targeted high-tech design and manufacturing industries and global services industries. This has come from an economic planning framework that actively targets highly skilled, innovation driven industries rather than sitting on its hands, passively allowing other nations to build competitive economic advantage in these industries. This is not the same as poorly targeted cash hand-outs to the corporate sector that characterise Australian industry policy.

    Other successful nations that have also followed Singpore’s economic growth model include industrial powerhouses such as Germany, South Korea, Taiwan and Switzerland. All of these countries have huge current account surpluses. Korea has built no less than 5 multinational industrial conglomerates in just one generation and is the only nation to quadruple real income every decade for 4 decades. Australia does not have even 1 comparable industrial conglomerate, despite needing to fill its large yawning serial current account deficits that is forcing the nation deeper into debt. So much for the Clever Country. Maybe we could learn from their policies.
  • Keith Bridges | 23 Jun 2011, 12:46 PM Agree 0
    Another disgraceful decison! And here Phil Naylor at MFAA Conference talking up the chances of having his decision reversed!. Obviously our governing body is not as well connected as they have past indicated.
  • James Santo | 23 Jun 2011, 01:44 PM Agree 0
    Look at all the whining. Its about time you guys provided some value and not just lined your pockets to the detriment and financial penalty of your clients. Provide some value.
  • Broker | 23 Jun 2011, 01:57 PM Agree 0
    Keith, the only thing that the MFAA (our governing body, and I use that term very loosely!) is connected to, is the fees that their members pay them, so long as you expect nothing beneficial to come out of the MFAA , you will never be disappointed. Personally speaking, I find the MFAA as a waste of space.

    And Jim, you keep trotting out this 1.4% figure, please do tell which lenders offers this as an upfront commission, as no lenders on my exhaustive panel do!
  • James Santo | 23 Jun 2011, 02:14 PM Agree 0
    All the managers have 1.4% upfront in their offerings. You as the broker only receive 1% max as they clip the .4% at the borrowers expense. You are obviously new to the industry if you dont know this. Most also clip ten poins of trail in addition to the upfront.
  • Peter White - FBAA | 23 Jun 2011, 02:49 PM Agree 0
    If 'one' was close to the Senate Inquiry (which they FBAA certainly is and at the top level), 'one' would have known from the outset that this was highly unlikely to get passed this time around, albeit the vote suprisingly very close. The only way this will change is via a change in Goverment. Also if "Your Governing Body" isnt working for you then change it. Please note that an 'Assocation' is not the governing body to the whole indsutry, just its members.
  • positivebroker | 23 Jun 2011, 02:52 PM Agree 0
    James, you obviously know the subsidy system. Explain what is wrong with a 1.4% subsidy if the mortgage manager and the broker get a sustainable commission and the customer gets a rate better than most banks? Am I missing something? How is making life harder non banks good for competetition? About time you looked at the big picture James.
  • TC | 23 Jun 2011, 03:04 PM Agree 0
    This issue was the final nail for me to leave the industry 3 months ago. Thanks for your help Labor Party, there's barely an portion of my life you havent made worse in the last 4 years
  • Dasher | 23 Jun 2011, 03:17 PM Agree 0
    Phil Naylor (MFAA) can you explain your reference to the female gender and her physique - surely you could have used some other reference.
  • Shawn | 23 Jun 2011, 03:19 PM Agree 0
    James - it appears from your comments that you may have had a poor experience with a broker or at least believe you did.

    There are many second tier lenders that will not be able remain competitive with the Major banks funding power. As a result the Majors will continue to grow and the Interest Rate margins from the early 90's will return (not much good for all consumers).

    It will also likely see the end of Honeymoon rates and the start of larger upfront costs.

    As long as the DEF's were outlined upfront to any client they have the choice to take the facility or not.

    Many of the largest DEF's were generated by the non-conforming sector for clients who were unble to get finance thru a major - likelihood will be that instead of charging the fee at the end it will charged upfront or loaded on the rate for these clients.

    Any overall reduction in competition is not good for any of us - brokers and clients alike.

    I too would like to know where the 1.4% is because I am missing out bigtime.
  • James Santo | 23 Jun 2011, 03:45 PM Agree 0
    Get the violins out. The brokers that want there clients to be penalised for having flexibility and choice still fill this site with their diatribe and rubbish.
  • Shawn | 23 Jun 2011, 04:37 PM Agree 0
    James - the only real diatribe is coming from one person.
  • Keith Bridges | 23 Jun 2011, 04:38 PM Agree 0
    James Santo you are an idiot of great proportions. We as licenced brokers must always look after our customers' no question, but when political agendas enter a business arena everyone loses and that includes you. The only industries stong enough to stand up to this would be government (and won) has been Banking (majors) and Mining due to their power and the tax revenue that they generate. Others like us may just fall by the wayside,and that my learned colleague kills competition and once again the customer loses choice, something that we as brokers add to the service propositon in case it had slipped your mind.
  • sidbroker | 23 Jun 2011, 07:42 PM Agree 0
    james santo, Well it looks like the concensus is that you are an idiot. perhaps you should now go and fiddle with your violin. Good Bye James.
  • positivebroker | 24 Jun 2011, 12:16 PM Agree 0
    In hindsight we probably shouldn't dignify james santo's remarks with a response.
  • sidbroker | 24 Jun 2011, 12:23 PM Agree 0
    To Positive Broker, yes i agree with you normally that is but sometimes we should make exceptions.
Post a reply