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

Higher broker education unnecessary: MKM

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 23 Apr 2012, 04:00 AM Agree 0
Mortgage brokers do not require higher education, according MKM Capital's Michael Watson
  • Country Broker | 23 Apr 2012, 10:29 AM Agree 0
    Thses comments are absolutley on the mark , tghe national board of the MFAA NEED TO take the comments on board. If the MFAA do notthink 3 diplomas is enough , I will gladly look at the MFAA !!!!
  • Michael Maher - Fair Go Finance | 23 Apr 2012, 12:38 PM Agree 0
    Wise words Michael,

    The focus on education has gone totally overboard. This has been very distracting for industry participants and mainly driven by the MFAA, a major bank and a mortgage aggregator. Neither of which should be leading the way or be involved in regulation at any level.

    I strongly believe in a combination of both theory and practice. The regulatory environment ensures a certain education level has been achieved. The necessary experience and business processes must be in place in order to obtain a licence or be appointed as a representative.

    Holding an Australian Credit Licence (as a credit provider or credit assistance provider) ensures that the lender/broker has satisfied the requirements to operate within the segment. The ongoing compliance regime ensures brokers are always improving them selves and their business practices. Brokers invest heavily in themselves and their business and the benefits are felt by the consumers that use their services.

    We need an environment led by the MFAA that promotes the industry to flourish as well as encourage the introduction of new blood. It is well known that there is already plenty of 'experience' in the industry, we now need to leverage this. This will not be achieved by promoting greater education standards on those that have worked so hard to give consumers a FAIR GO.
  • Terry | 23 Apr 2012, 12:46 PM Agree 0
    Couldn't agree more with Michael Watson,I have my diploma to write a mortgage and having to have the diploma to enable me to write a home loan is way over the top. let me put it in perspective. I currently hold a Diploma in Financial Planning and am currenly doing the Advanced Diploma. I am also studying Property Law and Macquarie University. These 2 areas of expertise do require a high level of education without a doubt due the the nature of the advice being given, but to place writing a home loan on the level as the other qualifications is a big stretch. Im not saying that mortgage broking isn't a profession in its own right, I'm just saying its not necessary for the scope of advice being provided. In most cases it should only require a one interview appointment which isn't the case due to the overwhelming paperwork required with legislation in its current form. at the end of the day we determine the afordablity and the loan product that will meet the clients needs and objectives, write the loan and lodge the deal to the appropriate lender. thats is simple.
  • ozboy | 23 Apr 2012, 12:55 PM Agree 0
    I agree great comment. I think we all need to layoff the MFAA, we are all aware that they are fading rapidly from the changing landscape and education is how they want to differentiate themselves. It's a shame that it won't work and if anything they are going to make themselves less relevant moving forward especially with brokers. How many lender rep's, aggregator bdm's etc will have a diploma and still be members?
  • Garry | 23 Apr 2012, 01:03 PM Agree 0
    Absolutely agree with these comments. I ahve been in this industry for 15 yrs and now I am regarded as uneducated becasue I dont have a particulay piece of paper to say I have a diploma. Its an absolute joke. The MFAA are simply trying to justify their existence.
    Unfortnately the MFAA wont take these comments on board because they are too arrogant and self righteous.
  • Andrew Hetherington, Intellitrain P/L | 23 Apr 2012, 02:26 PM Agree 0
    Without entering into the higher education debate, and at the risk of being accused of trying to sell something, I did want to respond to Michael’s query as to who learnt anything from the Cert IV. I have personally dealt with hundreds of people who learnt tremendous amounts, noting most of them were the people the Cert IV is designed for i.e. new entrants or inexperienced practitioners. If experienced practitioners found the Cert IV a challenge it would actually be reason for concern as it is not designed for them. This is why most experienced practitioners attained their Cert IV via Recognition of Prior Learning. When using RPL, by definition, you are not expected to learn anything. All you are doing with RPL is demonstrating what you already know, for which formal recognition is granted via the issuance of a qualification.

    In relation to training companies (OK now I am selling), it is also worth noting that they are not all the same. Some, like Intellitrain, genuinely seek to provide a high quality educational experience. Indeed we are so confident in our course we offer a money back guarantee.
  • Damien | 23 Apr 2012, 09:04 PM Agree 0
    From memory I think I did my Certificate 4 in about 2008, did I learn anything?
    (after 6 years in the industry) quite possibly, I did.

    I then did my Diploma in January 2012, did I learn anything then?
    No. But, what I learnt was how to hand over $700, to waste a full day, and learn NOTHING in return.

    I am sure many others feel the same, so perhaps the Diploma actually needs to include some meaningful content, instead of wasting time filling in manual application forms etc, what next? , how to use a scientific calculator perhaps!
  • Damien | 23 Apr 2012, 09:09 PM Agree 0
    And one has to wonder what the next " fad" will be once this issue has passed us by!!!
  • Andrew Hetherington, Intellitrain P/L | 24 Apr 2012, 11:19 AM Agree 0
    A one day diploma upgrade - that is a disgrace and certainly explains why Damien didnt have the opportunity to learn anything. That "course" had nothing to do with education and everything to do with swapping $700 for a piece of paper.

    There is certainly some nonsense content in many cert's/dip, but there is also plenty of great content as well (but only if the training provider bothers to cover it). Again all I can say there is not all providers are the same. Before you enrol in any course you should sample the material first and also demand a money back guarantee.
  • John Black | 27 Apr 2012, 09:18 AM Agree 0
    What an absolutely ridiculous statement. Everyone in every profession needs learning and it needs to be ongoing. The world including business is a dynamic environment and the way business is transacted is changing constantly. If people are to have the ability to deliver top shelf service and relevant advice to their clients then first and foremost they require knowledge that is both academic and experiential. Once again what a stupid statement. Learning as those who partake in it makes us realise the more we learn the less we actually know and that what drives the learning process.
Post a reply