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

Poll: Advise the ACCC on making MFAA mandatory

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 13 Dec 2011, 12:00 AM Agree 0
Brokers are split on the issue of compulsory MFAA membership, according to the Australian BrokerNews poll. Have you had your say?
  • PC | 30 Nov 2011, 11:18 AM Agree 0
    NO.It should be the brokers choice as to which Association they join.
  • Rick V | 30 Nov 2011, 11:20 AM Agree 0
    As there are now licences there is no need to have mandatory MFAA membership, and lets face it there is almost no need for the MFAA full stop.
    This is a breach of ACCC laws and any lender requiring mandatory MFAA membership should be slapped on the wrist or prossecuted under the act. The MFAA is no longer necessary they pushed for licencing they got it, now they are irrelevant, not that they were very relevant in the first place.
  • Wayne | 30 Nov 2011, 12:41 PM Agree 0
    No, it's "third line forcing". As a licensed broker it should be my right to chose my representative body and not have a lender choose for me. If the lenders want to put minimum standards in place for education and PD then that's fine but not "third line forcing".
  • Country Broker | 30 Nov 2011, 02:05 PM Agree 0
    I believe that cumpulsory membership requirments is just not on. If you are licenced you should not need to belong to the MFAA. I will stay a member even though I have a full licence , basically the MFAA have done a very good job particulary in regards to the NCCP. My problem is it is CUMPULSORY to be a member even though I have a licence , the ACCC needs to look at the lenders and aggregators very carefully. I have a membership of COSL and a full licence , that should be enough.
  • James Perth | 01 Dec 2011, 10:39 AM Agree 0
    I agree too, that it should not be compulsory to be a member of either governing body. The UK has had regulation for years and never have brokers had to be members of such organizations, in fact pretty sure they don't exist
  • Ray | 01 Dec 2011, 10:50 AM Agree 0
    Definitley not. I can't believe this has been allowed at all. I would have thought it would breach the trade practices act.
  • ozboy | 01 Dec 2011, 10:55 AM Agree 0
    Any aggregators care to have a say, most of them have forced membership as well. Mmmm silence.
  • Gary Lee | 01 Dec 2011, 11:12 AM Agree 0
    No.I agree with other comments, the MFAA is powerless even more now and it would only the executive of the MFAA pushing this barrow now as they can see themselves becoming extinct.
  • Lynne Cox | 01 Dec 2011, 11:16 AM Agree 0
  • VB Member | 01 Dec 2011, 11:16 AM Agree 0
    Guys, do you really think lenders will allow for a lessening of so called professional standards-ASIC does not care about the industry they are the consumer watchdog & will never be a representative for Brokers. Aggregation came about due to banks not wanting to deal with indvidual brokers of varying kinds. It's like a security blanket to the lender, if another body rises from the ashes it will be like the Accounting Industry CPA or Chartered. I suggest it be voluntary but the banks wont change their minimum requirements and this will allow for differentiation in the market place. We need a body representing Brokers but not lenders as there are too many conflicts of interest between brokers and lenders. We need to be able to speak out against the banks without fear or favour through an independent body.
  • Roberta | 01 Dec 2011, 11:21 AM Agree 0
    Like the REIA (Real Estate Institute of Aust) the MFAA is just another useless toothless tiger that makes a lot of noise about it's achievements for 'us' and spends our ever increasing annual membership fees on glossy magazines and lots of expensive lunches for the executive. It's use by date has come and gone, time to re-define the real needs of Brokers and have a very much more cost effective, pro active representative body. It should NOT be compulsory to join and I imagine many would drop out, given the choice.
  • Steve | 01 Dec 2011, 11:52 AM Agree 0
    I have recently asked the question of many of the main lending institutions their requirements to be a member of the MFAA or the FBAA. All have confirmed that they are happy with the MFAA or the FBAA . From an aggregators perspective the MFAA have done a mountain of work with the NCCP and have made it easier to be compliant.Whilst we make it mandatory to be a member of an industry body I can see this changing and not be a requirement. Personally I would like my members to continue their membership , albeit not under pressure .
  • Say NO to compulsory membership | 01 Dec 2011, 12:02 PM Agree 0
    There is no justification for compulsory membership of the MFAA. It has no public benefit and at times confuses the Brokers by making its own rules outside of the ASIC (legal) requirements. Brokers should only have to serve one master - the Regulator. Until this issue is resolved, professionalism is at risk. Brokers now have the opportunity to be heard and should make their voice heard at ACCC.
  • Michael - East Brighton | 02 Dec 2011, 11:07 AM Agree 0
    I think membership of a professional body should be compulsory, as it is with accountants, lawyers, estate agents, etc but they should have a choice with regard to which one the belong to. Having said that, I'm an MFAA member and see the FBAA as almost an after-thought. They have a very small membership and lower standards than the MFAA. The challenge for the FBAA is to make themselves more relevant.
  • Paul Tame | 02 Dec 2011, 01:46 PM Agree 0
    Industry bodies - yes.
    Forced membership - no.
    Licensing - Hmmm.
  • alex | 05 Dec 2011, 10:01 AM Agree 0
    both the FBAA and MFAA don't do much at all for brokers and no one should be able to tell us which one to be a member
  • Franko | 05 Dec 2011, 12:23 PM Agree 0
  • Peter White - National President FBAA | 06 Dec 2011, 10:56 AM Agree 0
    To Micheal of East Brighton. Micheal freedom of speach is a wonderful thing but uninformed comments shows a lack of true knowledge. The FBAA standards are not lower than the MFAA and we are more relevant as an association that actually represents brokers as we are run by brokers and not banks. That being said mandatory association membership should not be allowed, freedom of choice is everyone's right.
  • Mike Rule | 06 Dec 2011, 11:22 AM Agree 0
    No not in favour...until MFAA has the Lenders have their own lending staff as members its a double standard....
  • Roberta | 06 Dec 2011, 01:54 PM Agree 0
    Strange that probably 90+% of those making a comment say NO to complusory membership but the so called 'pole' say only 26% say no. Are the 71% who say 'baa' sorry yes, unable to comment on why it should be compulsory or are they just sooo happy to fork out $400 to $500 a year for not much at all. Maybe it's just MFAA people clicking yes for whatever reasons.
  • Peter Argeetes | 06 Dec 2011, 03:39 PM Agree 0
    Diploma upgrade is part od MFAA/Agreegator requirement, but FBAA does not require this requirement, why? It should be a requirement for all or none at all.
  • Sally | 07 Dec 2011, 01:37 AM Agree 0
    MFAA made the requirement for its members to have Diploma standard so they could say their members are of a higher standard than the ASIC required CERT IV...after they consulted with ASIC and said that CERT IV was a suitable standard. It is a marketing ploy and also a money maker for them. The MFAA think or act like they think their members are stupid, don't they know we can see straight through their tactics?
  • chris | 07 Dec 2011, 10:34 AM Agree 0
    should not be mandatory if you hold an ACL from ASIC
  • Peter | 07 Dec 2011, 10:35 AM Agree 0
    Why isn't ASIC running such a survey amongst ACL holders? Surely it would make more sense than MFAA who, one could argue have a vested interest in the result and therefore should be separate from the polling mechanism.
  • Rachael | 07 Dec 2011, 10:50 AM Agree 0
    MFAA Membership - reminds me of the old Janet Jackson song "What have you done for me lately"?

  • Duncan | 07 Dec 2011, 11:53 AM Agree 0
    No let us all just stay as fully independant brokers with little or no representation
    If you wanted to make a change in the industry or have a say in how laws governing our behaviour would be framed and there was no MFAA/FBAA then who would represent your individual interest. Like most brokers you would say and do nothing except moan and complain when chnages came without consultation.
    Whatever they are professional bodies add to the voice and were effective in the lessening of regulations which would have been similar to FSRA applied to financial planners some years ago without constant communication with both sides of politics over the 2-3 myears prior to intorduction of NCCP. However none of these things should be compulsory but then neither should lenders attepmts to force a certain number of applications per year to keep accreditations. Neither should lenders just be able to change commissions and reduce them whilst increasing the claw back provisions etc etc etc
    We live in a real world where everyone looks after their own interests.
    If you want the MFAA/FBAA to do something for you remeber it is your organisation consiting of at least 70% broker representation per the charter or constitution. Stand for election and make the changes you want.
    In other words put up or shut up
  • John Robbo | 08 Dec 2011, 10:27 AM Agree 0
    Most brokers want mandatory MFAA membership???? are you guys on drugs? Next to no one wants mandatory MFAA membership - so why does it appear that Broker News is pushing this barrow? If you read these comments and comments in your previous articles it would be blatantly clear that the overwhelming majority of brokers are against it. I think that the most common thread (and the one I agree with) is that mandatory membership to a professional body is fine. But enforcing that that body be a commercial enterprise owned by a bank that does not represent our specific industry (such as the MFAA) is unacceptable. It is not as though the MFAA is a government body. They are owned & controlled by a bank - and we all know that banks are trying to squeeze brokers and their commissions out. They could NEVER represent us fairly & if they were the inly mandatory body - then they would have too much influence & we all know that the banks are only interested in protecting their shareholders and profits. It is a disgraceful idea.
  • Andrew | 08 Dec 2011, 10:50 AM Agree 0
    You bunch of whingers don't know what the MFAA does. If they were gone you'd be crying to your aggregators or lenders.
    MFAA is run on a tight budget by people who could probably make a lot more being brokers or working for banks. I have no problem paying the $500 per year. This industry is not mature yet. One day OUR industry associations will matter more so support them, don't trash them. And I'm a broker btw (not part of MFAA)
  • Melbroker | 08 Dec 2011, 11:20 AM Agree 0
    Hmm.. very strange that the poll says one thing and this forum tells a completely different story.
    I also believe that membership should be by choice and have sent an email to ACCC advising so. If you want to have a say, send an email to ''. Currently ING is the only lender that has lodged an advice that they will require introducers to 'undertake MFAA' training. Here's the subject line to put in your email: ING Bank (Australia) Limited - Notification - N93186.
  • Tony from Brisbane | 08 Dec 2011, 01:33 PM Agree 0
    Absolutely NO. I agree with the other comments made in the negative to this question. I have been in his industry for 11 years and often ask what does the MFAA do for brokers? We know they do a lot for the majors.
  • Gary | 08 Dec 2011, 02:42 PM Agree 0
  • Jeff | 08 Dec 2011, 05:35 PM Agree 0
    Let’s all stop and think here, life is all about choices and yes there are many more Associations than the MFAA and FBAA catering to the needs of Mortgage and or Finance Professional Brokers and there are many variances and requirements of both those professions. Hence no one association caters to meet everyone’s particular finance professional requirements. To make it compulsory for just one association shows a lack of true understanding of the Finance Industries needs and requirements overall.
  • sidbroker | 08 Dec 2011, 08:35 PM Agree 0
  • Don Wauchope | 09 Dec 2011, 04:03 AM Agree 0
    I feel that the requirement for brokers "TO BELONG" to the MFAA to be able to operate as brokers is restrictive at the best of times.I have been involved in the Finance industry for some 45 years and find it ludicrous that for me to be able to ply my trade i must belong to an organization which has been in existance less than half my time of involvement.
  • Mary K | 09 Dec 2011, 09:17 AM Agree 0
    What happened to freedom of choice? It should absolutely not be compulsory. There should be enough of a service offering for brokers to WANT to be a member, not forced to be.
  • ChrisC | 09 Dec 2011, 10:49 AM Agree 0
    NO - MFAA is just another toothless tiger in prior years of no ruling body - if we now have ASIC and APRA on board, MFAA can fall by the way buit this would put more onus on the aggregators to stand up. These would prove to be more mouths to lobby government than just one or two in MFAA and FBAA and reduce the number of fees for the sake of beauacracy.
  • PaulC | 09 Dec 2011, 11:32 AM Agree 0
  • Brad Q | 12 Dec 2011, 10:18 AM Agree 0
    It appears that someone at the MFAA has logged on and answered the poll question as many times as they can. It appears that everyone comenting doesnt want MFAA membeship to be compulsory ... and that should be so... a lender shouldnt be able to say you MUST join MFAA to write our loans.
  • Bnebroker | 12 Dec 2011, 11:57 AM Agree 0
    MFAA should be replaced by ASIC. Too many chiefs & unnecessary costs!
  • Jim from Perth | 12 Dec 2011, 12:01 PM Agree 0
    The MFAA does a good job, But should never be made compulsory.
    It has a conflict in that it represents both Banks and Brokers, Brokers need and deserve an organisation that represents Brokers alone. Banks have their own organisation.
  • Adam O | 12 Dec 2011, 12:21 PM Agree 0
    No. This should be the brokers personal choice.
    The fact that ASIC is overseeing the industry now should be more than enough.
  • John | 12 Dec 2011, 12:38 PM Agree 0
    MFAA has always been irrelevant and more so now. WE NEED A TRADE UNION representing brokers to stand up for us, not aggregators , not the industry bodies and fight for US for a better go with the banks.
  • Peter Nott | 13 Dec 2011, 10:25 AM Agree 0
    No, it's third party forcing in my view. MFAA is now adding additional work to an already onerous load created by NCCP. A recent example: I recently upgraded my Cert IV in Mortgage Broking to Diploma level and despite the course being nationally accredited with all the government rules, MFAA made me do an additional exam to prove to them I was suitably qualified! They argue that this is because MFAA hasn't accredited the training provider, which presumes their accreditation is better.higher than the government's which is pure nonesense! With ACL, membership of a prefessional body should be optional.
  • Bruno | 13 Dec 2011, 11:22 AM Agree 0
    I think it's important to beleive in what the MFAA offers brokers. By the way, I also belive in the took fairy and Santa Clause.
  • sidbroker | 13 Dec 2011, 02:09 PM Agree 0
  • Ross Tranchita | 13 Dec 2011, 03:29 PM Agree 0
    why do we need to watch dogs? It should be freedom of choice.
  • Broker | 13 Dec 2011, 09:28 PM Agree 0
    Perhaps the MFAA could come out and remind us Brokers what it is they allegedly do FOR THEIR BROKER MEMBERS, of which I am not one.

    I just tried to log on to their website to review their core values dribble and it was” offline”, the MFAA going permanently “offline” would be a much better result.
  • ozboy | 14 Dec 2011, 11:21 AM Agree 0
    I think one thing may have been forgotten in all of this, I don't think the MFAA made it compulsory to belong to them (sure they haven't pushed back but would you in their position?) perhaps our frustration should be pointed towards the lenders and aggregators who require we be a member.
Post a reply