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

What's the biggest challenge facing mortgage broking? Lenders discuss

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 11 Mar 2014, 08:25 AM Agree 0
Industry leaders got together to discuss the woes of the mortgage broking world. Find out what the biggest problem is.
  • Barney | 11 Mar 2014, 09:13 AM Agree 0
    Blah blah blah. Give us our 0.25% trail back. That will fix an awful lot. More income enables brokers to reinvest back into their business to grow volumes and support in all areas - including compliance. The argument that the banks can't afford it is getting a little stale.
  • SIDBROKER | 11 Mar 2014, 09:17 AM Agree 0
    Simple. Get rid of NCCCP, ASIC and AGREGATORS(Allegators) and MFAA.
  • Ted | 11 Mar 2014, 10:23 AM Agree 0
    I agree with Barney. low trails and low up front comms, combine this with the banning of DEF's and you have created an environment that promotes very regular client mortgage reviews.
    Not what the banks want but they have created the environment for pro active mortgage broking to flourish.
  • QAL | 11 Mar 2014, 10:54 AM Agree 0
    Agree with Barney. The banks continually cry "we absorb the costs". Hello? And what do you think the brokers do? We absorb many costs as well. Commissions have been cut, compliance costs are up and clawbacks (due to lost business which is not our fault) on work already done.
  • BRIAN BROKER | 11 Mar 2014, 11:45 AM Agree 0
    Don't the big banks get it? Proping up local branches employing "experts" who offer home loan products doesn't work. They collect a salary plus a bonus plus SUPER and in some cases a company car. Brokers cost them nothing except commission which is paid a long time after the deal is done. The winners will be the banks who reduce these overheads and pay the brokers better commissions - bring it on! Perhaps the reduction in costs could be put towards a better deal available through the brokers instead of through the banks employees?
  • BRIAN BROKER | 11 Mar 2014, 11:48 AM Agree 0
    The best thing that could happen to the broking industry is to cut out the "middle man". I mean aggregators. Why doesn't the FBAA and MFA become the aggregator to it's members therefor becoming self sufficient and being able to return surplus funds to it's members? Sorry if that's too radical.
  • SteveL | 11 Mar 2014, 12:00 PM Agree 0
    Why would you ask the lenders this question? Or Aggrevators for this matter? Survey the brokers and get the REAL results. Honestly, Lenders especially have NFI!
  • Giles | 11 Mar 2014, 12:35 PM Agree 0
    Our regulations pre GFC worked just fine (learned from Aust early 90's credit crisis). Why all this over regulation now. Just politicians and bureaucrats fixing something that wasn't broken. I hear that the USA have gone back to their evil unregulated ways in offering credit. It's always the same old bad guys that avoid regulation, and the good guys paying for it again and again to make the govt look like it is doing something.
  • BRIAN BROKER | 11 Mar 2014, 12:41 PM Agree 0
    IS THE REASON WHY THE FBAA AND MFA AREN'T ACTING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR MEMBERS THAT THEY ARE SCARED OF LOSING INCOME FROM THE AGGREGATORS AND BANKS? WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO START WORKING ON BEHALF OF THEIR MEMBERS?
  • oldBroker | 11 Mar 2014, 01:11 PM Agree 0
    @BRIAN BROKER. 100% agree about getting rid of the aggregators. I shake my head at the fact that they 'earn' 20% of a broker's commissions by setting-up lender PD days and dividing-up the commission. The majority do not supply leads or barely, the software they provide is the largest deterrent for brokers leaving their aggregator and the largest source of broker dissatisfaction (MPA poll), and their compliancy docs/processes are useless for ACL brokers.
    2 things need to happen:
    1) The current aggregator/lender contractual relationship needs to be superceded by a ACL/lender contractual relationship. NCCP and its associated licensing mandates this change. The ACL needs to 'own' the loans as NCCP dictates the ACL is the party responsible for the product sourcing and compliancy of the entire client process. This, in itself, would completely negate any trail portability and lender re-accreditation issues.
    2) Clawbacks need to be challenged in court. We cannot be the only professionals to pay-back the lender on early discharge. We supplied the service and if Joe Public decides to move 2 months later is outside our scope of responsibility. Does the valuer return their fees? Once the clawback issue is resolved, the lender can pay the ACL directly.
    The MFAA, as an industry organisation, should be leading these 2 issues. The current system is flawed and inefficient.
  • BRIAN BROKER | 11 Mar 2014, 01:36 PM Agree 0
    COMMENTS PLEASE FROM FBAA AND MFA!
  • Tim H | 12 Mar 2014, 10:32 AM Agree 0
    The fact Matt Lawler of YBR states one of the two major problems is brokers writing with lenders due to incentives shows he is out of touch with the brokers at the coalface. At all broker forums I have attended over recent years and in this and other on-line forums the brokers who are dealing with clients on a daily basis state that they are looking after the clients needs first.
    Brian Broker and Old broker you are spot on about Aggregators. A blight on our industry adding little value to the broker on the street.
Post a reply