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

Brokers' last stand: Aggregators to sell within 18 months

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 14 Mar 2012, 06:00 AM Agree 0
A number of the industry's remaining independent aggregators will sell within 18 months, according to AFG's Brett McKeon
  • ozboy | 14 Mar 2012, 09:05 AM Agree 0
    He said, she said, none of this helps anyone. At the end of the day businesses will change hands and sometimes it's good for their customers other times it's not. Life goes on.
  • BJ | 14 Mar 2012, 10:24 AM Agree 0
    Brett McKeon has concisely summarised the post GFC market. Where to from here? As he suggests, some further consolidation then we get to see what type of strategy pressure the major institutions attempt to impose on the channel. The 'damn it! I own it and it will do as it's told' approach, or the 'i will work with the customers (ie the Brokers)and get the best result' approach. Our major institutions can have a tendency to mix all of this up, despite their best intentions. Technology will be crucial, and AFG are well positioned there, as against some of the legacy system dilemmas others face in a consolidating market. Who runs a system where one set of inputs satisfies the multiple procedural responsibilities of Brokers?
  • Aydn O'Neill | 14 Mar 2012, 10:33 AM Agree 0
    Hopefully AFG and the small few remain independant of the banks. Can you imagine as a broker what the lending market landscape would look like if the banks had control over all of the aggregators. Scary prospect I think.
  • anon | 14 Mar 2012, 10:40 AM Agree 0
    I am a FAST broker not a NAB broker! I do not write NAB or Homeside business because I cant find a USP there nor the service I would expect.
  • Will-Perh | 14 Mar 2012, 11:42 AM Agree 0
    I wholly dissagree with the insinuation that simply because FAST is owned indirectly by NAB that it has an impact on the brokers decision. FALSE. It does not in any way shape or form.

    We are with FAST because they guarantee our trails !! Ownershiphas nothing to do wiht the decision to stay with them.
  • David | 14 Mar 2012, 12:09 PM Agree 0
    You only have to look as far as the Financial Planning world to see the influence Banks have on their subsidiary planning groups. I think it's a little nieve to believe that the Banks want to own aggregator groups for any other reason than to control and exploit another channel. The last thing they want to do is foster competition.
  • Stiffwilson | 14 Mar 2012, 01:02 PM Agree 0
    I don't believe any Lender purchases a share of a broker business to try and drive the brokers to sell more of their products. They buy because they are well run, profitable investments for them that enable a share of profit from the business they know they would not get. It means still making money from other Lenders market share.
  • David | 14 Mar 2012, 01:30 PM Agree 0
    The lenders have already shown their colours in the Financial Planning space where (generalisation alert) their own products are pushed ahead of anything else on their APL. I could be wrong but I think it's a reasonable assumption that they will do the same in our space given how hugely successful it has been for them with FP. I don't know, maybe it's just my cynical nature?
  • David | 14 Mar 2012, 01:34 PM Agree 0
    This is based on my own observations, but Aussie Brokers seem to consistantly recommend CBA. If any Aussie Brokers are willing to comment, are there any incentives for you guys to do this or are you automatically given diamond status?
  • Tom | 14 Mar 2012, 03:07 PM Agree 0
    I notice Macquarie bank is on the share register of AFG as well so I don't think these guys should get too cocky. Just because a bank has a share in your group it doesn't mean the broker walks to their beat..
  • Chris C | 14 Mar 2012, 03:45 PM Agree 0
    Banks should never be allowed to own an aggregator group or a broker group or what they in my opinion, misleadingly market as 'non bank lenders' eg Aussie, Rams & Homeside. They buy them for profit of course but also to take up more market share and control. The more control they have the less brokers do and this greatly reduces competition and if our Aggregators and MFAA & FBA werent such toothless tigers, they would be lobbying for this.
  • Steve McClure | 14 Mar 2012, 03:45 PM Agree 0
    No broker worth their salt would compromise their client by unduly favouring a lender for undisclosed benefit. However, with the disappointing development of lender ownership, we do not really know the deals done behind the scenes between the big guys making the big bucks. Aussie John was keen to play down the massive share (1/3rd is hardly a silent partner) of the CBA. Any ACL holder having an equity relationship with a lender should have to disclose the extent of ownership on advertising and credit guides. But, who is going to push that basic concept of transparency through Treasury to see it legislated?
  • Damien | 15 Mar 2012, 12:16 AM Agree 0
    Banks owing Aggregatots is a conflict of interest , simple as that.
  • Vt | 01 May 2013, 01:54 PM Agree 0
    Hi All, we are looking to purchase an existing broking, aggregation or mortgage management business, medium to large. Any suggestions how we could connect with possible sellers?
  • CharlieX | 30 Jan 2015, 11:31 PM Agree 0
    when banks owned aggregators, most likely the consumers will have fewer choices. soon we'll be back to square one, when it was the bank's way or the highway
  • Really? | 02 Feb 2015, 10:36 PM Agree 0
    AFG independence?

    Brett, don't get too cocky mate as AFG has had lenders such as Macquarie & Liberty on your register for way longer than any of the brokers you have mentioned, with Connective being the latest significant stake in the ground for Macquarie.

    In fact, outside of Smartline at this time, their isn't a m-a-j-o-r brokerage group that doesn't have a lender or real estate group on their on their register.

    Your discussion remains valid however should be focused on "broker behaviour" rather than the quantum of shareholding which is appropriate by any lender.
Post a reply