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

Poll: Is the industry falling behind on tech?

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 01 Jun 2011, 03:30 AM Agree 0
Are lenders and aggregators behind the times in adapting to new technology?
  • William Chen | 02 Feb 2011, 11:35 AM Agree 0
    I think the application fee that lenders charge, should be reimburse to brokers, instead of charging customers. As we do have salary base like the Banks' lenders do. Since the lenders had cut our trailer, and at the same time our aggregator has not drop its fees, leaving the broker in a difficult self reliance situation.
  • bcoombs | 04 Feb 2011, 02:36 PM Agree 0
    There seems to be a lot of debate about how to charge a fee when the client can go to the Bank Direct. You can expect as soon as we charge fee for service multi million dollar advertising by our'friends' come to us direct we are free! The only way to do fee for service is to commission free discounted rates from a non bank lender and to value add. - budgeting, property investment building etc.
  • Silent Broker | 21 Feb 2011, 01:09 PM Agree 0
    It is funny to note that the brokers who diversify their services are also posing a threat to the bank's finacial planners, too!I was talking to one of a well known bank's financial planner not long agao and she complained about the brokers'involment in the insurance & financial planning.So, I personally shoulkdn't inclined to worry about that.The more time they spend on lending the less time they will have for their financial planning business!
  • Spinner | 24 Feb 2011, 10:49 PM Agree 0
    While ever the gravy train favours planners by several fold they will never be a threat. Plus its not what they do. Bit like a broker trying to be a conveyencer as well just because. Good luck, love to come up against a planner - schools in and its lesson time. I just might take the planning business off them too!
  • positivebroker | 03 Mar 2011, 08:22 AM Agree 0
    Banning exit fees could prove to be a disaster for competition. The lenders most hurt by this ban will be the second tier and the mortgage managers. The very people who can actually provide a genuine alternative. This is nothing more than political grandstanding by people who have know clue about how the industry actually works.
  • Allan Faint | 04 Mar 2011, 10:34 AM Agree 0
    In years gone by when with Wizard and prior to the GE purchase. Wizard had no Deff or early payment penalty and very competative rates and no ongoing fees. So if they were able to do it why is the same not possible now are companies just wanting to much profit?
  • Jeff Purcell | 04 Mar 2011, 11:01 AM Agree 0
    The way interest rates are marketed by the lenders is to entice the consumers to take their product.The way they do this is to offer a competative rate.
    Bearing this in mind and the fact that the consumer is interest rate concious (Lenders advertising predominantly has been focused this way).
    The consumer does understand that they cannot have their cake and eat it it as well. They want this beaut rate but want to jump ship in a very short time to take up the current you beaut offer from someone else. This is not sustainable from a lending point of view.
    It is not unreasonable to expect from a consumer that once they have taken up the loan that the loan will stay for at least 3 years. This way the lender can expect to make a return for their investment in the consumer.
    The main Banks have had deferred establishment fees between $700- and say $1,400- which is not an unreasonable amount.
    If the Government wishes to persue reviewing exit fees then they should put forward a workable formula ie: not greater than say .25% of the original loan amount.
    All this does is create a know financial outcome position for both parties going forward when they both make their decisions and takes the heat out of the matter.
    After all some lenders need to be more honest about their interest rates rather then hiding behind large exit fees.
    I believe there should be no fees on accounts the interest rate should honestly disclose the actual rate the loan is costing.
    From a Tax point of view lenders should be required to take to account the first .50% of the loan amount from the initial loan repayments to profit in the tax year these funds are received. (Say some loans settled in May may take 3 months to receive this initial amount, then it would be bought to account in the Tax year it is earned).
  • Countrybroker | 04 Mar 2011, 11:12 AM Agree 0
    The banning of exit fees will utimatley hurt not benefit the consumer, if you ban these fees which are usually only payable in the first 3- 5 years, will see either higher monthly fees or increased application fees. That will disadvantedge borrowers who after that 3 to 5 year period want to exit, and that would be the majority of the borrowers.
    As for brokers we will utimatley end up with probably increased claw backs for say up to 3 years not 2 as is most common.
    Exit fees in the first 2 years should be still there and No claw backs , that would be more equitable. Will the treasurer address the double dip that the banks get of claw backs and exit fees, hopefully the MFAA and the FBAA have addressed this issue very forcefully in their submissions.
    As pointed out the smaller lenders will be disadvantedge, and really need help to create more competition , not the opposite from our politicans who are simply grandstanding with this, particulary the treasurer who is going against his OWN DEPARTMENTS ADVICE !
  • Lisa Huang | 04 Mar 2011, 11:37 AM Agree 0
    There are two side effect to customer.
    Not exit fee make them free to refinance to other lenders if they are not happy with exiting lender, product. Or if lender increase rate & fee more than other lender.

    Bad side is lender will increase fee at upfront.
    There are two side effect to broker as well: more refinance business if refinance is benifit to customer.
    Bad side is customer have used to no front fee loans , it will take more time to explain front fee to customer now.
    Because it easier for customer to take free upfront fee but hard to pay exit fee and it will cause customer happy to the lender at front, angary at exit, it cause a lot of complain.
    The ban to exit fee will make customer have to accept to pay front fee first, but there is no complain at exit.
    It is also good for keep mortgage market stable, you have to have ability to pay entry fee, a stable interest(not honey moon rate) for you to able to keep your loan repayment for the life of loan. May be a loan product which give long time customer a discount on their rate is the solutin to keep customer not the exit fee. Because lender not keep customer loan also win customer' satisfaction.
  • Robert Kaya | 04 Apr 2011, 05:10 PM Agree 0
    In my opinion, exit fee bans should not have any impact on competition.The second tier lenders and mortgage managers must work bit harder.They also must come to the phone when their clients try to call them!Unfortunately "some "DON'T!!I don't wish to name any here at this stage but some get very nasty when their clients decide to refinance!
  • cutpaste | 04 Apr 2011, 08:48 PM Agree 0
    My aggregator works well for me. Good BDM's and access to competitive cross sale products including a white label product that is really coming up against bank products. I recently joined their broker development program. I'm giving away 15% of my commission but am certainly making up for it + a bit more.

    I read and hear many brokers whining about their aggregator and the banks. There only enemies are themselves!
    Be smart business people, think like a business person, and adapt... or get left behind!
  • countrybroker | 08 Apr 2011, 11:41 AM Agree 0
    Hard to tell, basically I believe in the first 2 years it will be a friendly giant, as they seek to establish how they want the whole industry to behave and what we will need in a file to comply, after that I can see the velvet sledge hammer coming out.
    It really very easy for a broker with a full licence , do exactly what the MFAA tell us there are checklists and document precedents, keep all the info on file and comply , credit reps will have to do what their license holder tell them to do no question. If you aredoing what the guidance notes and license conditions tell you to do , it will be OK. Please STOP letting commentators "muddy the waters"
  • ross tranchita | 12 May 2011, 01:08 PM Agree 0
    My view is that shouldn't be any clawbacks on brokers
  • iMac | 12 May 2011, 02:56 PM Agree 0
    I honestly can’t see what the problem is for Brokers, with the ban on DEF.

    I have had a claw-back provision in my Broker Contract for some years now. It states that if the bank / lending institution claw back from me, I claw back from the client.

    I have had Not one client object, nor have I lost one sale over it. In fact the reverse is true.

    I explain to the client the whys and wherefores of claw-backs, and then get them to initial the specific clause in my contract relating to that. The clients are aware that if they close the loan with the claw-back period, that I (the broker) have done my job, and should be paid for my professional services, one way or the other.

    It encourages the client to reflect and review that they have to correct loan for their purpose. It has flushed out the odd ‘hidden agenda’ or ‘likely eventually’ that they have not mentioned to me till that time.

    Not only have I Not lost a sale, the clients have thought my ‘claw-back’ process to be most professional and proper.

    The DEF ban is a Non Topic.

    The Big Topic is the bank’s push to do away with commission. This is life threatening to the broker industry, And should be fought with everything we have.

  • oldBroker | 24 May 2011, 10:58 AM Agree 0
    My feeling is that aggregators have a vested interest in keeping brokers strictly in the mortgage world and thus, any aggregator software is created as such. Once brokers realise that a mortgage-only professional is a dinosaur and they need to expand their services to the client, then they will realise that they need to get their AFSL and join a dealer group. The future is groups like FinConnect and ALCo who are tied to dealer groups (Count, PIS), and not mortgage-only aggregators like AFG, and the rest.
Post a reply