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

Why unhappy brokers don't switch aggregators: Top reasons revealed

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 25 Jun 2013, 07:00 AM Agree 0
If you're unhappy with your aggregator, you leave, right? Wrong. We reveal the top reasons why brokers who want to switch don't
  • Country Broker | 25 Jun 2013, 10:02 AM Agree 0
    No surprises , what really needs to be done in the industry but will never happen is to make the lender accreditation applicable to the individual broker and not the Aggregator . It would then be a matter of switching to new codes and the signing of a new aggregatopr agreement ,In no way am I suggesting that the trailers be transferred , simply the accreditation with each lender. Is this too simple.
  • NP | 25 Jun 2013, 10:19 AM Agree 0
    Contractual obligations is another name for "lose my trail" effectively meaning 44.5% are unable to leave their aggregator for this reason. Aggregators who use little known handcuff clauses to force brokers into staying are to be avoided at all costs. They know who they are.
  • Disgruntled Broker | 25 Jun 2013, 10:22 AM Agree 0
    Hmmmm....not surprising but I thought the "wanting" to switch aggregators would be far greater given the new players offering flat fee and not based on volumes nor service interpretations.
    Our company have recently transferred our business after 13 years with the one aggregator. They are now withholding our trails on a trumped up "breach" of not reaching required annual minimums. They have been accepting of this for the past 4 years but as soon as we advise to leave they raise the limit breach and now won't part with over $250Kpa in trails!!! No wonder we have had many brokers looking to switch due to having their trails forfeited.
    This is why we work hard to make a living and to have a legacy to pass on. Who do these aggregators think they are!
    We say "see you in court"
  • Tyler | 25 Jun 2013, 10:30 AM Agree 0
    As an software provider data migration is the single biggest concern and also most time consuming process for moving platforms. There is no simple and cost effective way to migrate data from System X to System Y without the potential for some data to not make the journey. It boils down to a number of factors -

    Different database types (SQL, Lotus, propriatry 3rd party built etc)

    The various data models that each possess (flat structured, relational)

    Level of customisation that each user can implement (can you create your own fields and tables?)

    Willingness of 3rd party or aggregator system to export all required data into a reusable and logical format. Some simply won't provide this so users are forced to run inbuilt reporting and attempt to construct this themselves.

    The other tricky aspect is you may be able to extract your customer profiles and loan data but not the contents of the briefcase (diary notes, tasks, loan status / back channel history) which is potentially more critical than basic contact information.
  • rob | 25 Jun 2013, 10:44 AM Agree 0
    Data migration is a problem that is easily fixed. Brokers can run an aggregator independent system. A change in aggregator will then have zero effect on the daily operations, such as e-lodgements, Compliance, and CRM. There is no need to learn a new system other than lodging commission claims. I am more speaking to ACL holders of course who have this freedom.
  • Scott Beattie | 25 Jun 2013, 11:35 AM Agree 0
    Perhaps the MFAA / FBAA could introduce a 'broker friendly' or 'broker preferred agreement' which no one is under an obligation to use, but like the MFAA promotes to use a MFAA broker, maybe brokers could use an MFAA preferred agreement which would be void of such handcuff arrangements and the like.
    Also, ANY aggregator who is in favour of clawback can hardly argue that you shouldn't be able to leave and still continue to receive trail and or move it to your new aggregator.
  • MM | 25 Jun 2013, 11:36 AM Agree 0
    I agree with Country Broker. I have just changed aggregators and Homeside is the only lender that has it right. With Homeside your ID remains the same and your clients remain with the transition is very smooth...whereas with all other lenders your ID is linked to the aggregator and because it is changed any clients you have in the system no longer "belong to you" and you have to answer a whole heap of privacy questions before they will discuss the client with you. I have found that in a lot of cases the clients have been re-allocated one of the ex-aggregator's BDM's ID number. This is ridiculous because that person has nothing to do with the loan and yet they are now the "owner" of the application. It definitely makes you think long and hard before you change aggregators.
  • SIDBROKER | 25 Jun 2013, 11:39 AM Agree 0
    The lenders should deal direct with brokers and then we can see the end of the alligators once and for all!!!
  • oldBroker | 25 Jun 2013, 11:41 AM Agree 0
    @Rob... exactly. Why the brokers use an aggregator-supplied system is beyond me when the 3-party software platforms are far superior to anything an aggregator conjures-up. I've used the same 3rd-party software for 8 years, and changed my aggregator once. No dramas.
    Also, who wants the aggregator to see all your client data?
    I still use the aggregator software to lodge a deal for payment, but that's all.
  • oldBroker | 25 Jun 2013, 12:20 PM Agree 0
    @Sidbroker... lenders could deal with brokers individually except for 1 nasty problem... clawbacks. Lenders know that paying the aggregators a big cheque at month-end means that they can also deduct the few clawbacks. How would lenders clawback a (say) $3K upfront from a low-volume or retiring broker?
  • Scott Beattie | 25 Jun 2013, 12:31 PM Agree 0
    @ oldbroker - Easy problem fixed re clawback - simply look at newest upfront and transfer when that deal passes the clawback period!
    If trail drops below X, hold it over until it hits say $500 per month in trail as an example. Once the 18 month window (or clawback period has expired) the aggregator faces little or no risk and problem solved!
  • Terry | 25 Jun 2013, 12:48 PM Agree 0
    These issues aren't issues in the financial planning space. Portablity of trail , no problems , done easily. So whats the problem in the broking space of moving to the 21 century.
    Aren't the broking aggregators professionally equiped to manage the task or are they just crooks.
  • BJ | 25 Jun 2013, 01:04 PM Agree 0
    And brokers would like to be referred to as professionals, operate a professional practice.
    Restrictive contracts employed by aggregators, whole heartedly supported by the MFAA, which in turn is essentially an extension of the lender.
    The board of the MFAA is stacked and controlled by vested interests.
    Brokers have no voice, no real control over their business other than the transactional method of their business. This in part is why professional’s i.e. financial planners, accountants and law firms find it difficult to embrace the brokerage industry. Sales, sales sales and completely transactional by the very nature of many mortgage brokers.
    The restrictive practice employed by aggregators is a matter your industry must address. That is the broker. One suspects most brokers have limited understanding of the power of the combined vote you have when dealing with your “ASSOCIATION”! How long before the limited number of votes being cast at each AGM further erode your capacity to effect change.
    On the issue of trail commission and claw backs and the “big cheque book” argument is weak in the extreme. Your industry differs little to professions which also pay trail commissions. However these professionals can move, take their client and not be subjected to the draconian.
    You operate your business under the sword of Damocles.
    Brokers need to voice their concern and one way to achieve the same, is vote at the next MFAA AGM and remove the board, appoint competent parties who will truly represent you and drag your industry to the level of professionalism that you not only deserve but must demand.
  • oldBroker | 25 Jun 2013, 01:04 PM Agree 0
    @Scott Beattie... Another possibility is the upfront is paid in a number of tranches. Each tranche is not clawback-able.
    However, the problem is that new brokers into the industry need the full upfront to stay alive. Your suggestions are fine for the long-time broker who has sufficient trail (and volume) but we have a real problem getting new brokers into the industry and any scheme to 'play' with the upfronts reduces the attractiveness of broking to new entrants.
  • oldBroker | 25 Jun 2013, 01:54 PM Agree 0
    @BJ... the clawback issue is not an easy problem as you suggest. This issue needs a viable resolution, and having this resolution could pave the way for removal of the middle-man aggregator, who serves no purpose other than pay the broker and organise lender PD-days. Need an aggregator for NCCP? Get your own ACL as the broker has zero protection as a CR anyway. Need hand-holding from aggregator? Join a national franchise like Mortgage Choice but be prepared to share your commission. Need an aggregator for software? Get 3rd-party software and thank me later.
  • Experienced Broker | 26 Jun 2013, 10:21 AM Agree 0
    MFAA + FBAA ... Where are you ???

    Why have you not involved yourself in this debate if you claim to "Protect the interests of Mortgage Professionals" ???
  • Experienced Broker | 26 Jun 2013, 10:24 AM Agree 0
    To Disgruntled Broker ...

    Well done for standing up to the Aggregators the "Underhanded Practices".

    Please inform us all how you fare in court as you could be the "Trail Blazer" who helps the entire Broking Community to achieve justice.

    Best of luck to you !!!
  • Mott | 14 May 2014, 05:22 PM Agree 0
    Link exchange is nothing else but it is simply placing the other person's webpage link on your page at appropriate place and other person will also do same in support of you.
Post a reply