Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
Aggregator

‘It’s wrong to put a blanket policy on new brokers’, says aggregator

8 minute read
The Adviser

The general manager of lending at Vow Financial, Clive Kirkpatrick, has said that he disagrees with CBA’s new two-year requirement, adding that education and qualification levels should be set by the industry, rather than banks.

Speaking to The Adviser after CBA’s announcement that it would be making changes to new broker accreditations next year, Mr Kirkpatrick said: “Our drive is to move broking from an industry to a profession, and to do that we need to be better educated and better equipped to provide the customer with great outcomes.

“But the major point that I disagree with is the two-year requirement, and the reason I disagree is because the average age of a broker is actually increasing and we have a duty to bring more experience into the profession.”

Elaborating, the GM said: “We want people to actually want to become a mortgage broker, or a finance broker, as a profession. So, we need to up the education [for] brokers and encourage people to participate in that as they are educated. 

 
 

“If CBA has a problem with the mentoring programs, then we can actually fix that. But it’s wrong to put a blanket policy on new brokers. It may help [CBA] with the quality of [its] applications, but it certainly doesn’t help the profession overall.”

Mr Kirkpatrick added that he believed that ongoing education was key to improving standards, “so if perhaps you start with a Cert IV [in Finance & Mortgage Broking], and we can [then] review the CPD points and the continuous education to progressively lift everyone to a Diploma [of Finance and Mortgage Broking Management] level.

“But it can’t be a bank determining that. It has to be the overall industry/profession. So, I think it’s more around you need a minimum level of qualification but you also need better ongoing education to get you Diploma level.”

Andrew Rasby, the general manager, lending at Yellow Brick Road, highlighted the Vow Professional and YBR Professional learning platforms, saying: “While the [CBA changes] will have a small part in moving [broking] to a higher qualified profession, it requires a lot more work than just enforcing those [new] rules. It’s about talking to the grassroots part of the industry and that needs more work.

“From my point of view, I think that it is great that CBA has drawn a line in the sand, but it would be better if, as a profession, we all moved at the same time. And that was the whole idea of the Combined Industry Forum [and its reform package].”

Mr Rasby continued: “The underlying cause is that we need a better qualified group of people providing advice to customers. So, [CBA] has done a good thing by making a start, but it would have been better if we all went at the same time.”

Mr Kirkpatrick concluded: “We’ve invested quite heavily in Vow Professional and YBR Professional this year and will continue that on an ongoing basis.

“We believe that better education will lead to better governance, which leads to better customer outcomes.”

Association heads call out two-year requirement

Others in the industry have also criticised CBA’s two-year requirement for new broker accreditations, with the heads of the MFAA and FBAA both warning that it would create barriers to entry for new brokers and could impact consumer outcomes.

The MFAA CEO said: “If we’re going to expect new brokers to have the knowledge and skills to produce good consumer outcomes and represent the industry appropriately, all stakeholders need to invest in the professional development of brokers who are new to the industry. 

“Limiting accreditation for two years creates barriers to entry, which — if other lenders followed suit — could inhibit the ability of new brokers to earn an income or gain the required experience. Obviously, we need to find solutions in this area that all parties are comfortable with and a strong mentoring framework would appear to be a critical part of that.”

Likewise, the executive director of FBAA, Peter White, said: “CBA is a very solid institution in the home loans sector, but I just don’t think that this has been well thought through. If you look at people who are new to industry — look at the 30 Under Thirty ranking — there are a lot of people in there who have only been in the industry for 18 months and are under that two-year bracket, and they are the future stars of broking and are writing significant volumes and good-quality loans.

“[CBA is] turning [its] nose on those who are starting in this part of the industry… What is going to happen with CBA, in my mind, is that all these brokers that they have turned their back on will take their business elsewhere.”

[Related: CBA to introduce major accreditation changes next year]

default

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!

Comments (23)

  • CBA has a plan in mind, hence why they are doing this. We wait and see.
    0
  • CBA is in the middle of a move to de focus on broker direct business whilst hedging it's bets by buying up Aussie and eChoice to ensure it has some significant stake in the broker channel. CBA are quite happy to forego new broker business in the belief that the branch channel will assist them to maintain their market position. However, the reality is that most consumers no longer want the branch experience, too much like the public service with a hard sell twist, despite what the ads say. Give it another year or two, the policy will change when broker share hits over 60% and CBA finds itself growing at less than system and others are picking up the gains. We've seen this type of thing play out before. Some new CEO will take an immense salary and then have a revelation!!! "Aha we need more brokers!"
    0
  • CBA (and other lenders) have a responsibility to improve their accreditation process so that Brokers are better educated in product and loan strategy. How does it help to restrict them from practicing their craft for two years? The Certificate IV and Diploma are by nature generic and don't cover specific lender products. Surely if the lenders invested in sufficient BDM guidance during the first 2 years this would enable Brokers to be better educated and better informed in relation to the particular product range available from particular providers. Expecting Brokers to get their experience elsewhere is just buck passing to avoid responsibility. The qualifications provide education relating to the legal framework and process of operating a professional business in the finance space - in particular in consumer finance. The two year mentorship referred to should be undertaken by lender BDM's and co-ordinated by Licensees to provide product and policy training for the lenders on their panel.

    CBA wouldn't rely solely on a third party or its competition to provide training and develop experience of its own staff. What does it hope to achieve by sending new Brokers to the competition to gain their experience? Not sure how NOT doing something provides experience.
    1
  • There is no simple right or wrong solution to this issue, but there is without doubt an education problem festering in this industry.
    I had a broker call me last week asking that I mentor him.
    Turns out he has been a "card carrying" broker for 2 years already, has a diploma and has only written ONE loan in all that time.
    Based on the proposed CBA requirements he would be accredited with them as he ticks the boxes.
    Seriously??
    I am currently leaning towards promoting a qualification based on the number of loans written, and not on how long a person has been in the industry or some piece of paper gained in a class room over a two week period.
    I see the questions, posed in various broker social media sites, which frighten the heck out of me.
    For example "Which bank would lend to a one armed wall paper hanger who got his ABN yesterday, has no proven income, no savings and wants to use his old pensioner grandparent's home as security"?
    Education providers to this industry, who seem hell bent on extracting as much money as possible from new to industry people, teach students how to pass open book exams which entitle them to receive their Cert IV and/or Diploma. All this is done in as little as two weeks, with no regard to the ability of the student to perform as a broker.
    There are numerous brokers, like myself, who have a lifetime of experience in this industry and I gladly admit that I am still learning.
    In the interest of disclosure, I dumped CBA years ago and have not suffered as a result, so I am unfazed by anything CBA does or doesn't do.
    As stated in the beginning, no simple answer to this, but I would like to see a CIF type workshops to look into this whole education problem.
    1
    • The problem is not about education. The qualification is designed to provide evidence of competency in the knowledge and framework of the NCCP and other requirements. It cannot substitute for experience nor can it provide product knowledge. The product knowledge component should be addressed by the Lenders themselves through their BDM. Lenders have a licensing obligation to supervise and monitor those who deal with them and this includes Brokers. Aggregator licensees also have a responsibility to supervise and monitor their Authorised Credit Reps and for the most part this is poorly effected. Each component of the industry should understand and fulfil their role in supporting the holistic education of new entrants. Excluding them does nothing to build the professionalism of the industry nor does it attract new entrants to enable the space to grow.
      0
  • I am not accredited with CBA, not interested to become accredited with them, does not affect me as I hardly recommend them to my clients. There are plenty other lenders who provide better service to clients and brokers alike, more competitive products and definitely less arrogance.
    If a broker breached any law 53,000 times.....can anyone guess how long they would rot in a prison cell???
    4
  • I find it fascinating that a significant minority of brokers agree with this type of CBA restriction of trade.

    It's almost as if, we'll I'm in, but close the door behind me.

    Any industry needs new blood coming in. Without new entrants you have a dying industry.

    I agree that some new entrants have very bad mentors. Perhaps it is the mentors that lenders should be demanding more of.

    You could lift new entrants qualification requirements to a uni degree and it wouldn't improve lending standards of new entrants. Our industry has a 2 year apprenticeship period. Many new entrants will fail in this intro period (especially if they have bad mentors directing them and assisting them).

    But to say you can't be a credit rep broker under an experienced licence holding mentor (who is assisting them put deals together) unless you have 2 years broking experience first, is just shockingly hostile to our industry.

    Spartacus (an enemy of CBA)
    2
  • A Diploma doesn't improve application quality, nor does it improve the advice given.

    I have met with multiple Financial Advisers and have seen first hand. Just one example, advice to a client was to pull $600,000 of equity out of their debt free home and buy a share portfolio (pre GFC) but then not advise the client as all watched the share price go down, plummeting value down to $200,000. A veteran Financial Adviser (30+ years) is keen to recommend buying a product but then didn't advise them when to sell the product, or provide simple advise about preserving capital.

    Is this the same type of Diploma, same type of qualifications the CBA want us to have? For the record I am not accredited with the CBA, happily walked away from them 8 years ago...

    All I know is that the CBA have a bigger picture in mind and it doesn't include Mortgage Brokers who aren't a part of the CBA network. They have always been biased to their branch network, which will naturally extend to their Aussie broker network. Is the CBA going to re-brand their Aussie network with CBA and direct CBA customers to these outlets allowing them to close the CBA costly branches?

    Pro Broker
    2
    • At present, it would appear CBA are hostile towards Aussie Brokers too. There is a clear distinction between their decision to invest into the Aussie business, and the integration of Aussie into the CBA network. I have had the misfortune of dealing with them twice in the last twelve months for customers and both experiences were far from optimal.
      1
  • I totally agree with CBA's stance on this. At least if individuals who want to enter the industry go & work with a bank or other lending institution to gain industry experience, they will see whether they are cut out to work in a heavily compliant industry. Otherwise we are open to 'used car salesmen' obtaining a bit of paper and then potentially tarnishing the industry with the very tactics that the recent ASIC review has highlighted.
    -2
  • Michael Deegan, DO Financial Wednesday, 20 December 2017
    I completely disagree with this blanket policy of 2 years. As an example - Are they suggesting that their own bank lending staff lack the experience, knowledge and professionalism required to submit a deal to CBA if they decide to leave the bank and become a broker?
    0
    • If they have worked in finance with CBA or any other bank for 2 years or more, then they would meet the minimum requirement. I think you are missing the point here!
      1
  • These guys are right. Inclusion is better than exclusion. If you think about broking as a family it would be like excluding teenagers from adult dinner conversation. They have to learn somewhere and CBA is supposed to be a pillar of our community.

    In addition time on the job is not an accurate benchmark. Some brokers may be very good one month in and others woeful after 5-10 years. A more exacting test would be to audit files. Send in too many badly put together deals and that triggers an audit and possible suspension.

    As a broker with 17 years experience and a near 100% conversion ratio. I do accept that these bad brokers are clogging up the system. CBA's service has been woeful for at least two years. Something must be done. Inefficient brokers is one part of the equation. The other half is that CBA has major staff issues. Each department operates like an island and seems to have little empathy for other departments or the big picture which is a good client outcome. Most of the time they have less than one year of experience and we end up training them. It wasn't always this way.

    Lastly CBA needs to give their BDM;'s their power back. The current escalation system is useless. How can a BDM's escalation have the same weight as some newby's in CBA's Mortgage Services? Bad design Sam Boer. Your team does not play like a team anymore. It appears to me that your staff hate brokers and hate each other. They are defensive and protect their own little patch by quoting 48 hour SLA's. You have lost control over the last two years. Deals settle but only by brokers pushing it through your constipated system.
    8
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You have4 free articles left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content, or become a PREMIUM MEMBER to enjoy a wide range of benefits
You have 4 free articles left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content, or become a PREMIUM MEMBER to enjoy a wide range of benefits