Login
ISCOVER
The big four bank has told ASIC to consider the utility of the broker channel before proposing bespoke responsible lending obligations, adding that it has not identified a notable difference in the quality of loans originated by the channel.
In February, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) launched a review to update its responsible lending guidance (RG 209), which has been in place since 2010.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Looking for more benefits? Become a Premium Member.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Looking for more benefits? Become a Premium Member.
ASIC opened consultation by inviting submissions from stakeholders within the financial services sector and has since commenced a second round of consultation in the form of public hearings, in which stakeholders that provided submissions have been called to provide further guidance.
Appearing before ASIC during its first round of public hearings, Westpac’s general manager of home ownership, Will Ranken, was asked to provide an assessment of the quality of mortgages originated through the broker channel.
Mr Ranken noted that the bank’s verification requirements for loans originated via the proprietary channel are the same for those originated by brokers but acknowledged that broker-originated loans require an “extra layer of oversight and governance”.
“When a customer chooses to go to a broker, we’re one step removed, so there’s another layer of oversight and governance on the broker channel,” he said.
However, the Westpac representative stated that the bank has not observed substantive differences in the quality and characteristics of home loans originated by the third-party channel.
“If you look at performance, particularly the metric around 90-day delinquencies, they’re largely the same with our proprietary channel – there’s no meaningful difference between those channels,” Mr Ranken said.
“In terms of the tenure of loans, I think on average it’s measured in months rather than quarters. In terms of the difference [in the average tenure of the loans], it’s one or two [months].
“In terms of the size of a loan, if you look at averages, and averages can be a bit misleading, the average size of a loan through the broker channel is a little bit larger. That’s probably more [because] for smaller loan sizes, customers are happier to deal with a branch, but for larger complex lending requirements, there’s a greater propensity for customers to go to a broker.”
Mr Ranken was then asked if Westpac would support a move by ASIC to prescribe different responsible lending obligations depending on how a loan is originated.
In response, Mr Ranken warned that ASIC should consider the effect of such changes on the value proposition of the broker channel.
“I would say on providing additional guidance on one particular channel over another, it would be important to take into account the very valuable contribution that brokers do make to the overall market,” he said.
“Specifically, I talk to the level of competition that they facilitate in the market, either through providing independence and access to a multitude of lenders, as well as the service they give to customers in terms of assisting them with complex needs.
“To the extent that guidance may require additional steps either on the lender or the broker themselves, we just want to balance that with ensuring that it maintains a viable and dynamic broker channel.”
When pressed on the question, Mr Ranken added: “We’re comfortable with the policies and procedures that we’ve got in place around the broker channel, so it’s hard to comment on guidance... The devil’s in the detail. It really depends on what the detail of the guidance would be.”
Other stakeholders, however, including consumer group CHOICE, have called on ASIC to enshrine specific broker obligations in its RG 209 guidance.
CHOICE pointed to research from ASIC’s review of interest-only home loans in 2016, which reported that mortgage broking record-keeping from verification enquiries was “inconsistent” and, in some cases, “fragmented and incomplete”.
Despite recent reforms from the Combined Industry Forum, which restricted the payment of commission to the loan amount drawn down by a borrower, the consumer group alleged that the supposed lack of record-keeping was “particularly harmful for consumers” because “brokers are currently incentivised to sell loans that will provide them with the largest commission”.
ASIC’s first round of public hearings concluded, with the second round of hearings to commence in Melbourne on Monday, 19 August.
The regulator is expected to publish its new guidance before the end of the calendar year.
[Related: ASIC urged to ‘codify’ broker obligations]
