Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
Broker

Why we back brokers and you should too

6 minute read
The Adviser

NAB’s executive general manager of broker partnerships and chair of the Combined Industry Forum, Anthony Waldron, outlines the value of the broker channel and the impact of the incoming best interests duty.

Mortgage brokers are incredibly important to the Australian economy. They play a vital role in enhancing competition and providing access to credit, which is why more than one in two Australians use a broker to find a home loan that’s right for them. 

We know many of these consumers, particularly first home buyers, would find it challenging to navigate the market without a broker by their side and, certainly, smaller lenders would not be able to compete if it wasn’t for brokers recommending them to customers. 

At NAB, 44 per cent of our customers use brokers and continue to access their services throughout the life of their loan. This figure has continued to increase year-on-year.   

 
 

But like all industries, brokers must adapt and continually improve standards to not only meet but exceed customer expectations. Customers need a strong, viable broker industry to protect competition and access to credit. 

Brokers heard loud and clear that the industry requires change, and at NAB, we are glad that we started this journey a couple of years ago. 

In 2017, together with industry bodies, lenders, brokers and aggregators, we were a founding member of the Combined Industry Forum. And over the past two years, we’ve been working hard to improve broking industry standards and create a stronger culture that’s focused on customers. 

In this time, the broking industry has undergone significant overhauls, including changing the way commissions are paid, moving away from bonus payments and soft dollar benefits, establishing clearer disclosure of ownership structures and a new public reporting regime. The final step will be a governance and oversight framework due to be implemented by end of 2020, which ensures higher standards of professionalism in the industry.

We also know that education and professional development for brokers is vital to support change and help support good customer outcomes, and we are continuing to invest in this area.

While there’s still more we need to do, we’re confident we are making a positive impact and are determined to continue to help lead this change.

Recently, we were pleased to see the Treasurer’s draft legislation on mortgage broker best interests duty and remuneration reforms, which will build upon the work already underway.   

While industry has already implemented reforms around remuneration, enshrining them in law will mean the whole industry is covered by these changes, assisting in managing any potential conflicts. We look forward to working with Treasury and regulators on how all these reforms should be implemented to ensure we continue to get great customer outcomes.    

By continuing to make these changes, we believe the broking industry will become even more important to our economy and continue to promote a competitive mortgage market ultimately benefiting millions of Australians looking to secure their dream home.

default

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

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

Comments (13)

  • We brokers can do without backing like this. Every time a bank rep comes out in "support" of brokers, they always have a sting in the tail. Yeah, we support brokers, but let's add some more regulation and bureaucracy that only applies to brokers and the banks don't have to both with. Great plan for NAB - not so great for brokers.

    Spartacus
    2
    • 100% agree. Patronising comments and underlaying digs at our level of professionalism while saying nothing of there ongoing IT problems, constant systems outages, and complete lack of support.
      3
  • The CIF needs to show how it has "improved customer outcomes" because all the changes Mr Waldron cites that are to be credited to the CIF merely mean they have "improved LENDER outcomes".
    6
    • @ Strawny, brokers wont be remunerated for securing higher loan amounts that the customer doesn't really need with the excess borrowing sitting in offsets etc.. Customers often get sold into this with the lure that you might need the cash on a rainy day....and while you may not do this, other brokers do. If you think that this isn't in the best interest of the customer, your judgements pretty clouded.
      -2
      • Nathan, It's never been demonstrated that brokers up-sell customers on debt. I don't believe we do (or ever have). It doesn't make sense to do this. We are 100% a service industry, our businesses are about helping customers & saving them time/money/stress. Customers aren't stupid & they don't have to use us. The slightest hint that you are not looking after the best interests of your customer and they are out the door (gone) & you'd never get a referral from a customer who suspected you weren't doing the best for them.

        I have been in the industry for a long time & have worked with many different brokers. Yes brokers love to write a big loan and get paid a larger commission, but no broker I've ever met wrote a bigger loan than the customer needed. We try where possible to not leave a customer skint after settlement. We do some forward planning on short-medium term capital expenditure. But this is about looking after the best interests of customers. Brokers don't go writing a $700K loan & then say to their customer, lets add another $50K to your debt so I can earn another $300. Customers wouldn't cop that, & I've never heard or seen any evidence that brokers were doing that.

        Spartacus
        2
      • @strawny I don't have a problem with being paid net of offset when the offset balance comes from the loan proceeds ie cash out paid into the offset account at settlement. But when I write a loan for a property purchase and the money is paid at settlement to the vendor I believe I am entitled to be paid. If I have disclosed that the client has other money that they are not contributing to the purchase on their assets and liabilities how can the bank approve the loan or determine that it is not unsuitable but still only pay me net of offset. In my mind if the bank thinks they should be contributing all of their cash to the purchase then the the bank should not be approving the loan.
        The banks shouldn't be able to say we determine that this loan is not unsuitable and then say or but we are only going pay you based on drawn net of anything they put in the offset. Its like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Oh that's right we are taking about Banks - do have their cake and eat it too.
        0
        • Well you as a broker can’t have your cake and eat it. If commissions stay so does clawback. If they go and it’s fee for service then clawback isn’t an issue.
          0
          • Anonymous - maybe you can answer the question that nobody - especially the CIF - is asking. If it's ok by the RC that my clients pay a fee - why is is it not ok that they pay a fee if they arbitrarily change their mind and cause me a loss?
            0
      • Nathan - spoken like a person who hasn't sat around a kitchen table and discussed a loan. If you had done that then you would know what the most crucial question you have to answer ...which is "What will be my repayments?". The answer will depend on how much they borrow - so it is therefore very rare that the borrowers would agree to higher repayments so they can borrow a "higher loan amount that the customer doesn't really need". I am not claiming a higher moral code - it is just that it is a commercial reality that most clients will judge me on my ability to give them a loan with the lowest possible repayments that still allows them to reduce their debt in a timely manner. Nathan - the biggest problem with the regulators is demonstrated by you in your response. You assume my clients are dumb and need protection from the big bad brokers. I can assure my clients are much smarter than you give them credit.
        0
  • The combined Industry Forum has been an avenue for Banks to get what they want under the cover of self regulation. Its like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. How about they leave the broker space to brokers to improve and start cleaning up their own backyard first. The most damming revelations from the banking royal commission was not what brokers did but what bank staff and the introducer programs by banks did, but again we are not talking about that.
    The introduction of the net of offset commission structure causes more conflicts then it ever solved.It was just a backdoor way that banks were able to reduce what they pay brokers and the fact that no movement has been made into making claw remotely fair shows that banks are not interested in support brokers just always looking for ways to save month, no different to any other part of a bank really.
    7
    • So true and MFAA and FBBA are clueless to the fact that they have them running like hamsters on a treadmill putting out fires, instead of just jumping off the damn treadmill!
      0
      • I think the MFAA (I can't comment on the FBAA as I don't belong to them) are seriously compromised. If anybody is accepting conflicted remuneration it is the MFAA. They are suppose to be representing brokers but at the same time have "industry partnerships" with all of the major banks and accept sponsorship money from them. I just don't see how they can't be influenced by them. The CIF has not made on recommendation that is detrimental to the banks. Says it all really
        0
    • Agree 100% - the CIF is a just a bank inspired sick joke. Not one improved consumer outcome to date - just income reductions for Brokers and nothing else of note.

      Now just waiting for the next clawback shafting to be announced.
      1
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
magazine
Read the latest issue of The Adviser magazine!
The Adviser is the number one magazine for Australia's finance and mortgage brokers. The publications delivers news, analysis, business intelligence, sales and marketing strategies, research and key target reports to an audience of professional mortgage and finance brokers
Read more
You have 0 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