Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
Broker

‘If you don’t have clawback, you have to take from upfront’: NAB CEO

9 minute read

The chief executive of the major bank has flagged that if commission clawback was removed, upfront commission would have to reduce.

Ross McEwan, the CEO of National Australia Bank (NAB), has told a broker audience that while the major bank is still reviewing its clawback policy, any wishes to remove the structure as a whole would likely mean that upfronts would have to reduce, given the economics.

Speaking at the LMG Growth Summit on the Gold Coast on Wednesday (29 November), Mr McEwan explained that while “there is some money to be made out of writing mortgages”, it all forms part of the economic pie.

“There’s a pie that contracts and expands over a period of time. And one of the pieces of that economic pie is where you spend your time and money putting [mortgages] on the books (and I spend a lot of time and money putting it on books), Mr McEwan said.

 
 

“We pay a commission load on that and we’ve all spent money. And if you don’t have a clawback on it, you’re going to have to take some less on the upfront because the pie doesn’t get any bigger. It actually gets smaller over time with the margins get contracted.

“So, you’ve just got to think about it as there only being one pie and how we divvy the thing up.

“The more you mess around with [clawback] – or think: ‘I don’t like clawback’ – well, just think: ‘Where does the money come from?’ And thats the piece we just need to get our minds on. And that’s the thing that Adam [Brown, NAB executive, broker distribution] and the team will work through.

“You cant just keep taking it out of one bucket and expect somebody to keep putting the money up. So its the way I think about it.”

Indeed, the major bank CEO continued to explain that two of the most important (and scarce) aspects of banking were liquidity and capital.

“If I dont make a return on a mortgage, I have plenty of other places I can put my money on behalf of shareholders,” he said.

“So, overall, weve got to make sure its economic for you [brokers] and for us…

“We are in this together. And we have to make sure that were all making money out of this thing because, otherwise, I think the lenders will just decide that [they’ll] put it into something else.”

When asked about channel conflict and how the bank balances that, Mr McEwan noted that more than 71 per cent of mortgages are written by the third-party channel.

“The customer will always make the call; whether they want to go through a broker, whether they want to go through proprietary channel, or do it themselves and do it digitally. They will make their own call. But the vast majority, at a home loan level, want a broker. We see that. Our view is to be invested in that channel…, Mr McEwan said.

“I’d like to think we have a very good relationship with the broker community because we value it. We don’t see you as competing with us … you need somebody to manufacture the product and then somebody to distribute it – which is you. It’s symbiotic; we work well together.

“So, I think this is a really good relationship and is why we’re investing money in,” citing the Simple Home Loans and updated broker tech and systems as one aspect of its investment in the broker channel.

“When you look at your net promoter score … it’s 98! Our corporate bank is at 84. And we were high diving all over the place because of that.

“If you’re at 98, what the hell are you worried about channel conflict for? You’ve got an inferiority complex!”

Reflecting on the PCF sale

While speaking to LMG executive chairman Sam White at the LMG Growth Summit, Mr McEwan also reflected on NAB’s sale of former aggregation groups PLAN Australia, FAST, and Choice Aggregation to LMG.

Speaking candidly at the conference, Mr McEwan remembered that the major bank’s bandwidth was “only so long and wide” and “it was a big call” to sell them.

“The bandwidth of a business is only so long and wide and you’ve got to make some calls on where you put it. And I assessed we needed to put it into the manufacturing because we were struggling. We were too slow on getting approvals through the system, we were too slow on the back end, we were too slow on settlements … now we are the number one player on settlements in the marketplace. So, we had to put our money in the areas that were going to make the most different for us,” Mr McEwan said.

However, he said he was “delighted” that they had found “the right home” with LMG.

“You were going to do a better job with PLAN, Choice, and FAST than we could ever had gone because of the other things we have to invest in. So, well done,” he told the executive chairman.

“We trusted you, mate, And a big thank you for looking after them.”

[Related:NAB ‘reviewing’ clawback position: Adam Brown]

lmg growth conference ta k kbul

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

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

AUTHOR

Annie Kane is the managing editor of Momentum's mortgage broking title, The Adviser.

As well as leading the editorial strategy, Annie writes news and features about the Australian broking industry, the mortgage market, financial regulation, fintechs and the wider lending landscape.

She is also the host of the Elite Broker, New Broker, Mortgage & Finance Leader, Women in Finance and In Focus podcasts and The Adviser Live webcasts. 

Annie regularly emcees industry events and awards, such as the Better Business Summit, the Women in Finance Summit as well as other industry events.

Prior to joining The Adviser in 2016, Annie wrote for The Guardian Australia and had a speciality in sustainability.

She has also had her work published in several leading consumer titles, including Elle (Australia) magazine, BBC Music, BBC History and Homes & Antiques magazines.  

Comments (22)

  • Have you also noticed that Banks, including NAB, do not advise the Broker when a discharge is received? The broker has no chance to try to keep the business (that they own), and then get clawed back on top. This shows how much they really value your business. 
    1
  • Brokers consistently express frustration regarding clawbacks, and with good reason. This contractual provision is inherently unfair and, as indicated in my previous post within this thread, it is also illegal (please refer to the specific details in my post). As mentioned in an earlier contribution to this discussion, opting for a model with a 0.70% upfront fee and a 0.3% trail appears to be a viable choice, particularly considering the fourfold increase in our workload over the past decade.

    Any broker who entertains the notion that clawbacks are equitable or is willing to accept a diluted version through negotiations with lenders needs to reconsider their position. It is imperative to acknowledge that the authority to establish rules governing clawbacks no longer rests solely with lenders, as legislative measures have deemed the clawback clause as "unfair." The principle of fairness must prevail, preventing larger entities from exploiting smaller businesses. Currently, 19,400 small broker businesses are being unjustly affected.

    In the realm of small businesses, which comprises over 2 million entities, it has always been illegal to withhold payment for services rendered. (refer to the principal of Quantum Meruit) This legal standard applies to the broker industry as well, and it is crucial for brokers to recognize and uphold it. The law is impartial and applicable to both brokers and lenders; therefore, lenders can no longer shield themselves behind unfounded allegations and insinuations to stifle small broker businesses. This detrimental practice must cease immediately and clawbacks removed completely. No negotiations, No royal commission or industry review, (which takes years) - it's NOW ILLEGAL. Brokers are partners to banks and lenders- this is not how partners are treated.
    1
  • pmcmenam@*******.net.au Friday, 01 December 2023
    A further comment! Whilst upfront incentives to lure customers have come and gone, did any bank claw back those upfront costs if the relevant customer discharged within 2 years? I don't think so as there is a statutory prohibition on charging early repayment fees to customers. I also agree with Phil and call on MFAA and FBAA to launch a class action against any bank which cuts upfront without some form of equitable compensation.
    1
  • pmcmenam@*******.net.au Friday, 01 December 2023
    Yes Adam, the size of the pie does not change, which also means the value of brokers' work does not change so if you cut up-front you must increase trail. This, and only this, will equitably recover the cost of early discharges. It is a simple calculation using an HP12C. You calculate the NPV of the existing 0.165% trail (incl GST), then add the cash value of the upfront at say 0.65% (incl GST) and, since the upfront is fully earned in no more than 2 years, you amortise this over a reasonable average loan term. If that term is, say, 10 years the required trail is 0.2559%, so in fact just about the same as you used to pay in addition to upfront. Further as noted in many other comments, you do not dock the pay of in-house loan staff to recover the implicit upfront cost inherent in their salaries, so when are you going to stop discriminating against brokers.
    4
  • Another example of a bank rewriting history to suit their current agenda. Clawbacks originally were supposed to penalise brokers for churning loans. The industry has matured since those days and legislation such as BID and the ever more professional behaviour of the broking community means that churning a loan simply to get another upfront is a rarity, and anyone caught doing it should be kicked out of the industry. The banks have now turned the discussion to one of economics, not ethics.

    The banks need to treat us with respect and recognise that we are small business owners subject to economic pressures just like they are, but with out a massive balance sheet!
    I dare say that the majority of clawbacks incurred by brokers are no fault of their own and more likely due to marketing tactics of the banks eg cash back incentives. So the banking industry forces us into accepting clawbacks as a condition of receiving a commission and also retains the power to trigger a clawback through channel conflict and marketing tactics. Maybe time for the ACCC to investigate.
    2
  • The problem is the bank's pie keeps getting bigger and the broker's pie keeps getting smaller. So let's get real and talk real numbers here. There has been no change to comms since bla bla bla right, in the meantime, since bla bla bla the broker workload has doubled if not trebled. We print docs, not the banks, we mail docs back, not the banks, we order vals, not the banks, and we get paid net of offset unlike before, we have BID, not the banks and the list goes on and on.
    In the meantime, let's look at the profits the banks have been making since bla bla bla. Need I even go any further?

    So Mr. McEwan wants to cut our income even further so he has all the pie and we just have the crumbs, NOICE! let's get real, man, you not dealing with kids here and don't even waste your time reviewing clawback if you gonna come up with some preconceived answer!
    1
  • So - proprietory staff get paid less, if a loan is repaid/refinanced within 18 months?  I don't think so.  I think focusing on up-front commissions (and cessation of clawbacks) as an added impost, is a false and far too narrow view.  it is simply part of the cost of the bank running it's business....just like advertising, having premises, staff etc.  The bank can reach borrowers without directly providing representation, through the broker network. 

    The percentage of broker originated loans clearly demonstrates the value of our sector.  Lenders can always seem to find margin to make reduced offers for NEW BUSINESS, even occasionally offering cash-backs or establishment fee waivers etc., and yet when it comes to cutting costs, the only avenue considered is reducing the payments to brokers.

    Those who represent brokers (MFAA/FBAA & Aggregators) need to be less conciliatory, when dealing with lenders.  (even the most successful brokers - that's not me, by the way - aren't listed on the stock exchange and announcing billion dollar profits)
    1
  • As margins rise for banks in this environment and all the majors continue to make bigger profits the CEO of NAB...wants to take more money from brokers. Since I started broking, I have seen a cut in upfronts to accommodate a trail commission, upfronts be lowered, trail be lowered, then the wonderful net of offset/drawdown, if you want what is owed to you then you need to follow us up in 12 months, need I go on? All reducing our income while costs go up.
    We're constantly told tech will make it easier and it doesn't. We are forced to use AOL which is great for the lenders and an absolute nightmare for brokers. Put a gatekeeper in the middle (aggs) and another expense. No comments about the role lenders play in clawbacks: poor service, change of rates (AMP anyone), change of credit criteria, nor any conversations around life events, instead the simple answer is we give and then we take.
    In my 30+ year in finance I am yet to see a lender give more than they take. 

    This approach is setting the groundwork for their announcement next year, kick back now. I urge all brokers to contact their NAB BDM's and voice your dissatisfaction around these comments, if we don't hit back now mark my words, just like Westpac did NAB will be the start of further degradation of your income. 

    To both associations it's now time to get on the front foot and respond to Mr McEwans comments in a very clear, loud and concise message.
    2
  • glenn.rowan@*******.com.au Thursday, 30 November 2023
    Ha Ha! While you and the other Banks make Billion Dollar Profits, can afford to pay cash backs? Do your in house lending officers get charged claw back? I don't like your pie analogy, especially when you have how much pie in your bank account each pay cycle, while we do so much work and follow more regulation and compliance.
    Do you remember the Royal Commission (that us Brokers wore the brunt of and Banks came out the other side without even a major scratch_? BID is something a Bank or lender doesn't even know how to practice in my opinion (and many other Broker's opinions)?.

    Trying to justify a reduction in upfront or commissions when Brokers haven't seen a pay increase in a long time - e should be getting paid more due to the percentage of market share we have and the quality of our work and how we practice! Taking our hard earned income away from us up to 2 years is really unfair and I ask the question, maybe you and your administration should have the same income structure and see how it feels to receive a commission statement showing that negative figure for all of the hard work you've done? AND have a CEO tell you your piece of the Pie needs to be cut - if we provide a fairer pay structure, that Banks govern and make the rules for, even with income that hasn't increased in a long while? Seems really fair!
    Maybe tell us how it feels to not have the certainty of providing income for our families, ourselves and keeping a roof over our head or keeping our committments paid and food on our tables & keeping our businesses operating due to claw back being charged and where 99% of the time, the reason is out of our control and we suffer someone else's decision, life circumstance or even greed?
    'You’ve got an inferiority complex''you say? When you have Banks or lenders that are able to do things we can't and also are proactive in being negative towards brokers at a branch or customer service level, then yes we have a problem with Channel Conflict! We should all be on the same level and playing field, should we not? That is not something as brokers we are experiencing and for a long amount of time.
    Talk is cheap and it seems Brokers can keep on being taken advantage of, up to 2 years for each loan depending on the lender, that isn't fair at all and we deserve more, not less, we deserve the respect we have earnt just like our hard earned and well deserved incomes.
    2
  • I hear Ross's comment & views around changing the current structure of abolishing clawback which is right as a business leader to think about, as letting go can be difficult but it's far from reality. The whole industry has changed over the last 12 months & will keep changing, as people will continue to choose the services they want based upon trust & satisfaction whether they choose proprietary channel or third party. This position can be easily validated with 71% off the loans is coming from third party channel. And speaking about reality wherein most banks over the years have been closing branches & with not many qualified lending staff the bank's profit share & share holder's income is only going up becuase of depleting reduction to primary cos!
    As I come from the banking world of 17 years, I must state the service I provide along with many other brokers who also are mostly from the banking world too, is a testimony of current loans written along with customer satisfaction score & low AFCA complaints all visible from statistics available.
    The time spent by a broker after a mortgage is drawn down wherein the customer doesn't feel comfortable going directly to the bank as they would have done in the first place rather than approach a broker when they have an issue either with their banking or mortgage, wherein the broker now is spending more time satisfying the customer after the loan / mortgage is drawn down in ensuring customer satisfaction is achieved which helps drive future & repeat business.
    In my opinion its wise as a business leader although its harder to give away but if this can be viewed as a tradeoff by CEO's it would a great idea to remove clawback. This will be a win win for all parties, as customers may continue to remain longer with the bank which will help refinance & the banks to focus on delivering service only for mortgages held (given we all understand the cost of funds for the banks & margins involved!)
    0
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 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