Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
Compliance

ASIC: Commission review an ‘impost to industry’

7 minute read
The Adviser

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has acknowledged that the current review into broker remuneration has been an “impost to industry” and a challenge to undertake.

Providing a regulator update at the FBAA 2016 National Industry Conference last week, Chris Green, ASIC’s group senior manager, credit, revealed that the body had a “good relationship with the FBAA” and provided an update on what ASIC was doing.

Touching on the mortgage broker remuneration review, Mr Green conceded that “determining the effect of the current remuneration structures on the quality of consumer outcomes” had been “pretty difficult to do”.

He said: “It’s been quite an extensive process. Our main objective in the year we've been undertaking this [has been] to get a nice clear picture of what is happening in the industry, so we've collected information about the broking channel but also the proprietary channel from the lenders, so there is comparing and contrasting where that needs to happen.”

 
 

Mr Green said that the information requested through the lenders and “other people in the chain” was “very extensive” and that the commission had “tried to make that match up as best [it] could to information that was being collected for other purposes as well, so it wasn’t too much of an impost on industry”.

However, he added: “But we realise that it was, and we really appreciate the efforts of the entities involved in giving us the information”.

Mr Green said that although the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) collects a lot of data on loans, “ASIC has tended not to do that, or at least not to do that on a systemic, recurring basis”.

“So, its quite a different exercise for us,” Mr Green added, “and we’ve had to create new computer systems to cope with it.”

Indeed, according to Mr Green, the review has been so data-heavy that “some of the funding that the government is giving [ASIC] is to bring out the ‘state-of-the-art’ 1980s infrastructure and bring it up-to-date”.

According to ASIC’s senior manager, the report will not be generated by the body or be accompanied by a press release, but will be “given to the government”. However, Mr Green said he understood that government will publish the report, and as such the commission is preparing it “in a form that is able to be published”.

Mr Green concluded: “We are working on it now, and it might be an early Christmas present for the minster [for financial services] and provide some Boxing Day reading. 

“I can’t say much more, except it will say some things about ongoing work that we want to do following this review, as well as the future role of the market.”

Looking to the future, Mr Green said that ASIC will continue to focus on responsible lending, and will also focus on payday lending, consumer leasing, as well as loan fraud.

“We're concerned about loan fraud, and I’m sure you are too,” Mr Green told delegates at the FBAA conference.

“We take quite a bit of action to remove people from the industry who shouldn’t be there and we'll be looking to try and think about ways to try and make that process of keeping the right people in the industry and the wrong people out of the industry a little more sensible.”

[Related: ASIC review ‘unlikely to result in strategic shift’]

default

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

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

Comments (24)

  • Given that this will be handed to government I have emailed Kelly O'Dwyer outlining my concerns and i strongly suggest every broker out there does the same. We can complain on a forum as much as we like but it is not being red by the decision makers. kelly.odwyer.mp@aph.gov.au Spend 5 minutes writing your concerns and make sure the government hears them.
    1
    • Excellent recommendation Concerned Broker. If every broker who commented on this site also sent an email to Kelly O that would be a great support for our industry.
      0
  • If ASIC were given a mandate to review commission then the only beneficiary would be the majors. Smaller lenders, brokers and customers would be worse off. Like stated in comment if fraud is an issue with channel lending then don't blame the broker. When it is the brokers license at stake, plus the risk of jail time, it is in our interest no fraud occurs on our watch. I would like to know if ASIC has an outcome already in mind and why has it come to this. Similarly why politicians want a review into housing affordability and interest rates when APRA already has put in place significant policy guide lines. For interest rate most bank lending comes from the international money market. They are just playing the populist vote once again.
    0
  • Sick to Death of Defending Our Sunday, 04 December 2016
    Good post Anonymous. Simple facts are, government parties are controlled to a greater extent by their contributors and one of their biggest contributors are large business, and banks are the largest. I remember ASIC on the nudge of a bank investigating a small company offering an amazing rate, lower than a bank could offer, and basically destroying that company, with the only charge, that a director of the company was not at a meeting which he signed off on at a later date. No charge for not being able to supply the lower rate.

    There is no doubt in my mind that ASIC will kill off trail commissions, as the savings for banks will be huge, and all the rhetoric about no change is just to keep us quiet.

    Also no doubt that consumers will not benefit in the long run, although may in the short term, so the banks can whittle down competition.

    Personally I also see that brokers have a legal case for taking a class action out against ASIC if they change anything, as this inquiry is outside their brief. There are no consumer complaints, there are no differences to what consumers are offered, and in fact consumers are happy with brokers in general.
    0
  • Thanks Batman, review was called by Federal Libs specifically to review the remuneration of very modestly paid, self-employed, consumer advocates & the effect our remuneration has on the consumer we are advocating for.

    According to their own words, this review is a 1st step prior to any potential changes in our remuneration structures. This is a very targeted review, with a very specific targeted outcome (changing broker remuneration structures). This isn't a simple matter of the Federal government wondering what is happening in the broker world. It is a very strange review with no community outrage driving the need for the review (like with the large scale scandals in the financial planning industry). Anyone can see the growth in broker volumes is a product of our superior service. More people want to use brokers, fewer people want to line up in banks. Something unseen is driving the review into the modest incomes we earn. It is definitely a major concern to me.

    From the information I've seen (and there isn't much published data on the subject), levels of fraud from brokers isn't above industry average. An ANZ senior credit manager at a broker conference I was at earlier this year admitted, ANZ broker introduced default rates were lower than branch channel loans. The drive for this targeted review into our income is mind boggling, and it is definitely stalling millions of dollars of investment.

    I don't think ASIC wants to wipe out brokers either, but it may just accidentally achieve this given that they have been specifically requested to review our remuneration with a stated starting point for potentially changing our remuneration. I have no faith that the average brokers perspective is being given to ASIC, with aggregators, lenders, broker associations and large brokerage execs seemingly being the main source of information for ASIC. And since ASIC clearly don't have much of a clue about our industry, ASIC & the government could very clearly get a distorted view from the above groups who have vested interests that are often at odds with broker and consumer interests. I can't see ASIC and Fed government spending millions on this review and not making changes to our remuneration. The millions they are spending almost compels some change.

    Banking execs are not the target of the same type of ASIC review microscope on their remuneration as brokers. If they were, at least we could understand why, considering the outrageous greed demonstrated by the multi-million dollar packages we see.

    ASIC final Scope May 2016 release: ASIC has commenced a review at the request of the Government to examine the mortgage broking market to determine the effect of current remuneration structures on the quality of consumer outcomes. The Government has requested that the review be completed by the end of 2016. The Government will consider the findings as a first step prior to any potential change in remuneration structures for the mortgage broking industry.
    3
  • Ozboy, I understand that fed Lib's asked ASIC to do the review in Nov 2015. But can't understand why was this review called for? I've read the press releases but can't come up with a reasonable answer to this question.

    I also understand ASIC are being asked to do a reasonably simple job that they are proving incapable of doing. Even if they recommend no changes to broker remuneration (unlikely), the time it is taking to make the recommendations (over a year) is hurting investment in our industry.

    The reason why there is emotion is because the government inexplicably requested an ill-equipped government bureaucracy to undertake a review into an industry it doesn't understand. That industry is an industry I work in, and care deeply about. I think the real question is why aren't more brokers involved (emotionally or otherwise)? I spoke with an experienced broker recently who was unaware this ASIC review was even happening.

    If ASIC hands down an inaccurate assessment and makes recommendations for changing broker remunerations (which is entirely possible as they will likely want to justify the millions spent) and the government implements ASIC's recommendations, they could accidentally wipe out the industry we work in. At that point, doing an autopsy on the performance of Fed Libs, ASIC, lobbyists and broker associations would be a waste of time (horse bolted).
    1
    • I think that the reason the review was called for is because the government wants to understand the financial landscape in more detail with upcoming Basel 4 changes, given the impact that a correction in the market would have, especially in the banking sector.

      The first step was the 10% cap on investment lending, the second step was to see what is driving the growth, and given we are writing over 50% of home loans they are looking at us closely.

      I don't think ASIC are looking to "wipe out" an industry and understand the risk of going too hard. They have the same microscope on the banks when it comes to remuneration and growth so we are not alone. But they are looking for ways to slow growth in a controlled way.

      2
    • Hi Spartacus, thanks for the reply, always interested in a lively discussion. Point 1 Yes you are not alone in not knowing why but like most employees, ASIC is simply doing what the boss ordered. Point 2 mmm simple is relative, it's simple if you know it and complicated if you don't. The time factor is probably based more on shifting resources to cope than anything else. Point 3 well that argument would work for any government ordered review. I think (not with standing the broker you spoke with) most of us have left this part of the equation up to our associations and aggregators/franchise heads as they are the one's dealing directly with ASIC and providing the information requested. Feedback from some of these 3rd parties has been less than impressive and I believe this has added to the frustration that brokers feel about this. Point 4 that would be an extreme case...I assume and hope....however to worry about something that hasn't happened is just a waste of time and adds to the emotion without any basis in fact.

      I am trying to stay positive, reading ASIC's public comments and trying to get information from my association and aggregator (like pulling teeth!) however I must admit I have held back on investing in my business until this is cleared up and I am sure others have too.

      Spartacus thanks again it's great to get some feedback from someone else who seems just as committed as I am and just as passionate about it too. Here's to a speedy and positive outcome.
      0
      • Thanks for the comments Ozboy, I would like to be more positive, but on this matter think I have reason to be concerned.

        You won't be surprised to know I am also holding off on investing (very significant money) in my broking business.
        0
  • Brokers should keep away from lenders who require minimums, as this may lead to the broker not providing the most suitable finance for the client, but will remain accredited. In principal, I don't deal with any lender who requires minimums!
    0
  • ASIC needs to review lenders who require brokers to provide minimum turnover monthly/annually to remain accredited. These lenders look to quantity rather than quality, and put the broker in a position of having to ensure he/she do the volume required, rather than ensuring that the client receives the choice of lenders, with the advice/recommendation of which lender suits best.
    0
  • My understanding is that the minister called for the review not ASIC. They are doing what they are instructed to do. I think a little less emotion and a little more understanding might go a long way. I personally can't wait for this to be over and the report handed down. I think once this is done we will get a far clearer picture on how our associations have gone with all their efforts and investment in lobbyists, we will get a far clearer picture on how our industry is viewed and it will clear the air (one way or another) around the current remuneration structure.
    3
  • Well, looks like ASIC has done a great job at ensuring their funding levels remain boosted, what with all these extensive enquiries well above their current capacities.
    0
  • Wow, the more ASIC talks the more frightening it is to know that these people are reviewing anything.

    Meanwhile brokers have been holding off (for many months) investing many millions of dollars in their businesses waiting for these "not a clue" public servants to complete a review that no one can explain to me why it is even occurring.
    3
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