Bank of England Warns On Brexit

The latest statement of monetary policy from the Bank of England kept the base rate at 0.5% and to maintained the asset purchases at £375 billion. They said inflation was o.5%, well below the 2% target and growth has slowed in Q1 and is expected to slow further.  They say the most significant risks to the MPC’s forecast concern the referendum.  A vote to leave the EU could materially alter the outlook for output and inflation, and therefore the appropriate setting of monetary policy.

The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) sets monetary policy to meet the 2% inflation target and in a way that helps to sustain growth and employment.  At its meeting ending on 11 May 2016 the MPC voted unanimously to maintain Bank Rate at 0.5%.  The Committee also voted unanimously to maintain the stock of purchased assets financed by the issuance of central bank reserves at 

Twelve-month CPI inflation increased to 0.5% in March but remains well below the 2% inflation target.  This shortfall is due predominantly to unusually large drags from energy and food prices, which are expected to fade over the next year.  Core inflation also remains subdued, largely as a result of weak global price pressures, the past appreciation of sterling and restrained domestic cost growth.

Globally, sentiment in financial markets has improved.  There has been a broad-based recovery in risky asset prices, a resumption of capital flows to emerging market economies, and a sharp rise in the price of oil. Near-term prospects for China and other emerging market economies have improved a little, although medium-term downside risks remain.  In the advanced economies, growth has picked up in the euro area in Q1 but slowed in the United States.  A modest pace of growth in the United Kingdom’s main trading partners is likely over the forecast period, broadly similar to that in the February Inflation Report projections.

In the United Kingdom, activity growth slowed in Q1 and a further deceleration is expected in Q2.  There are increasing signs that uncertainty associated with the EU referendum has begun to weigh on activity.  This is making the relationship between macroeconomic and financial indicators and underlying economic momentum harder to interpret at present.  In the Committee’s latest projections, activity growth recovers later in the year, but to rates that are a little below their historical average.  Growth over the forecast horizon is expected to be slightly weaker than in the February projection.  The May projection is conditioned on a path for Bank Rate implied by market rates and on continued UK membership of the European Union, including an assumption for the exchange rate consistent with that.

As the dampening influence of past falls in energy and food prices unwinds over the next year, inflation should rise mechanically.  Under the same forecast conditioning assumptions described above, spare capacity is projected to be eliminated by early next year, increasing domestic cost pressures and supporting a return of inflation to the 2% target by mid-2018.  Thereafter, as in the February Inflation Report, inflation is forecast to rise slightly above the target, conditioned on the path for Bank Rate implied by market rates.

Given the outlook described in the May Inflation Report projections, returning inflation to the 2% target requires achieving a balance between the drag on inflation from external factors and the support from gradual increases in domestic cost growth.  Fully offsetting the drag from external factors over the short run would, in the MPC’s judgement, involve too rapid an acceleration in domestic costs, one that would risk being excessive and lead to undesirable volatility in output and employment.  Given these considerations, the MPC intends to set monetary policy to ensure that growth is sufficient to return inflation to the target in around two years and keep it there in the absence of further shocks.

Consistent with the projections and conditioning assumptions set out in the May Inflation Report, the MPC judges that it is more likely than not that Bank Rate will need to be higher by the end of the forecast period than at present to ensure inflation returns to the target in a sustainable manner.  All members agree that, given the likely persistence of the headwinds weighing on the economy, when Bank Rate does begin to rise, it is expected to do so more gradually and to a lower level than in recent cycles.  This guidance is an expectation, not a promise.  The actual path Bank Rate will follow over the next few years will depend on economic circumstances.  With macroeconomic and financial indicators likely to be less informative than usual in light of the referendum, the Committee is currently reacting more cautiously to data releases than would normally be the case.

The most significant risks to the MPC’s forecast concern the referendum.  A vote to leave the EU could materially alter the outlook for output and inflation, and therefore the appropriate setting of monetary policy.  Households could defer consumption and firms delay investment, lowering labour demand and causing unemployment to rise.  At the same time, supply growth is likely to be lower over the forecast period, reflecting slower capital accumulation and the need to reallocate resources.  Sterling is also likely to depreciate further, perhaps sharply.  This combination of influences on demand, supply and the exchange rate could lead to a materially lower path for growth and a notably higher path for inflation than in the central projections set out in the May Inflation Report.  In such circumstances, the MPC would face a trade-off between stabilising inflation on the one hand and output and employment on the other.  The implications for the direction of monetary policy will depend on the relative magnitudes of the demand, supply and exchange rate effects.  Whatever the outcome of the referendum and its consequences, the MPC will take whatever action is needed to ensure that inflation expectations remain well anchored and inflation returns to the target over the appropriate horizon.

Against that backdrop, at its meeting on 11 May, the MPC voted unanimously to maintain Bank Rate at 0.5% and to maintain the stock of purchased assets, financed by the issuance of central bank reserves, at £375 billion.

Investment Home Lending in March Stronger

The latest housing finance data from the ABS for March 2016 showed that looking at trend data, investment lending was stronger, up 1.1% whilst owner occupied lending fell 0.7% month on month. However, we know there was more than $1.5 bn of adjustments in March, so the data should be handled with care. Significantly, the proportion of loans being refinanced continued to grow, up to 34.3% by value.

ABS-March-2106-RefiThe percentage changes show significant falls in the purchase of new dwellings, down 5.8%, whilst refinance fell just 0.4% by value.

ABS-March-2106-ChangeIn trend terms, the number of commitments for owner occupied housing finance fell 0.2% in March 2016, whilst the number of commitments for the purchase of new dwellings fell 3.3%, the number of commitments for the construction of dwellings fell 0.9% and the number of commitments for the purchase of established dwellings rose 0.1%.

Looking at the mix of loans, the proportion of new loans for investment purposes rose from 35.7% to 36.1% in March.

ABS-March-2106-FlowsIn stock terms, the proportion of investment loans fell slightly, from 35.8% to 35.7%. Owner occupied loan stock rose 0.71% to $953 billion, whilst investment loans grew 0.11% to $529 billion. Overall loan stock rose by 0.49% to $1,482 billion.

ABS-March-2106-StockIn original terms, the number of first home buyer commitments as a percentage of total owner occupied housing finance commitments fell to 14.2% in March 2016 from 14.6% in February 2016.

ABS-March-2106-FTBHowever, the number of loans rose by 4.1%, and the average loan loan size was $329k. We are still seeing a number of first time buyers going direct to the investor sector, through our household surveys, but the volumes were down by 2.8% in the month. Overall, there were 11,972 first time buyer transactions, up 1.8%; in original terms.

ABS-March-2106-FTB-All

 

 

 

YBR Acquires SA Mortgage Business

Yellow Brick Road has announced an agreement to acquire South Australia-based mortgage manager, securing previously under represented territory. The purchase will increase scale and importance with key lenders, adds a new lender to YBR panel, and adds additional broker distribution via new third party aggregators. It extends on the ground product sales team beyond Sydney to Victoria and South Australia.

Yellow Brick Road Holdings Limited (ASX:YBR) (“YBR” or the “company”) announces that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Loan Avenue Holdings Pty Ltd, has today entered into an agreement to acquire the business and assets of privately-owned non-bank lender Loan Avenue Pty Ltd (“Loan Avenue”).

Loan Avenue will provide the national company a strong distribution footprint in South Australia, diversifying the mortgage book geographically and diluting reliance on Sydney and Melbourne mortgage markets.

Executive Chairman Mark Bouris said the acquisition of Loan Avenue, an established and profitable business, continues the company’s drive for scale.

“Loan Avenue is a respected B2B brand and has been in operation for ten years with a significant footprint, made up of more than 100 brokers in South Australia and Victoria. This acquisition allows us to quickly build more scale in South Australia, diversify and deepen our distribution network and funding relationships and increase our management capability,” Mr Bouris said.

“Paul and Michelle Collins have done an incredible job founding and building this company into one of South Australia’s top three non-bank lenders. They are highly regarded within South Australia by their funders and distributors and bring a wealth of experience to YBR.”

“Loan Avenue brings us some other talented product managers and credit experts with stronger delegated lending authorities, boosting our credit capacity. Importantly, this acquisition strengthens our relationship with existing funders and gives us access to an additional funder.”

Loan Avenue’s mortgage product compatibility with YBR’s own mortgage manager (YBR Group Lending, formerly RESI Mortgage Corporation acquired in FY2014) affords simple integration minus the complexity that often comes with a scale acquisition.

Loan Avenue founders and vendors Paul and Michelle Collins have agreed to stay on following the acquisition to assist in maintaining and driving existing aggregator and broker relationships as well as supporting integration.

Paul Collins said “We are delighted to join such a fast growing and diversified group as YBR. Our focus will be to enhance our broker relationships and drive further product initiatives with YBR, whilst maintaining the high service levels for which we are renowned.”

The maximum aggregate consideration agreed to be paid for Loan Avenue is $4.100 million, made up as follows:

  • $2.6 million payable in cash on completion;
  • The issue on completion of 2,596,153 fully paid ordinary shares in YBR (“YBR Shares”) at an agreed issue price of $0.26 each, representing $0.675 million in value;
  • Deferred cash consideration of $0.450 million, payable in 3 instalments over the first 12 months after completion; and
  • Subject to satisfying certain earn-out conditions during the period ending on the first anniversary of completion, an additional amount of up to $0.300 million in cash and up to $0.075 million in YBR Shares (to be issued at the same agreed issue price of $0.26 each), payable as soon as Loan Avenue’s relevant performance against the earn-out conditions is agreed or determined.

All YBR Shares to be issued will be subject to a voluntary 12 months’ escrow period from the dates of their issue. No shareholder approval is required for the issue of the YBR Shares.

The acquisition of Loan Avenue remains subject to a number of conditions precedent and, assuming the conditions are satisfied, completion of the acquisition is expected to occur on 31 May 2016.

The cash components of the acquisition will be funded out of the company’s existing cash reserves and undrawn portions of its CBA facility.

 

More Australian Banks Throttle Back Foreign Lending

From Australian Broker.

More Australian lenders have taken a hard-line approach to foreign lending, stopping lending to foreign borrowers or excluding foreign-sourced income from mortgage applications amid growing concerns about fraud.

Citigroup wrote to mortgage brokers yesterday with a blacklist of foreign currencies it will no longer accept as payment for Australian real estate from overseas borrowers, the Australian Financial Review (AFR) reported.

The letter, sent by Citi’s head of mortgage distribution, Matt Wood, contained a list of 12 currencies that it will accept and warned that all others are “not negotiable”.

In a statement provided to Australian Broker, a spokesperson for Citi confirmed at least five currencies have been excluded from mortgage applications.

“We want to continue to ensure we have a robust and healthy residential loan book catering to foreign buyers. In light of recent industry concerns regarding foreign residential loan applications relying on offshore income we have excluded certain currencies to ensure we don’t attract any increases in unwanted loan applications.

“These currencies include the Chinese RMB, Indian Rupee (INR), Indonesian Rupiah (IDR), Malaysian Ringit (MYR) and Taiwan Dollar (TWD).”

Citi’s decision comes after Westpac and ANZ announced they will be investigating mortgages that have been backed by questionable foreign-income documentation, which forced them to stop approving such loans last month.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank has also since warned its network of brokers to halt lending to foreign borrowers and exclude foreign-sourced income. In a statement provided to Australian Broker, a spokesperson said the non-major has received a “marked increase” in foreign applications.

“Bendigo and Adelaide Bank has always had a policy which allowed funding of expat Australian borrowers and, in certain circumstances foreigners to purchase property in Australia.

“This financial year, in the eight months to end of February 2016, this amounted to new lending advanced of less than $60m.

“In March and April following policy adjustments at other banks, we have seen a marked increase in enquiry and applications, exceeding our risk appetite.  As a result we are reviewing our current position in the market.”

The chief executive of Mortgage Choice, John Flavell, told Australian Broker he expects more lenders to announce similar bans or restrictions.

“Given the recent developments, I am not surprised to see many of Australia’s lenders taking a hard line approach to foreign income lending.

“These policy changes will make it harder for foreign investors to purchase property in Australia using foreign income. Over the coming days and weeks, I expect to see more lenders tightening their policy in this area.”

NZ Housing and dairy risks to financial stability

New Zealand’s financial system is resilient and continues to function effectively, but risks to the financial stability outlook have increased further in the past six months, Reserve Bank Governor, Graeme Wheeler, said today when releasing the NZ Reserve Bank’s May Financial Stability Report.

“Although New Zealand’s economic growth remains solid, the outlook for the global economy has deteriorated.  Despite highly accommodative monetary policies and low oil prices, growth is slowing in a number of trading partner economies.

“Dairy prices remain low with global dairy supply continuing to increase.  Many farmers now face a third season of negative cash flow with heavy demand for working capital.

“Imbalances in the housing market are increasing with house price inflation lifting again in Auckland, after cooling in late 2015 and early 2016 following new restrictions in investor loan-to-value ratios and government measures introduced in October.

“House prices have also begun increasing strongly in a number of regions across New Zealand, although house prices outside Auckland are generally much lower relative to incomes.

“The Bank remains concerned that a future sharp slowdown could challenge financial stability given the large exposure of the banking system to the Auckland housing market.  Further efforts to reduce the imbalance between housing demand and supply in Auckland remain essential.  This includes measures such as decreasing impediments to densification and greenfield development and addressing infrastructure and other constraints to increased housing supply.”

Deputy Governor, Grant Spencer, said: “In the banking system capital and liquidity buffers are strong and profitability is high.

“However, the system faces challenges.  Internationally, credit spreads have widened, placing upward pressure on the cost of funds for New Zealand banks.

“The level of problem loans in the dairy sector is expected to increase significantly over the coming year, although we expect that dairy losses will be absorbed mainly through reduced earnings.

“While the moderation in house price inflation has been transitory, the LVR restrictions have substantially reduced the proportion of risky housing loans on bank balance sheets.  This is providing an ongoing improvement to financial system resilience.

“The Reserve Bank is closely monitoring developments to assess whether further financial policy measures would be appropriate.

“The Reserve Bank continues to make progress on key regulatory initiatives.  Consultation papers on proposed changes to the outsourcing policy for banks and on changes to bank disclosure requirements will soon be released.  A consultation paper has also recently been released on crisis management powers for financial market infrastructures.”

The impact of P2P lending on conventional banks

A working paper from staff at the Bank of England  “Peer-to-peer lending and financial innovation in the United Kingdom” looks at the P2P lending market in the UK. As well as looking at the geographic dispersion of lenders and borrowers, they also make some observations about the future impact of P2P on traditional banks. First, they expect to see a fall in the interest rate charged on unsecured personal loans, which will put pressure on bank profitability in this product line, and second, P2P platforms offer a model for banks as they shift their distribution channels from bricks-and-mortar branches to internet and mobile services.

Although there is P2P lending to fund businesses and real estate, we think consumer credit is the area where banks will face most competition from online platforms. In part, this is because it is the asset class in which P2P emerged and is most mature. For example, one striking fact to emerge from Nesta’s survey of the industry is the difference in the credit profile of individual and business borrowers on P2P platforms.

In the P2P market for personal loans, 59% of respondents sought funding from banks at the same time they applied for a P2P loan, and 54% were granted it but chose to fund themselves via the platforms. By contrast, in the market for P2P business loans, 79% sought funding from banks but only 22% were granted it. One interpretation of these results is that, while banks and P2P platforms are operating with different credit risk and lending models when it comes to business loans, P2P platforms are actually competing away some customers from banks in the unsecured personal loans market.

Looking ahead, unsecured personal loans are the market where P2P platforms are likely to continue to make inroads against banks. In contrast to the retail mortgage and deposit market, no British bank has a dominant position in consumer credit. In addition, British banks’ unsecured lending is typically a small component of their overall balance sheet.

The results of this competition could be good for consumers, increasing the availability of unsecured personal credit while lowering its price. This would amplify recent trends. Last year, UK banks increased their issuance of unsecured personal loans, and quoted interest rates on these fell sharply. However, we caution that P2P platforms still trail banks by some distance in terms of their share of the unsecured personal loans market. For example, in Q4 2014, the net lending flow to individuals through P2P platforms was just over £70 million, while those from UK banks and building societies topped £2 billion.

A second, longer term, less direct but still important impact we expect P2P lenders will have on banks is in how they interact with consumers. Over the last two decades, banks have taken steps to move their customers online to reduce costs from operating physical branches. By some estimates, 30 to 40 percent of retail banks costs in the UK come from running physical branches, even though footfall in them has been falling at 10 percent per annum in recent years, possibly because younger generations are more comfortable doing business just online. This means banks are likely to accelerate the transition of their customers from brick and mortar branches to Internet browsers. As this happens, we anticipate banks will look to P2P platforms for inspiration in how to redesign their websites, as these are often noted for being slick and speedy because, for example, they incorporate videos, pictures and communication channels for investors to interact with borrowers.

Note: Staff Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate. Any views expressed are solely those of the author(s) and so cannot be taken to represent those of the Bank of England or to state Bank of England policy. This paper should therefore not be reported as representing the views of the Bank of England or members of the Monetary Policy Committee, Financial Policy Committee or Prudential Regulation Authority Board.

 

RBA FOI on Negative Gearing and Investment Properties

Under a freedom of information request, the RBA has just released some material which casts light on their perspective on investment property and negative gearing from the Financial System Inquiry.

There are a few interesting points.

  • Whilst tax reform is an issue for Government, the RBA has noted that concessional rates of taxation of capital gains might encourage leverage speculation, especially in combination with negative gearing provisions.
  • Risks have been building in investor housing (no coincidence, this is happening at a time when some other asset classes have seen modest/volatile returns).
  • Negative gearing and capital gains concessions could together encourage “leveraged and speculative investment in housing” – including bidding up house prices, risks to financial stability if prices were to fall, and a rise in interest only loans (which do not repay capital so do not build an equity buffer).
  • If changes were made to these policies, it might increase rents, and if the arrangements were not grandfathered, could lead to the large-scale sale of negatively geared properties.

Note: Labor’s proposals, of course include grandfathering.

 

Bendigo Pockets Some Of The Rate Cut

Bendigo Bank has announced it will decrease its residential variable interest rate by 0.20% p.a. to 5.48% p.a.

The Bank has also reduced the Bendigo investment variable rate by 0.15% p.a. to 5.76% p.a.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Managing Director Mike Hirst said the adjustment aims to find a fair balance for all of the Bank’s key stakeholders.

“When setting interest rates our Bank needs to consider many factors and carefully take into account the needs of our stakeholders including borrowers and depositors, shareholders, staff, partners and the broader community,” Mr Hirst said.

These historically low interest rates will also impact deposit holders. Mr Hirst noted the challenges the decrease will generate for those looking to earn money through investment in deposits.

“These customers remain front of mind for our Bank, and the rate reduction announced today seeks to strike the right balance between the needs of borrowers and depositors,” he said.

Customers on a residential variable interest rate with a $400,000 loan will see their repayments decrease by $50 a month (principal and interest home loan over 30 years).

The adjustment is effective 30 May 2016 for new and existing loans.

Mortgage Brokers and the ASIC Review

Interesting piece today from Mortgage Professional Australia.

ASIC’s review of mortgage broker remuneration is in data collection mode currently, though ASIC says it will then follow up on the data, which could lead to another round of consultation. Later in the year, ASIC will prepare its report and deliver it to Government by December 2016. The review could well touch on vertical integration, licensing, and commissions. For example in the UK, there have been a shift towards fee-based advice, rather than commission.

ASIC’S reviews into mortgage broker remuneration, which was announced last year, has become an increasing source of frustration for brokers and for ASIC itself.

Brokers feel there’s a lack of communication on the progress of the review – as we noted in our MPA 16.3 report, ‘Untangling ASIC’  – while ASIC feels the industry has prematurely turned against them.

At ASIC’s 2016 Annual Forum in March, MPA asked deputy chairman Peter Kell about the progress of the review. Kell responded: “There seem to be a lot of people in the sector who believe ASIC – without even really commencing the whole review – has already made its mind up on exactly what it is going to find and what recommendations it is going to make. I assure you this is not the case. This will be a very open and transparent review.”

Finally that transparency is becoming apparent. In mid-March the MFAA and AFG published their full responses to ASIC’s ‘Scoping Discussion Paper’, completing the preliminary phase of ASIC’s review. The scoping paper, which was made available to industry players and individual brokers in February, is essentially a list of 15 questions covering three areas: the home lending market, remuneration structures and consumer outcomes. It closed for submissions on 11 March.

The questions were mainly predictable, asking what ASIC should prioritise in its review; whether other factors should be examined; about existing structures (ie of commission) and trends which could change those structures. Respondents were also given the chance to add extra comments, and ASIC listed the data it planned to request, including ownership structures, product descriptions and customer satisfaction results.

All in all, it is not exactly a riveting read. However, it’s not been the only way ASIC has engaged the industry. Two roundtables held in Sydney and Melbourne brought together brokers, bankers, associations, consumer advocates, the RBA and the ABA (Australian Bankers’ Association) to discuss the same three areas examined in the Scoping Discussion Paper.

Although participants weren’t obliged to make their responses to ASIC publicly available, and ASIC’s roundtables were private, the MFAA and AFG, at the time of writing, had decided to make their full responses public, while the FBAA had earlier in March commented on the progress of the roundtables. The AFG also announced the launch of a consumer campaign to gather opinions from consumers about brokers.

Vertical integration
Those responses that have been published are unnervingly direct. “There is little doubt that those aggregators that are majority-owned by a lender have the potential to be influenced by that lender,” commented AFG, saying “distortion of the market is a risk”. AFG, which is publicly listed and 5% owned by Macquarie Bank, argues that conflict of interest “diminishes as the level of common ownership decreases … Our view is that the threshold level of interest that should be disclosed to consumers is 20%”.

That figure, AFG says, is consistent with the recommendations of the 2001 Corporations Act. AFG suggests that bank-owned aggrega-tors could forego making a profit on their aggregator services in order to expand the distribution of their products, the reason being that “the cost of distributing a product is modest compared to the income that can be gained from the interest margin”.

AFG also claims that vertical integration within banking – particularly the acquisition of non-major banks – can lead to confused consumers, such as “applicants choosing to refinance a loan from Westpac to Bank of Melbourne without being made aware that the Bank of Melbourne is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Westpac”.

AFG acknowledges its support from banks  – “some lenders make payments of sponsorship or contributions to development programs based on metrics such as the volume, quality and conversion of loans written” – while insisting these payments are not passed on to brokers.

Defending commission
Bank-owned aggregators also make a fee-for-service model problematic, claims AFG, “as the parent lender would be in a position to absorb the cost of their brokers, whereas non-aligned brokers would need to charge the consumer a fee”. It cites the Netherlands, where commissions have been banned, as an example. AFG further argues that removing commissions would lead to a salaried workforce “with no incentive to ensure a thorough comparison across lenders or products”, and advises ASIC to examine mobile lenders.

The MFAA also defends commissions in its response: “mortgage broker commissions are structured in a way that ensures the broker provides professional services and assistance for the life of the loan”. The MFAA also calls for parity and quicker payment of commission by lenders, and tells ASIC that, while average commissions have fallen, “in parallel, broker costs, compliance requirements and client engagement per file have all increased”.

When it came to the scope of ASIC’s review, the MFAA argued that commission associated with reverse mortgages, self-managed super funds and commercial lending should be excluded from the review. “The MFAA does not believe that remuneration from these products has a material impact on remuneration in respect to residential mortgage products.”

ASIC should, however, look at non-monetary rewards, the MFAA advises. “The MFAA would like access to non-monetary rewards to be clear and measurable, and that a willingness to participate does not create a bias towards any one industry participant over another.” Bankwest’s Stewart Saunders, commenting during MPA’s recent Non-Major Bank Roundtable discussion, noted that ASIC’s review  “goes beyond a review of commissions as it also looks at the non-financial benefi ts that brokers receive”.

While the MFAA and AFG note the importance of commissions to brokers’ livelihoods, it is consumer outcomes that interest ASIC and that get the most attention in responses. AFG agrees that “commissions can lead to conflicts of interest in many situations” but disputes that this is currently the case, and claims there’s no data to support this (as does the MFAA). Banning commissions would lead to “anti-competitive behaviour from lenders with branch networks”, and a reversal of the driving down of interest rates over recent decades. “Every mortgage customer will pay for reduced competition throughout the life of their loan.”

Calling out unlicensed referrers 
While many brokers would agree with these arguments, ASIC can hardly be surprised that two established industry players would choose to defend commissions. However, when MPA asked Kell what were the key takeaways from consultation with the industry, he highlighted a different issue.

“One area we have realised that possibly does need some vision or focus is the growth in so-called ‘introducers’ in the mortgage broker space, who seem to have a less formal role in helping to bring customers to brokers and lenders  … There are potentially some conflicts of interest that need to be looked at,” Kell said.

Both the MFAA and AFG have advised ASIC to examine unlicensed referrers and introducers.  “Credit repair agents, mortgage introducers, new property sales (spruikers) and solicitor funding providers often receive a benefit from their involvement in the market,” commented the MFAA, “without regulation or declaration of interest.” The scope should therefore be widened to include all participants who could be compensated for being involved in the property market.

AFG turned the spotlight on lenders, warning that “some larger lenders are seeking to increase originations by focusing on referrals from unlicensed sources”, off ering commissions of up to 60 basis points to “real estate agents, community groups, solicitors, accountants, fi nancial advisers, property developers, wealth creation specialists, builders, charity foundations, clubs and associations”. ASIC should look at how these services are provided and disclosed in the context of the NCCP regulations, AFG argues.

If ASIC does include referral arrangements in its remuneration review, this could of course be a concern to brokers, given many brokers rely on paid referral arrangements with real estate agents, financial planners and accountants. If fees are involved these arrangements are meant to be disclosed; ASIC may encounter yet another level of complexity with brokerages that are owned by real estate agents, just as they are concerned about brokerages owned by banks.

Why don’t we hear more?
When announcing the publication of its scoping paper response and the launch of its consumer campaign, AFG managing director Brett McKeon made a number of thought-provoking comments to Australian Broker magazine. “There is a certain amount of fragmentation within the industry,” McKeon noted. “Some groups don’t have the dollars to invest in representing their members well, and others are owned by banks, which builds conflict at times with these inquiries and how they respond to them.”

Just as McKeon implies, there’s been little noise made by large franchises, banks and aggregators – as opposed to individual brokers – about ASIC’s review, which is surprising given its relevance across the broking community. It’s likely that many industry players are defending commissions ‘behind closed doors’, which, as FBAA CEO Peter White told MPA in our ‘Untangling ASIC’ report, can be more eff ective in getting results.

Nor is it fair to say that banks themselves have been silent on the issue. In our recent Non-Major Bank Roundtable we asked banks what the consequences of the review could be, and almost all were unwavering in their support of commissions (see their responses in the boxout below). That doesn’t mean they’ve necessarily been that supportive when talking to ASIC, but it’ll be encouraging to brokers.

As McKeon notes, the danger for the existing commission model could be whether banks act as a single unit, under the direction of the ABA and the majors. “Some of the smaller banks get 80% or 90% of their business from the third-party channel, so you would hope they would be vocal in their support rather than just be part of an ABA submission which will largely, I think, try and muddy the waters.” AFG has asked the banks to disclose whether they’ve put in a submission on the topic, McKeon added. “It would be interesting to see if we can get any of them to be transparent.”

Conclusion
ASIC’s remuneration review could therefore prove an interesting ‘litmus test’ for the industry, revealing who’s invested in the existing status quo and who would like to see it disrupted. Groups with a foot in both the lender and broker camps, namely the MFAA, will be hoping to avoid any climate of suspicion developing as a result. If other scoping paper responses are published, or if AFG does get disclosures from the banks, this could be averted.

The next stage of the review process, which lasts from March to April, will see ASIC collect data and could therefore be somewhat more mundane for the industry. After April, ASIC says it will follow up on the data, which could lead to another round of consultation, much like with the FSI, and give brokers a better idea of how lenders are approaching commission. From September to December, ASIC will prepare its report and deliver it to government; there’s no timeline determining how the government will act.

What the data reveals could also see ASIC change course, particularly if the fragmented state of customer service feedback in the industry – which was noted in the MFAA’s submission – becomes clear in the data ASIC collects. Given that customer outcomes is what matters most to ASIC, broker groups that have systematised their collection of feedback, and have good net promoter scores, perhaps have the least to fear. Brokers whose feedback is adhoc, or clearly unbalanced, may want to revisit their CRM processes for that period after the loan has settled.

ANZ and Westpac Report Chinese Home Loan Fraud

The AFR is reporting that hundreds of home loans have been backed by fraudulent Chinese income documents, with the help of dodgy mortgage brokers. The banks have informed the police, suspended the brokers concerned, and have changed their review processes.

The banks also make the point that delinquencies are lower on the small proportion of the book which is foreign investor related. The AFR suggests total loans involved are less than $1 billion.

You can hear our comments on the ABC Radio PM Programme.

Recently some banks have stopped lending to foreign investors. This includes Westpac.

This comes on the back of recent media comments on fraudulent changes being made to mortgage applications, and the ASIC review of broker practices and commissions. ASIC recently highlighted one case of broker fraud.

Given that around half of all mortgages are originated via the broker channel, it is no surprise there is focus on brokers conduct.  Our recent post on mortgage brokers discusses this in detail.