Peak Industry Body Defends Current Broker Remuneration

Finance Brokers Association of Australia (FBAA) has lodged its response to the royal commission’s interim report, arguing that brokers should not be “forced into even more documentary disclosure” regarding commissions and reiterating its support of the current remuneration structure, via The Adviser.

The interim report from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry was released at the end of September, raising a swathe of questions regarding the mortgage broking industry.

In the report, the commission questioned some aspects of broker remuneration (including the perceived conflicts of upfront and trail commissions based on loan value and the now largely defunct volume-based commissions), outlined that there was “no simple legal answer” for explaining whom an intermediary (such as a broker) acts for, and questioned the need for a new duty on brokers.

“[I]t will be important to consider whether value and volume-based remuneration of intermediaries should be forbidden,” the commissioner wrote in his report, outlining findings from ASIC’s remuneration review that found that broker loans are marginally larger and have slightly higher loan-to-value ratios (LVRs).

While the full responses to the financial services royal commission have not yet been officially released, the Finance Brokers Association of Australia (FBAA) has revealed that it has tabled a “substantive submission” focusing on disclosure obligations, remuneration structures, compliance with existing laws, and the commission’s call for greater regulation.

Speaking of the association’s submission, FBAA managing director Peter White warned of any wholesale changes to the current broker remuneration model, arguing that major change may be detrimental to the industry.

“We are concerned that a change to the existing structure without fully understanding the impact of any proposed model may simply disrupt a stable and important profession with no corresponding improvement,” Mr White said.

“The majority of misconduct has been due to market participants failing to follow existing laws. This shows that further reforms should not be contemplated until there is compliance with current laws.”

The FBAA also said that its submission disputes claims that lenders paying value-based upfront and trail commissions could be a possible breach of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act (NCCP).

“The relevant section does not prohibit conflicts of interest, only those causing disadvantage, yet the term disadvantage is imperfect and can’t be relied on. It’s our submission that the laws already in place strike an appropriate balance,” Mr White said.

Touching on remuneration disclosure to brokers, the FBAA emphasised that brokers already provide “lengthy disclosure documents”, while the NCCP Act ensures that clients are well informed about the costs and commissions.

“We don’t want brokers to be forced into even more documentary disclosure and that view accords with ASIC’s findings that consumers can disengage because of information overload,” Mr White said.

The managing director of the FBAA concluded that that while the association agrees with the commission’s interim report that improvements could be made, he “agreed” that new laws or regulations are not necessarily the answer.

“Some of the responses to the royal commission have verged on emotional or value proposition statements, and while most have merit, we have deliberately taken a strong legal approach to our language to ensure our messages are clearly understood by the commissioner, a High Court Judge,” Mr White said.

The seventh round of hearings for the final round of the financial services royal commission will be held at the Lionel Bowen Building in Sydney from 19 to 23 November and at the Commonwealth Law Courts Building in Melbourne from 26 to 30 November.

The hearings will focus on “causes of misconduct and conduct falling below community standards and expectations by financial services entities (including culture, governance, remuneration and risk management practices), and on possible responses, including regulatory reform”.

It is expected that the seventh round will be the final round of the financial services royal commission, unless Commissioner Hayne requests, and is granted, an extension.

Commissioner Kenneth Hayne is expected to release his final report, which will include the topics of the fifth, sixth and seventh rounds of hearings (focusing on superannuation, insurance and “policy questions arising from the first six rounds”, respectively) by 1 February 2019.

More Industry Verbiage On Why The Royal Commission Is “Wrong”

I have to say I am getting a little tired of all the various industry bodies coming out and trying to defend their corner – Mortgage Brokers of course came in for some severe criticism in the Royal Commission, especially about conflicted advice in the context of commissions.   Remember the bigger the loan they write, the more they get paid!

The latest is the FBAA. This from The Adviser.

The industry association has responded to a suggestion made by Commissioner Hayne that the payment of value-based commissions to brokers “might” be breaching NCCP obligations.

Executive director of the Finance Brokers Association of Australia (FBAA) Peter White has rejected claims made by Commissioner Kenneth Hayne in the interim report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

Commissioner Hayne alleged that lenders paying value-based upfront and trail commissions could be in breach of section 47(1)(b) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act (NCCP).

Section 47(1)(b) states that licensees must “have in place adequate arrangements to ensure that clients are not disadvantaged by any conflict of interest that may arise wholly or partly in relation to credit activities engaged in by the licensee or its representatives”.

However, Mr White said that the interim report did not find any systemic evidence to suggest that conflict of interest in the payment of commissions to brokers directly disadvantages clients.

The FBAA director added that he believes licensees already have “adequate arrangements” in place to prevent conflicts of interest.

Mr White added: “The commissioner pointed out that a breach of the NCCP is not an offence or open to civil penalty.

“I would argue that the cancellation or suspension of a broker’s licence by ASIC is a substantial penalty in itself.”

Mr White also sought to dismiss concerns raised by the commissioner over the number of loans submitted via the broker channel with higher loan-to-value ratios (LVRs).

“It’s the broker’s duty to put the client’s interest first and to meet, if not exceed, their expectations,” the FBAA executive director said.

“In meeting client needs, brokers are often asked to source higher leverage loans to appropriately support their needs, taking into account a client’s debt levels and loan-to-valuation ratios.

“It’s a broker’s ability to source a specific loan product to suit their client’s specific needs that gives us a market advantage.”

Mr White concluded by stating that brokers were at the forefront of efforts to improve service delivery and remuneration structures.

The FBAA echoed comments made by the Mortgage & Finance Association of Australia (MFAA), which told its members: “The self-regulatory approach the industry is taking through the [Combined Industry Forum] remains the best way to improve customer outcomes, standards of conduct and culture, while preserving and promoting a vibrant and competitive mortgage broking industry that encourages consumer choice.”

Submissions in response to the commission’s interim report can be made on the royal commission website and must be received no later than 5pm on 26 October 2018.

The commission will release a final report, which will include the topics of the fifth, sixth and seventh rounds of hearings (focusing on superannuation, insurance and “policy questions arising from the first six rounds”, respectively) by 1 February 2019.

Broker Review May Be Delayed Further – FBAA

From The Adviser.

The head of the FBAA has suggested that the government response to ASIC’s 2017 review of broker remuneration could be delayed until the second half of 2019 if formal conclusions aren’t made before the end of the year.

Speaking at the 2018 Industry Commercial Masterclass in Sydney on Thursday (26 July), the executive director of the Finance Brokers Association of Australia (FBAA) told delegates that he had been meeting with the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O’Dwyer, members of the Productivity Commission (PC) and other government officials to discuss the value of the broking industry.

Peter White revealed that he had asked Minister O’Dwyer when a government response was due on ASIC’s comprehensive report on broker remuneration, given that the consultation on the report had closed more than a year ago.

According to Mr White, the government has decided to wait until it has considered both the PC’s final report into competition in the Australian financial system and the first report from the financial services royal commission.

Noting that the PC’s final report had now been handed to the government, Mr White highlighted that the government had to table the report within 25 sitting days of receipt. Given that Parliament is not back until 13 August, he said that this could mean that the report may not be tabled until October.

He also reiterated that the interim royal commission report is not due until 30 September and that the final report is expected by 1 February 2019.

The head of the FBAA suggested that a government response may therefore not come “until the end of this year”, if not longer, given the country is expecting a federal election next year.

Recalling a situation in 2012 when Treasury was consulting on the second phase of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act (NCCP II) and delayed its response until after a federal election had taken place, Mr White warned that such a scenario could impact the industry once again, given that a federal election will be held next year.

Mr White said: “We may, or may not, get a decision on all this [review of broker remuneration] this year.

“[Minister O’Dwyer] said that, at the end of the day, there will be no determinations made on the ASIC remuneration paper until such time as the royal commission is finished, and those reports are out and the discussion has been had.”

Mr White added: “Bear in mind where we are heading this year, if we do not get decisions on these things before the end of this year, it won’t happen until the second half of the year after the federal election. That is the bottom line, and we’d just have to deal with that and roll with it as we go.”