Special Official Note For Mortgage Brokers

MortgageMamma wrote:

I didnt want people thinking I was some unregulated unqualified know it all.

Speaking as one of the above IMHO this is where one of the problems lies.

I think it's fairly obvious that if someone has a signature that states s/he is an offically qualified advisor, it doesn't matter how many times s/he states what s/he says is "not advice", a naive poster who gets a personal reply is going to think it is, in fact, what he thinks is advice. Or something very close to it.

He will not have a clue what the difference is between regulated "advice" and what one individual says to another individual when asked for help about something.As we know these are worlds apart, and the FSA is basically only concerned about the regulated type.Signatures make it more likely there will be confusion between the two and thus IMHO they should be dropped as it is counter-productive to blur the issue.

Having people's actual FSA numbers on signatures would make this problem even worse and leave the advisors potentially open to real problems if they did actually by accident give someone what the FSA determined was regulated "advice" and there was a complaint. This could be a minefield and I strongly suggest the site doesn't go there.

MSE readers really need to be helped to learn that they must not accept information and opinions from anyone off internet BBs as gospel, they need either to 'do their own research' so as to be able successfully to DIY - or to consult a qualified advisor to get official paid-for advice.

I personally think it should be OK for links in profiles to people's business websites because the approach will then be coming from the poster, so it's not touting.But obviously I have no idea whether the FSA would agree with that.

The more important aspect from the protection point of view IMHO is that posters need to be warned strongly to ignore all unsolicited approaches and to report them.

An example: the Motley Fool has a system where posters can email you directly off the boards.At the end of any such email you get is the following:

We hope you appreciated receiving this post from The Motley Fool Discussion Boards. We foster an environment of civil and open debate. However, some people abuse their privileges and send inappropriate
e-mails. If you believe the content of this e-mail violates our Rules,please let us know:
1. Click this link: http://boards.fool.co.uk/foolcop.asp2. Copy the entire contents of the e-mail you received.
3. Paste the e-mail into our web form.
Our Rules: http://www.fool.co.uk/help/foolsrules.htm

Perhaps a warning at the top of the PM box to report any abuse to the usual link would be helpful ?

Havin read the thread so far, my suggestion would be as follows.

The situation re web links in profiles etc should remain as it is. I am not sure that martin even asked about them in the op.

I would suggest the following as a signature template:

I am a mortgage adviser. My comments here are for discussion and generic information purposes only. Before you act, have any information confirmed as suitable by an adviser who knows your full situation. Beware of any unsolicited offers of assistance.

Your home may be repossessed if you do not keep up repayments on your mortgage.

I have had PM's from people describing the Mortgage and Housebuying forums as hunting grounds on occasion, one poster PM'ed me saying he felt like their was a flock of vultures circling overhead.

I dont tend to involve myself on the mortgage threads (just the endomwent ones as that is investment class) as its not my area of authorisation and my knowledge would be weak. So perhaps that is why I havent seen that.

I hope the same view isnt perceived in other areas of the forum, such as savings and investments. In there, we tend to have some pretty heavy debates and discussions and whilst some of us may disagree with each other from time to time, it is fair to say that the content of those threads is usually first rate and anyone reading them could not help but learn more about the subject. It is also done without promotion of any provider or funds.

Perhaps this is why it is more focused on mortgage advisers currently and not the investment class advisers?

If it is a culture and style of posting that is the issue, then perhaps that should be reviewed rather than the content of a signature which most people will not bother to read (unless if has enough smilies in it to draw your attention )

glad to hear it judy...

Perkaps take professional advice from a semiologist. They are bound to be half right!
J_B.