brokers & their identity & PMs

MortgageMamma

I wish we could just go back to the days where we actually concentrated on selling and giving advice, rather than spending 50% of our day worrying ourselves to death about ambigous compliance issues.

payless

whiteflag wrote:

While these disclosure rules apply I will stop posting.

I don't think they are "enforced rules", so I would not change what you are doing ( I assumed you were an IFA)

my original comments, were just that - certainly not a rule

Suppose what I was getting was that perhaps those that make it clear they are in the financial services business should perhaps " back it up" with clear trace to who they are, and those that decide not to make their fs status known-- well they need not do anything .. or is this just confsing ???

Yes... cold call PM... .. sad ( I did once contact someone with a comment that I would rather not post for all to see , but not with intention of getting business)

payless

MortgageMamma wrote:

I wish we could just go back to the days where we actually concentrated on selling and giving advice, rather than spending 50% of our day worrying ourselves to death about ambigous compliance issues.

Its called consumer protection

dunstonh

There is nothing wrong with compliance requirements. Yes, in some areas it is anal and then really lacking in other more important areas. However a lot of it is common sense.

MortgageMamma

Compliance issues are a good thing I agree with that, and wholeheartedly with the fact it offers consumer protection. What I dont like is when I see IFA's in a situation where they worry themselves to death over what is and what is not compliant -as I see it regularly, compliance on mortgages is very easy in my opinion compared to other areas of finance. Plenty of mortgage brokers and IFA's cannot sustain the costs of compliance and wind up their businesses. It's really sad to see. Thats one of the bad things about being directly authorised and not with a network.

dunstonh

Thats one of the bad things about being directly authorised and not with a network.

Not necessarily. I am looking at going directly authorised and dropping my network membership. I can buy the network services ad hoc considerably cheaper than what I pay them in membership fees. I can also still get the higher commission rates and better premium terms which used to be a good reason to go with a network.

Plenty of mortgage brokers and IFA's cannot sustain the costs of compliance and wind up their businesses.

I think there is a problem where some consumers don't realise the cost of being in business as an advice company. They see illustrations showing gross commissions or wonder why fees are so high. They don't realise the costs behind the scenes. It would certainly scare a lot of advisors off. Particulary those on the old fashioned up front commission basis model which is proving to be more and more unsustainable.

MortgageMamma

Yes I agree dunston with the second part, I have never been with a network but all I have heard from other brokers is how much they cost, how they are overly obbsessive and controlling on compliance, and basically that they own your @rse. I'm very strong minded and I think it would drive me mad being with a network, possibly almost as bad as working for an employer in my view.

And no the general public have no idea how much the advice process costs, I've found a lot of clients, especially when I was operating in an online only capacity asking for a rebate of part of the proc fee. Its hard to explain why you say no and I have lost business doing it.

My old boss when I was training reckoned this per case, let me know what you think as I think it is rubbish

1/2 hour client interview fact find
20 mins sourcing and producing key facts mortgage only
12 minutes talking client through the product and closing sale
10 minutes sending out application form with covering letter
10 minutes processing application when it came in
15 minutes producing suitablity letter

then

quote and cross sell (not advise you note) life assurance, cic, income prot or PHI, B & C, home emergency insurance - 30 minutes!!!!

2 hours 13 minutes from start to finish? surely not? and he didn't include suitability for any other products here. What do you reckon, is this unrealistic? (this is all with no admin support)

dunstonh

Yes I agree dunston with the second part, I have never been with a network but all I have heard from other brokers is how much they cost, how they are overly obbsessive and controlling on compliance, and basically that they own your @rse. I'm very strong minded and I think it would drive me mad being with a network, possibly almost as bad as working for an employer in my view.

Its not as bad as that. I'm with Sesame and apart from the once a year visit to check my compliance (logs, registers, CPD etc) and about 1 in 10 cases checked for standards, I never hear from them. I know two IFAs with Personal Touch and they have all sorts of restrictions on some things which I would consider unimportant but have no restrictions or even offer help on other areas.

Networks only tend to start being a hassle when you are being a hassle to them or you have failing standards. Which to honest, is the time the network should be a hassle.

If you knew the size of my network membership, you would see why I am looking at going direct! That is the only motivator for me looking to leave them. However, the option I would almost certainly go with is Sesame Direct. You could say that I dont want them being paid by commission but by fees instead

My old boss when I was training reckoned this per case, let me know what you think as I think it is rubbish

i don't do mortgages myself, I leave that to someone else. So I will relate that in the investment class side.

1/2 hour client interview fact find

Make that an intial 30-60 minute meeting general discussion, concepts, ideas and maybe a few basic factfind details, along with letters of authority to obtain information.

Post of authorities, wait for information to arrive, analyse it, research any initial information to give examples, if required. Anything from 10 minutes to 4 hours.

Go back on second visit, firm up what you will be doing. Complete factfind. Another 60-90 minutes

Research, anything from 1 hour to 4 hours. Prepare paperwork, prepare pre issue suitability report (i chose to pre-issure reports and they are quite detailed) so thats another hour in writing that up. Go back on 3rd visit to present and complete business. Another 60 minutes with that appt. Return to office. All paperwork to be scanned for client file and distributed to necessary locations. Done online where possible. Another 60 minutes for all that.

I think 10-12 hours would be fair on designated investment business for an average case. I know some that will do it a lot quicker but I have seen the quality (or lack of) of their client files and suitability reports.

whiteflag_3

payless wrote:

I don't think they are "enforced rules", so I would not change what you are doing ( I assumed you were an IFA)

my original comments, were just that - certainly not a rule

Suppose what I was getting was that perhaps those that make it clear they are in the financial services business should perhaps " back it up" with clear trace to who they are, and those that decide not to make their fs status known-- well they need not do anything .. or is this just confsing ???

Yes... cold call PM... .. sad ( I did once contact someone with a comment that I would rather not post for all to see , but not with intention of getting business)

Ive been back through my own posts and cant see any where specific advice has been given other than go see an IFA.

What I think is ironic is that most of the posts on this site giving specific advice are made by the Amateurs, while the IFAs, mortgage brokers etc are always more cautious and balanced in their responses.

herbiesjp

whiteflag wrote:

What I think is ironic is that most of the posts on this site giving specific advice are made by the Amateurs, while the IFAs, mortgage brokers etc are always more cautious and balanced in their responses.

Indeed I believe we have to adopt this appraoch and rightly so Whiteflag.

A lot of posters may indeed mean well when posting a specific lender on a thread, but they could in reality being doing more harm than good, as we all know that a lender may not be suitable for the client for a number of reasons.

More importantly I do not think the open board and threads have anywhere near enough information for someone to be as specific to name lenders.

It may be fine to say that they were good for you in your particular situation, however I think that most people should be careful about what they do with information and advice posted on the board.

I really do think the professionals in their specific areas should still be consulted after having done some research even from the boards.