Explaining the difference.....

MortgageMamma

Or, in some cases, just be happy to go in after the life assurance and associated business and not charge a fee?

herbiesjp

MortgageMamma wrote:

Or, in some cases, just be happy to go in after the life assurance and associated business and not charge a fee?

Indeed - whatever you feel is best for the customer and your time involved with the application

Each to their own :beer:

MortgageMamma

Your little smilies have reminded me how I sometimes need to get off my high horse, chill and have a cold beer!

herbiesjp

How dare you call my smilies little !! :rotfl:

MortgageMamma

thats obviously come from a man with a complex!

herbiesjp

MortgageMamma wrote:

thats obviously come from a man with a complex!

Oh indeed i have - but thats another thread! :rotfl:

payless

When introducing myself I cover that there are a bfew lenders that either won't take broker business or won't pay commission.

In my summary / terms I use:-

Whole of Market definition - this covers the large majority of lenders but may not include every provider, as allowed by FSA, as some lenders will not accept or pay for business via intermediaries /brokers, or other products may be sold on a direct or exclusive basis. (ask for list of providers excluded). However on request we can also include research on non fee paying lenders/ products based on information where available, this service costs an additional fee of £100 at outset ( refunded if we then go on to complete commission paying work).

---

In practice though its rare for me to levy and charge for this - if I am aware of a really great "direct " deal, in the past I have just given the info ... although I must toughen up.

EdInvestor

Gosh it's even more of a mess than it seemed to be on the other thread and that was bad enough.

It certainly seems misleading to me to claim Whole of Market status but not to mention that there are lenders who don't use intermediaries at all.

How does the punter find out who these lenders are that only deal direct?

dunstonh

For investment business, the minimum standard is to pick 3 companies and choose the best contract from those 3. As long as you are not exceeding 20% with any one company then there is no problem.

These rules have been round for very many years and I doubt there are many left who still only compare 3. Its a throwback to the pre-computer days when research information wasnt as easy to come by to cover the whole market. The rules have never changed to reflect modernisation.

With a bigger focus on better quality client files and better research software available, it would only be a fool that would work on a minium of 3 providers. For example, I just did an Equity ISA and started off the research with 200 providers (wrapper providers, not funds). A long way from the 3. However, that didnt include the providers that dont deal with IFAs.

So, in relation to the mortgage side, if there are a handful of mortgages not available through whole of market brokers, they are a tiny minority and in the scheme of things dont really matter because there are far more available with the true whole of market broker.

MortgageMamma

I think much of how this is dealt with depends on the actual advisor involved, and how much they want/need the business. The way I do it is this, explain to the client the difference between true whole of market and tied, then also add in the fact there are a handful of lenders who will not accept business from intermediaries.

I then explain that this doesnt mean I will not advise or recommend on that specific product, but that if it is the case then I will advise them a direct deal is more suitable and levy a small fee for my time. Most clients are OK with this, but I do not have such a good way with words and sometimes see them frowning - particularly if I have to explain the difference between true whole of market and a tied whole of market advisor!

The point is, sometimes this is too much informaiton for a client to take in, and, and as a result of the ambiguity of the situation they sometimes become confused and that results in a loss of confidence in you as an advisor.

This is why I feel so strongly that there should be more defined categories for whole of market status, to make it easier for the public to understand and to make it fairer on TRUE whole of market brokers such as myself, who have to waste so much time and effort explaining to someone the differences only to find it didn't sink in!