Special Official Note For Mortgage Brokers

EdInvestor

AndrewSmith wrote:

Martin himself states that if a poster feels a broker has been particularly helpful in the forum then he has no problem with that poster approaching one of the brokers from the forums.It is conducted on a much larger scale for the likes of L&C, Moneyquest etc, rather than the very few approaches I have received, the majrity of which I decline anyway due to workload.

I don't think we should underestimate the cost of running a site like this - bandwith charges alone with thousands of people online constantly will be substantial, not to mention staff salaries. Marttin has to find that money somewhere.

In terms of generating funds , I personally prefer the advertising route,as I feel it's more transparent than the "advertorial"/referral style used here.After all, people generally assume advertising and editorial are quite separate in the press - that's been the case for years.There's no suggestion that just because a paper or TV channel runs an ad, it endorses the product.BUT, people also pay for their newspapers (and some TV as well these days) and that makes a big difference.

The internet has always operated on a somewhat different basis - it has been virtually impossible for sites to charge a subscription, people want it for free.This leads to the lines blurring between different types of content as site owners try out different ways to generate enough cash to pay for running costs - much less make a profit. The combination editorial/"advertorial" technique Martin has chosen has also been successfully used in the media for years, and as long as it's clearly labelled (which does happen here), I see no problem with it.

If anyone has figured out any new and better ideas in this area, I am sure that everyone who runs websites would be delighted to hear them

The bottom line IMHO is transparency. How to make sure posters know what is proper advice and what is not.How to help posters detect an unauthorised person or scamster as opposed to a legitimate financial professional.

But it's not as easy as it looks - the finance industry is well known to be a minefield and for good reason.This had led to very complex regulation. Thus, it may seem sensible that people are identified as brokers, but then this will be seen as wrong because it is could be surreptitious advertising/promotion, which is not allowed. Or because it gives the broker's posts a veneer of authority - they appear to be real advice - when they are nothing of the sort.

In a way it's a reflection of the exceptionally bad behaviour in the industry's history that every time you try and help an investor understand what's in their best interests, you discover the industry has twisted the regulations to have exactly the opposite effect. To take a simple example, the word "guarantee" attached to a product now almost invariably means "very poor value for money".

I can understand the FSA's frustration at times.

AndrewSmith

kenshaz wrote:

I support charities,but it is not necessary for me to list them as credentials.I believe that is a private matter,and the reason I give is to assist others.

That is exactly the reason why qualified professionals give their time FREELY to offer guidance and help on a forum such as this. That is the thing a lot of people forget I think. Posting here is not a career nor is it our job. We do so in our spare time and without the intention of personal gain whatsoever.

If you had an understanding of the day to day pressures and tight regulatory framework in which we have to operate you too would understand the value to one's sanity of having an arena such as this to offer generic guidance and let off steam. I usually grab a spare hour or so in the day as I also find it entertaining on occasion.

Not only that, no-one has the monopoly on good ideas and it is also a place where brokers, in a usually very lonely occupation, can make contact and share non specific case problems or ideas with each other and learn from each other.

Look at it this way, if you had a mortgage broker set up a stall in your local Citizens Advice Bureau offering free generic mortgage information do you honestly believe that he would not attract a certain level of business enquiries as a result? Also are you the saying that this individual should give the proceeds to charity?

My friend your argument is without substance and shows a complete lack of understanding of the overheads and costs involved in running a mortgage practice.

Are you saying therefore that ANYONE accepting business as a result of these forums is acting in a less than moral way?

I would think very carefully before you answer.

AndrewSmith

I agree Ed and do not dispute anything that you are saying. (L&C do not contribute financially to the site BTW apart from the sponsorship of articles). Being the owner of a website based company and having previously been involved with the running of a large chat site in the UK I fully understand the implications and costs of bandwidth etc, albeit on a much smaller scale than Moneysavingexpert.

This is not the issue. The issue is that immorality is being implied if a broker accepts business via this site.

My point is does this extend to ALL tradespeople who have accepted business as a result of this site? If not why are brokers/IFA's being singled out?

kenshaz

EdInvestor wrote:

I don't think we should underestimate the cost of running a site like this - bandwith charges alone with thousands of people online constantly will be substantial, not to mention staff salaries. Marttin has to find that money somewhere.

In terms of generating funds , I personally prefer the advertising route,as I feel it's more transparent than the "advertorial"/referral style used here.After all, people generally assume advertising and editorial are quite separate in the press - that's been the case for years.There's no suggestion that just because a paper or TV channel runs an ad, it endorses the product.BUT, people also pay for their newspapers (and some TV as well these days) and that makes a big difference.

The internet has always operated on a somewhat different basis - it has been virtually impossible for sites to charge a subscription, people want it for free.This leads to the lines blurring between different types of content as site owners try out different ways to generate enough cash to pay for running costs - much less make a profit. The combination editorial/"advertorial" technique Martin has chosen has also been successfully used in the media for years, and as long as it's clearly labelled (which does happen here), I see no problem with it.

If anyone has figured out any new and better ideas in this area, I am sure that everyone who runs websites would be delighted to hear them

The bottom line IMHO is transparency. How to make sure posters know what is proper advice and what is not.How to help posters detect an unauthorised person or scamster as opposed to a legitimate financial professional.

But it's not as easy as it looks - the finance industry is well known to be a minefield and for good reason.This had led to very complex regulation. Thus, it may seem sensible that people are identified as brokers, but then this will be seen as wrong because it is could be surreptitious advertising/promotion, which is not allowed. Or because it gives the broker's posts a veneer of authority - they appear to be real advice - when they are nothing of the sort.

In a way it's a reflection of the exceptionally bad behaviour in the industry's history that every time you try and help an investor understand what's in their best interests, you discover the industry has twisted the regulations to have exactly the opposite effect. To take a simple example, the word "guarantee" attached to a product now almost invariably means "very poor value for money".

I can understand the FSA's frustration at times.

An excellent ,impartial response,raising some important points regarding---the assumption that advertising and editorial are separate----it may seem sensible to identify brokers,but then this will be seen as wrong because it could be seen as surreptitious advertising /promotion.I agree with all that this post commented upon

EdInvestor

Actually I can't help being struck by how relevant this thread is to the latest speech by the boss of the FSA.

He is very critical of the industry (especially the commission model) which he correctly notes is actually no good for anyone, including advisors.

He goes on to say that increasing "financial capability" is one key to resolving the problem.Clearly this site, and others where investors can come on and discuss financial issues with people who have knowledge and experience, play an important part in what is essentially an education process.

We are helping people to spot the good quality legitimate investment products and strategies that will help them advance their wealth from the investments which do the opposite - and particularly of course - from the scams.

THe FSA is unlikely to want to crack down on the very people that are most helpful to its strategy of empowering the consumer.There has actually only been one internet BB related action by the FSA in more than 6 years, and that involved share insider-dealing on ADVFN,not the kind of thing we are discussing.

It targeted the individual not the website, but it's important to make sure that the website is not being used by unscrupulous persons to take advantage of posters.Ideas on stopping that are what's needed IMHO and that includes ways to teach MSE readers how to spot and report a problem and not become a victim.

No chat site has the resources to monitor this kind of problem day and night so people do need to make some effort to help themselves - as they already do by reporting spam for instance.

ctabuk

I have given this matter a great deal of thought.
Surely it is a two edged sword? If people require Mortgage Advice then this highly recommended forum is the best place to do so. The fact that some of us are Mortgage Brokers is somewhat irrelevant, in fact it enhances the facilities offered within the forum, just as long as we do not promote and abide by the forum rules then if someone finds your website and 'likes' what they see and decide to make further enquiries I fail to see what harm it does. I am the least effected because basically we trade within a certain market place and the number of questions that I can respond to are somewhat limited anyway. The reason for that is that I personally have no day to day contact with Mortgages. I am in charge of our Search Engine positions and apart from using a purely common sense approach to those posters with everyday questions I would rather view my position here as almost philanthropic. To fully explain that statement is relatively easy. I joined a year ago and actually got involved with more on the Search Engine side of things, until one of my earlier posts turned up in my SERP (Search Engine Result Pages) so I came back in, and actually for a Mortgage related forum it is extremely well run with some excellent posters. And it makes a very refreshing change to actually meet brokers hell bent on obtaining leads directly from the person with the question.

AndrewSmith

Again, I am in agreement with you Ed.

No one is disputing that there are unscrupulous people out there trawling web forums to gain business. What we are trying to come up with in this thread are solutions and answers as to how best inform the posters of our status (if indeed at all) and the limits of the information we can give.

This thread has turned into a mud-slinging excercise hell bent on trying to discredit the work and efforts put in helping people on this forum by not just brokers, but all trades people offering free guidance in posts, who as a result may be approached for specific help or conclude business on occasion.

Having experience in chat websites and forums I know only too well the massive problem of policing such an environment. That is why, in my mind, the regular posters on this site WHATEVER THEIR PROFESSIONAL STATUS are more important than ever as I know that they will report any percieved wrongdoing.

What I will not accept though Ed, and this is not directed at you, is the accusation that we are in some way acting immorally or improperly by accepting the occasional client as a result of the time and efforts devoted to the forum. The finger is definately being pointed in the wrong direction by some.

The people generally who abuse sites like this do not take the time and trouble to visit on a regular basis. They are 'one hit wonders' so to speak.

EdInvestor

What I will not accept though Ed, and this is not directed at you, is the accusation that we are in some way acting immorally or improperly by accepting the occasional client as a result of the time and efforts devoted to the forum. The finger is definately being pointed in the wrong direction by some.

Personally, in principle, I don't feel it's a problem as long as the business is not solicited by the broker.

The people generally who abuse sites like this do not take the time and trouble to visit on a regular basis. They are 'one hit wonders' so to speak.

Which is one reason why IMHO the signature business is not an important factor at all. Regulars who post here and work in the industry are extremely easy to spot.There is no need to issue them with labels like " I am a broker/IFA but this is not advice".Especially when the T&Cs state the label isnt checked and may be fictitious.

:huh: :huh:

I mean what is a novice to think?It invites abuse and confusion.

MortgageMamma

Does anybody feel that an article (say a sticky at the top of the mortgages forum) informing forum users how to check an advisors credentials before doing business with them would be a good option. We could add this information as a link in posts and signatures - for example, perhaps something like this in the signature

" For security reasons it is strongly advised that you investigate the credentials of any Mortgage Brokerage/Independent Financial Advisor you discuss your situation with, either on this website, or that you have approached by other means. Before taking any further action it is recommended that you read the following thread" (link sticky)

Or, on reflection, do you think something like this would add further suspicion in peoples minds and portray and even greater negative image that we are not to be trusted?

dunstonh

My point is does this extend to ALL tradespeople who have accepted business as a result of this site? If not why are brokers/IFA's being singled out?

Because this site does have a number of highly vocal anti financial services/adviser contributers. They can be quite hostile to those in the industry at times. There is some of that starting to appear in this thread.

What I will not accept though Ed, and this is not directed at you, is the accusation that we are in some way acting immorally or improperly by accepting the occasional client as a result of the time and efforts devoted to the forum. The finger is definately being pointed in the wrong direction by some.

I have been approached a number of times by people. What you tend to find is that many start the process, take your advice and then do it with one of the discount companies. Some dont even have the courtesy to thank you for the advice. Those that have transacted through me account for 0.24% of my annual turnover and have done so because they wanted to, not because I asked them to. You would be a fool to post on the forums in the hope it would generate a sustainable business level.

It targeted the individual not the website, but it's important to make sure that the website is not being used by unscrupulous persons to take advantage of posters.Ideas on stopping that are what's needed IMHO and that includes ways to teach MSE readers how to spot and report a problem and not become a victim.

The unscrupulous individual isnt going to waste their time posting everyday helping others. They are going to do it out of sight behind the scenes (hence my suggestion to stop PMs for those with a post count less than 10) and that type of person shouldnt be compared to the very helpful professional advisers on this board.