Proposed Mortgage Broker Code of Conduct

AndrewSmith

To be honest Martin I think that a simple sticky at the top of the mortgage forum containing the code of conduct within a closed thread would be sufficient, In a similar way to how the forum rules are presented at the top of the forum page.

I do not personally see the necessity for a link in the signature.

kenshaz

Andrew,my reason for promoting the link to the code of conduct was purely to give the reader an instant confirmation ,this would convey status ,information is power.The unfamiliar user would not have to search for a code ,and it would convey confidence.

A sticky would work,but it might be missed,there is a list of articles on the left side of the page ,but some readers are unaware until a link is provided in a post Whilst I am not underestimating the ability of users,it takes time to become user friendly on a new website.

In my profession it was necessary to communicate important messages to the community,heighten awareness,and it is important to see a project from the aspect of an individual with no previous ,evaluate on that basis ,and then we can be assured that they where fully versed.

tomstickland

I'm actually struggling a bit on the point of all this. People know that MSE is a public forum, so anyone can ask for advice and anyone can reply. It is up to the OP to seek information from as many sources a possible and make their own decisions. Most sensible people look for a consensus, with the more people agreeing then the more valid the advice is.

I've never had a problem with the previous "I'm a mortgage advisor" type signatures. Funnily, it doesn't really matter whether the person is or not. Anyone on MSE can put claims in their sig.

For example "I'm a reasonable person who'd never resort to searching other peoples posts looking for snipe topics and then edit them later, reclaiming the moral high ground when it suits me".

kenshaz

MSE_Martin wrote:

Hi Kenshaz

I need to talk to my forum team about whether there is a link to code of conduct and how its done. A link in sig is always open to abuse. So i want to see how and whether it can be done.

As for tied advisers, we've used the term mortgage advisers. The whole point in a way is its self-defining by those who work professionally in the industry. The less we discriminate on a term which the site won't be regulating anyway the better.

Martin

Yes Martin - I had not considered that a link in a signature might be open to abuse a little naive of me I suppose,but I have made my points to Andrew and I feel that they are valid.

herbiesjp

Hi Guys

I've been on the road most of today - hope you did not think I was ignoring you

I must say that i do like what has been proposed and have implemented it already as have others i see

mishkanorman

from a very impartial point of view (i never come on this board)

I think the idea of a signature explaining that you are a bit more than a like to-think-i-know-it-all is a good one

BUT

i feel that it would lead to a hierarchy where those with signatures may dismiss the thoughts of others as un-important and sometimes a personal opinion is better than a proffessional one (im guessing here, i really dont know the regulars on the forum) or worse people may take the advice from those who are identified as flawless.

If this isnt going to be regulated by MSE, what is the difference going to be ?? Surely self declared experts, either by signature or just by their reply's to posts is the same thing.


Sorry to be negative but i really dont see the difference this will make, if people are taking the advice given as gospel will a signature change much ?


mishka

kenshaz

mishkanorman wrote:

from a very impartial point of view (i never come on this board)

I think the idea of a signature explaining that you are a bit more than a like to-think-i-know-it-all is a good one

BUT

i feel that it would lead to a hierarchy where those with signatures may dismiss the thoughts of others as un-important and sometimes a personal opinion is better than a proffessional one (im guessing here, i really dont know the regulars on the forum) or worse people may take the advice from those who are identified as flawless.

If this isnt going to be regulated by MSE, what is the difference going to be ?? Surely self declared experts, either by signature or just by their reply's to posts is the same thing.


Sorry to be negative but i really dont see the difference this will make, if people are taking the advice given as gospel will a signature change much ?


mishka

Welcome to this thread .I am sure that Martin will value your opinion as I do.
I do not believe that you are being negative ,I would describe it as sincere,the views of other non brokers would certainly bring a change of complexion.I am sure that the moderates on this forum welcome a different perspective.

The points you raise in respect to hierarchy are valid on a site that is predominately consumer led ,gives me concern,the need to inform about status without segregation.

Will a signature change much? No

I also accept your point about being identified as flawless,because of a signature.

The point about --the thoughts of some being dismissed as pointless because they have no signature is a perception and is valid and should not be dismissed ,because it relates to your hierarchy view.

My conclusion is that ultimately you are judged by the content of your post not a few words of introduction.

jamesd

Martin,

Generally looks good to me, though I am concerned that it may discourage brokers from mentioning their details when transparency makes that the best option, as it does in discussions of many industry issues. For example, I'd definitely want to know whether a broker was paid by commission or fees during a discussion of which is best for broker businesses for consumers.

The prohibition on a broker answering direct questions such as "Are you a broker?" if they aren't using the signature seems highly undesirable. I'd much prefer brokers always being able to answer direct questions asked of them by those who are not brokers, since they are likely to be asking because they believe it is helpful to transparency in the context in which the question is asked. The prohibition comes from "Mortgage brokers who choose not to use the signature should not indicate they are brokers in any other way within their posts".

The same rule gives brokers who do not use the signature a substantial advantage in discussions of industry issues, since it prohibits them from disclosing their bias.

The revised text "When making suggestions to consumers mortgage brokers who choose not to use the signature should not indicate they are brokers in any other way within their posts" seems likely to block unhelpful conduct while allowing helpful disclosure of interests in more general discussions.

This also removes the practical difficulty of having to write "I'm unable to confirm or deny that I'm a broker" if directly questioned and that in turn becoming an indicator that the poster is a broker not using the signature.

[STRIKE]

---

[/STRIKE]
I am not a Mortgage Advisor

You should note that this site doesn't check my status, so you need to take my word for it. This signature is here and I needn't follow MSE's Mortgage Adviser code of conduct. Any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice.

Nothing explicit currently prohibits a broker from claiming that they are not a broker. It would be most unwise, though, since unwritten rules would probably be promptly applied.

MortgageMamma

kenshaz wrote:

Welcome to this thread .I am sure that Martin will value your opinion as I do.

kenshaz wrote:

I do not believe that you are being negative ,I would describe it as sincere,the views of other non brokers would certainly bring a change of complexion.I am sure that the moderates on this forum welcome a different perspective.

The points you raise in respect to hierarchy are valid on a site that is predominately consumer led ,gives me concern,the need to inform about status without segregation.

Will a signature change much? No

I also accept your point about being identified as flawless,because of a signature.

MM -Some very good points Kenshaz, but, in general an Adviser on the boards would not make a consumer feel any less valued as anyone else.

And guess what? ADVISERS ARE NOT FLAWLESS - YES we make mistakes on occassion and mess up like anyone else. Only a few weeks ago conrad helped a forum user with something I just didnt have the experience of. Some of us have more experience than others - we are all at different stages in our careers, but we are all human beings, people as well as brokers - we all have different personalities. Sometimes people just see us for our occupations and not who we really are.

MM -Sometimes people can feel a tiny little bit patronized when dealing with someone of immense experience (I feel naive and ignorant in the presence of my newly appointed accountant, because he is amazingly helpful), but we do not set out to make anyone feel stupid or to riddicule those with lesser knowledge. I think sometimes it is just the perception of the individual that they are less valued than perhaps a broker - but realistically we can only do our best to stop people feeling this - but we cannot control the mindset of people. Hopefully people who come to these forums take knowledge away with them that they didnt have before their visit. If they go away feeling a little daunted or stupid or whatever, they have the choice to deal with the situation - swot up and learn, get a broker, do nothing. Ultimately its up to them.

MM -It is only fair though, that if something is stated that would potentially be no good for a poster, that those with the enhanced knowledge shall we say offer some guidance as to why that might not be suitable. I've never seen this done in anything less than a tactful and courteous way by an adviser, however I have witnessed non brokers rip someone to bits over something silly.

The point about --the thoughts of some being dismissed as pointless because they have no signature is a perception and is valid and should not be dismissed ,because it relates to your hierarchy view.

MM - just wondered, who exactly would do the dismissing? Is it really so important to everyone that their points are taken on board? (vanity?) I sometimes post things myself that are not responded to at all or in the way I would like - you just have to take it on the cheek and get on with things, its not the end of the world - it does not really matter what EVERYONE who takes part in a thread thinks of your views - just the person you are trying to help, and if they don't take on board your opinoin, whether you are a declared professional or not, thats their pidgeon. I think this again just boils down to vanity in most cases, as nobody likes to be proved wrong.

My conclusion is that ultimately you are judged by the content of your post not a few words of introduction.

MM -Yes, you are correct, but really this is just a forum, so its quite difficult to gauge or judge anyone from words on a screen. It really is not about judgement of an individual, its about imparting information that will help someone

EdInvestor

kenshaz wrote:

Andrew,my reason for promoting the link to the code of conduct was purely to give the reader an instant confirmation ,this would convey status ,information is power.The unfamiliar user would not have to search for a code ,and it would convey confidence.

A sticky would work,but it might be missed,there is a list of articles on the left side of the page ,but some readers are unaware until a link is provided in a post Whilst I am not underestimating the ability of users,it takes time to become user friendly on a new website.

I'm inclined to think a sticky will be adequate in the long run - however some initial publicity for the existence of the code may be useful.