Proposed Mortgage Broker Code of Conduct

herbiesjp

kenshaz wrote:

herbiesjp---- I don't agree with anything he said ,but I do agree with you .

Thank you kenshaz

kenshaz

Whambamboo I agree whole heartedly ,this an open forum and all have the right to express their opinions and views and should be allowed to do so,and I am sure that a ban on criticism on this site would ultimately change the sites basic principles.
I understand your feelings you have been misrepresented and you feel indignant .Adopt the pebble policy ,let it all wash over you.But if you feel that you are not able to .

I feel that perhaps a statement to the Forum manager
explaining how you have been mis -represented ,they could then look into the situation,that would clear the air ,and you would feel vindicated.

jem16

whambamboo wrote:

again, I have to take issue with this. Nobody is calling a whole profession anything, whether it be all advisers slimey because *some* are called thios for being influenced by '50/50' commission arrangements', or all builders cowboys because *some* don't do a good job

If you read my post properly you will see that I mentioned the whole profession with regard to this statement.

You said;

But people *don't* trust the financial services industry.

I changed this to "some people" which IMO is more accurate.

there is no ban or problem with referring to bad professionals as bad on this board, whether they be advisers, police, builders or anything else. Nobody has said that alll *anything* are bad, so I'm not sure why we are still having this discussion.

Nobody has said that you did.

I simply pointed out that I felt no need for the phrase "slimey advisers". IMO you could have expressed the same views with a better choice of words and it would have caused no offence.

whambamboo

jem16 wrote:

If you read my post properly you will see that I mentioned the whole profession with regard to this statement.

You said;

But people *don't* trust the financial services industry.

I changed this to "some people" which IMO is more accurate.

This is getting rather tedious, however, on use of language, "people" is clearly not the same as "all people". It means nothing more than "more than one person".

I simply pointed out that I felt no need for the phrase "slimey advisers". IMO you could have expressed the same views with a better choice of words and it would have caused no offence.

Again, the term was used in the very explicit context of this site and those influenced by its "75 for us, 75 for you" marketing:

http://www.75bps.co.uk/

And I think the comment was very reasonable in that context

MortgageMamma

I really do not want to see anymore he said she said arguements on here, neither does Martin, they are petty and unecessary. Let not go down that road eh

jem16

whambamboo wrote:

And I think the comment was very reasonable in that context

And I don't, sorry.

dunstonh

That is true, which is why I am one of the only advisers on here with the balls to name lenders. I have a disclaimer under my name, and I always encourage a forum user to take professional advice, but I will always give a lender name if asked - because I believe in freedom of choice - I think its unfair not to give a lender name, its like teasing a child in a pushchair with sweets.

I know I'm going to be jumped on by the don't name lenders brigade here, FSA blah blah blah - but I am posting in an unregulated context and I don't think that naming a lender that MAY look at a users circumstances is something that you can get in a lot of trouble for - yes DH I know what happened to you - but that was not with mortgages it was investments, a speculative product.

For reference for those that dont know what MM is referring to there... Many years ago, I used to post on uk.finance newsgroup under a made up name as most of us do here. It was a thread on AVCs and ISAs. Basically you had some saying always ISAs, others saying always AVCs. I took my almost typical line of sometimes ISA, sometimes AVC. Good debate thread, very similar to what we see here at times. Many weeks later, a letter turned up from the FSA saying that someone had written to them with a transcript of the threads making a complaint that the advice I was giving was bad.

The complaint wasnt upheld and was thrown out as a trouble maker as 1) it wasnt advice but discussion 2) the info was correct 3) the transcript sent in had been altered in a number of places and included other peoples comments and not mine.

The FSA had found me despite me not using my real name. The email address was what they used to trace me.

Anyway, the case was referred to my compliance department and it was the first of its kind. They spoke with other companies and the FSA and there had been nothing like it before. So, in discussion with the FSA, compliance rules were put in place based on the following guidelines.

1 - Advisers dont stop being advisers just because its out of hours. There is a duty of care to act within the FSA rules whether you are posting in a professional or personal capacity. The FSA see it is one the same in our case.
2 - Discussion is great and should be encouraged. However, at no time should products be recommended and discussion should be generic (the generic bit can be ignored as that only relates to tied agents. Factual info on products is ok).
3 - Do not use the term recommend or advice or post in a manner that gives the impression that it is advice. If someone appears to be taking it as advice, make it clear that it isnt.
4 - Every post you make should contain a disclaimer (as mentioned on this thread).

Compliance departments look at the rules in different ways but there is a lot of common sense in those rules. Martin has drafted the rules to protect himself but advisers also have a duty to protect themselves.

Unlike electricians who are not regulated and can give advice willy nilly, that cant happen with financial services without the usual disclosure.

With regulation as it is and the FSA employing companies to search the internet for breaches of FSA rules, do you really want to be taking the chance?

The sig protects Martin to highlight the site isnt giving advice. The sig protects us to point out we arent giving out advice. As long as we post in a responsible manner, there is no problem.

Whambamboo, I was offended by your post as we were having a good discussion and I read it to be an indirect slur at me. If that wasnt your intention, then I accept that and apologise for highlighting here. It just goes to show how easy it is for written text, with no facial expression or tone of voice, to be taken in an incorrect manner.

EdInvestor

According to a recent Which survey just under half of those polled don't trust the financial services industry as a whole.The vast majority did not trust the industry to run the new national pension scheme.

So it seems to me the appropriate term in this case is "many people" or "a lot of people" and that Whambamboo's use of "people" on its own was not misleading or pejorative.

kenshaz

Well that was a nice little bed-time story ,I hope it comes to a happy END.

All just seems like a mis-understanding,the written word can be to précis,if the discussion was face to face or at least vocal ,changes in tone and expressions convey more meaning.

dunstonh

Ed, Which? are hardly a reliable source for information on this. Plus you are taking the info out of context. Financial services was one option but so was an independent body. Most people are going to choose "independent body" over any of the alternatives.

If I was to make a sweeping statement without actual facts, I would say in general, that it would be those at the lower end of the income scale that distrust financial services the most. These are the people that wouldnt be seeing "real" financial advisers but were served by the home service insurance agents which is where most of the problems have been. Wealthier individuals are more likely to use IFAs and have longer ongoing relationships with them and appreciate the service more. I rarely come across individuals who are anti-financial services, even when I am sorting things out for individuals that have good reason to think that way.