Proposed Mortgage Broker Code of Conduct

EdInvestor

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.

Not surprising as your clients will be well off.

People with endowments/other WP products tend to be disappointed with the industry, though their dismay may be focussed mainly on one provider (or even the Government) and their problems may have come from a bank salesman/tied agent rather than an IFA.

whambamboo

dunstonh wrote:

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.

Whether or not you trust the financial services industry is a yes/no question and can't really be taken out of context.

The research was conducted by Ipsos Mori, not Which?.

I'm not sure why you imagine Which? would be unreliable. They are a registered charity who exist to provide consumers with the best deals and most reliable produts. They don't have any axe to grind or any vested interest, which makes them a pretty unbiased group, certainly far more so than the financial services industry - as Which? makes no money in either upsetting or reinforcing the status quo. I can't see why they'd care how things are done, as long as the consumer is best off.

Worst I think was this:

"Only one in ten (10 per cent) would most trust the financial services industry to manage a Personal Accounts system in their best interests."

Independent research has been conducted by an experienced polling organisation using carefully chosen sampling techniques. I think it's likely to be fairly accurate, certainly more so than anecdote.

dunstonh

Whether or not you trust the financial services industry is a yes/no question and can't really be taken out of context.

The research was conducted by Ipsos Mori, not Which?.

The question was who do you trust most to deal with the NPSS. One of the options was independent body. That option is going to be the most desirable answer.

To then use that answer to say that most dont trust financial services is taking it out of context.

I'm not sure why you imagine Which? would be unreliable. They are a registered charity who exist to provide consumers with the best deals and most reliable produts. They don't have any axe to grind or any vested interest, which makes them a pretty unbiased group, certainly far more so than the financial services industry - as Which? makes no money in either upsetting or reinforcing the status quo. I can't see why they'd care how things are done, as long as the consumer is best off.

This is the same Which? that recommended endowments. You wouldnt believe that from their stance now would you. There are other areas like this as well. Which? do seem to have an axe to grind against financial services. Barely a week seems to go by where Which? and other groups are not fighting it out for headlines attacking each other. Usually over totally pointless issues which concern hardly anyone.

I have little confidence in Which? If I saw more statements from them which were accurate or where they used research in its true context then my view of them wouldnt be tainted like that. An acknowledgement of that they too got it wrong with endowments would be nice too.

People with endowments/other WP products tend to be disappointed with the industry, though their dismay may be focussed mainly on one provider (or even the Government) and their problems may have come from a bank salesman/tied agent rather than an IFA.

Also reflected in a statement this week from the FSA that said when it investigated, it found the indicidence of failure in large scale organisations (banks) to be twice as high as it was in IFAs.

whambamboo

dunstonh wrote:

The question was who do you trust most to deal with the NPSS. One of the options was independent body. That option is going to be the most desirable answer.

To then use that answer to say that most dont trust financial services is taking it out of context.

I think you're looking at the wrong bit:

http://www.which.co.uk/press/press_topics/campaign_news/personal_finance/pension_reform_consumers_lack_trust_571_99672.jsp

Almost half (47 per cent) felt that they would most trust an independent body to manage a Personal Accounts system in their best interests.

BUT

The survey also found:

Almost half (46 per cent) of people do not trust the financial services industry as a whole.

It was this second statement that EdInvestor was referring to. I can see why you thought it was the first one though.

This is the same Which? that recommended endowments. You wouldnt believe that from their stance now would you. There are other areas like this as well. Which? do seem to have an axe to grind against financial services. Barely a week seems to go by where Which? and other groups are not fighting it out for headlines attacking each other. Usually over totally pointless issues which concern hardly anyone.

I don't think it would be fair to comment on this as we don't have an exact record what they originally said. I still can't see why they would be anti-financial services though. They are not anti-corporate at all, and every year they list the best companies for various products (washing machines, TVs, etc.)

I have little confidence in Which? If I saw more statements from them which were accurate or where they used research in its true context then my view of them wouldnt be tainted like that.

I haven't been able to find the original survey on Mori's site, but it does appear that they haven't taken anything out of context, see my comments above.

dunstonh

I don't think it would be fair to comment on this as we don't have an exact record what they originally said. I still can't see why they would be anti-financial services though. They are not anti-corporate at all, and every year they list the best companies for various products (washing machines, TVs, etc.)

They used to list them as best buys. Ironically, their best buys havent turned out to be that good at all. They used to recommend Standard Life With Profits as the best option.

Had you followed Which? advice and bought a standard life endowment on execution only you would have had no consumer protection and no-one to complain to. Had you bought the same product on advice, you would have.

Its the way they make a big thing out of the endowment mis-selling now without acknowledging that they were caught out by it too that gets on the nerves. Why not be honest and acknowledge the fact and focus on the reasons behind why it went wrong rather then go for sensenationalist and fashionable headlines?

MortgageMamma

Re signatures stating that unsolicited PMs shoudl be reported - just wanted to repost this issue as its being lost within the WHICH? discussion and its something I think is very important

MortgageMamma

dunstonh wrote:

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.

DH -regarding the FSA guidelines for conduct within a public forum - It says under no circumstances shoudl PRODUCTS be recommended, It says nothing about a product provider. And also, by mentioning a lender name, so long as you are not saying "yes the lender will definately do this I reccommend/would advise you to speak to them" and are saying something along the lines of "I THINK that LENDER may be able to do this, but you would be wiser to let a qualified professional assess your circumstances and make a formal recommendation" and you have the said disclaimer under your name, I don't see where the problem lies

MSE_Martin

OK folks I think we're almost there.

Thank you all for your contributions.

I've made my decision on the following two outstanding issues

1. No sig in the link - but the CofC will be a sticky
2. No mention of unsolicited PMs in the note. Its against both general site rules and specific practice. If any advisers do it - we'll find out pretty quickly and they'll be PPRd.

As a couple of general note before I make the CofC official

A. The friction between advisers and those with anti-adviser views is always going to be there. However with courtesy and consideration that isn't an issue

B. With regards to those advisers who don't declare it with a sig being advantagead in discussion on industry issues. To be honest industry issues aren't really for this forum - one very important note is this isn't a broker forum - its a consumer forum and while I understand there of course is always some cross-over necessary; I don't think its too substantive an issue.

We're going to try the C of C. I hope it works.

Martin

dunstonh

DH -regarding the FSA guidelines for conduct within a public forum - It says under no circumstances shoudl PRODUCTS be recommended, It says nothing about a product provider. And also, by mentioning a lender name, so long as you are not saying "yes the lender will definately do this I reccommend/would advise you to speak to them" and are saying something along the lines of "I THINK that LENDER may be able to do this, but you would be wiser to let a qualified professional assess your circumstances and make a formal recommendation" and you have the said disclaimer under your name, I don't see where the problem lies

If you are whole of market, I can see no problem with a provider being mentioned as long as you dont use the magic words "I recommend" or "i advise you to". I usually say something like "I suggest you research..." or "I suggest you take a look at xzy company as part of your research".

UK007BullDog

silvercar wrote:

The reputation of mortgage advisers on this board can be tainted by the way this board acts differently from others on the MSE platform.

Ask on the DIY board for specific electric advice and you get it, you don't get comments like, "it is possible but you need to call in an expert". Instead you get ,"this is how you do it, but if you are unsure its safer to get help". People even get given advice on dodgy issues like disposing of asbestos!

Here you get comments like, "there are mortgage lenders who will do it but you need to see a mortgage broker to find out who". One inch down the page there is a signature saying, guess what, I am a mortgage broker. Now I appreciate that no-one is touting for business and I appreciate the enormous input that mortgage brokers add to this board, but there is an impression that your not getting any info for free because someone in their field could be earning on that advice.

This is because we are not really allowed to give advice without presenting an IDD and a KFI per the FSA. We have to give info on our status and business practices (IDD) and then after sourcing the right product (KFI) explain to a client why it is that this product is the best for this client.

One just cannot do that here as a post is so limited and posting questions is too. On a face to face interview with the client this can trigger more questions and further questions about a persons situation. I can read a post and say "yes, go to Northern Rock", however it might be wrong as I am missing some information and the person applying for this NR mortgage might fail and then his credit record will show up this search.

There is no way a person should take the advice here from anyone and think it is 100% SUITABLE for THEM. That is why I will always say they should see a broker. This is also to protect ME as I don't want anyone pointing a finger at me stating I got it wrong.