Becoming a Mortgage Advisor - Any advice?

dunstonh

This isnt a competition between networks. I have found over the years that everyone has issues with their networks in some areas and many believe that other networks are bad or good based on stories that are usually spread by the networks themselves when trying to recruit firms. I am pleased you have got a network you like. However, you seem to have been sucked in by their promotional material. Always look at marketing information and stats in more detail. Never take the promotional information from a provider or network at face value. Analyse it and see if there is spin.

Pink only have about 500 ARs. Retention in percentage terms is going to be inflated compared to a network of 5000. Pink havent been running long and are actively recruiting anybody to boost their numbers. Sesame run more propositions than Pink and have seen large migration to the other propositions.

Sesame's pricing on the AR side is best for those earning over 100k to 250k a year as a minimum and they have a minimum retention which effectively penalises those earning less than £35k a year. They are not interested in low earners. They have also been harder on less compliant firms. That has seen a number of low earners leave to other networks or move to the sesame select or sesame direct proposition.

If you are only going to earn upto £35k a year, you wouldnt touch Sesame. I would look for one of these new networks that is looking for boosting it's AR count. I would also look for one that is financially strong. Otherwise you end up with a Bankhall or network 300.

So, you have two different business models. The fairly new company Pink who are actively recruiting anybody to boost numbers and the long established Sesame who looking at value and not numbers. You can bet your life in years to come, Pink will want to cull some of the members who cost them more. They are just part of the cycle that networks go through.

So, why don't you get the factfind signed too if its attached to the suitability? there must be more reasons FOR doing this than FOR NOT

1 - The FSA dont require it. I just checked the FSA site and it states:

there is no regulatory requirement to obtain a customer’s signature on a factfind;
when a factfind is to be signed by a customer it should include a prominent warning

advising him to read the factfind in full before signing.

2 - What would it achieve?

Do you get these signed? Nope, its not even a requirement to send a suitability report according to the fsa, and sesame only ask that their AR's do it for complex cases

So Sesame are complying with FSA rules. Personally, its not an issue for me as all IFA cases have to have a suitability letter.

Which in my view is a very dangerous practice. If the fact find is not signed as a record of conversation, and the suitability letter is not signed and dated by the client, whats stopping an adviser doing a suitability letter a year or two later just to satisfy a compliance visit? (which I have recently witnessed happen with a member of your network) These rules are not good enough in my opinion.

In Dec 2005 the FSA issued guidence that stated that conversations relating to key points should be recorded in the suitability report.

What is to stop anyone changing the suitability report? Client signs page 12 and you attach it to 11 different pages. A signature proves nothing by itself. It is the information and presentation that is key.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/small_firms/advisers/FAQ/letters.shtml

I mentioned it before, but what did Pink do for you to ensure you have your TCF implementation sorted before the March 07 deadline?

Its not a trick question. I know the Personal Touch members I deal with had nothing from Personal Touch. At this moment in time, if they had an FSA visit, they would not be able to satisfy FSA requirements. Thats the sign of a bad network. Not one that doenst get you to sign a factfind when the FSA say there is no reason to.

MortgageMamma

HWIC

None of the comments I have made are meant to deliberately Big me up on the other advisers, if you look back I was actually saying its important to document everything as much as possible to protect oneself in the event of a claim. Just look at this forum, every other post is someone wanting information on how to make a successful claim! Would you like to be the object of such a vindictive and calculated complaint? No, and neither would I and I will do everything to the best of my ability to ensure I am not.

I am proud of the network I am with and I am proud of my working practices ,and I like the way my network do things, I make no apology for that. But NOWHERE on this thread have I stated that I am more experienced than any other adviser on these boards. My network however has given me an excellent compliance rating and reduced my PI costs, which speaks for itself.

It was infact DunstonH who referred to me as "paranoid" for wanting to highlight to other advisers that they should get as many things signed as possible by the client in order to protect oneself in the event of a claim. In a claim (not that I have ever had one yet) it is the file as a whole that is reviewed not a specific document. It is important to document as much as possible and as specifically as possible. There is nothing wrong with making people aware of that. this forum has developed to a point where it is as much about the advisers supporting eachother as it is the non advisers. There are even non advisers who have recently taken advice on this thread saying they would expect to see and sign a factfind.

I see nothing wrong in my comments, my opinions or the way in which I portray myself, however, I will offer an apology if I have offended DH or yourself on my slating of sesame, but having met an appallingly incompetent sesame adviser on my Pink induction course (he didnt get through the first day) and then seeing another one putting suitability letters together this weekend long after the mortgage has completed (which boiled my blood), I am hardly likely to start singing their praises am I?

The fact a sesame AR didnt get through the pink induction course is proof in itself that they dont just take anyone - I nearly never got in myself for an unpaid default from 2001 and the fact my old employer was being a t-at and wouldnt give me a reference.

dunstonh

It was infact DunstonH who referred to me as "paranoid" for wanting to highlight to other advisers that they should get as many things signed as possible by the client in order to protect oneself in the event of a claim. In a claim (not that I have ever had one yet) it is the file as a whole that is reviewed not a specific document. It is important to document as much as possible and as specifically as possible.

I wouldnt call you paranoid but you do have to beware of becoming paraniod in getting things done that have no importance. A poorly written suitability report signed by a client will have less strength than a well written one not signed.

It's the content that matters. Not the signature.

There are even non advisers who have recently taken advice on this thread saying they would expect to see and sign a factfind.

And with respect to them, they have no knowledge of FSA requirements and limited understanding of what the factfind and suitability letter are meant to do.

however, I will offer an apology if I have offended DH or yourself on my slating of sesame

You haven't offended me in the slightest and I hope you dont take my responses in a negative manner either. However, I do feel you are focusing on issues of minor consequence and you do seem to have bought the propoganda from Pink.

but having met an appallingly incompetent sesame adviser on my Pink induction course (he didnt get through the first day) and then seeing another one putting suitability letters together this weekend long after the mortgage has completed, I am hardly likely to start singing their praises am I?

So, you met two people who have left or are leaving Sesame who are you feel are not competent. They obviously feel there is no future for them at Sesame which says more positive things about Sesame than negative.

If one couldnt do suitability letters than he is stupid. A choice of network isnt going to have any impact on his stupidity apart from the fact that Sesame do have a range of template suitability letters available as well as check lists. So, if he cant do it all that, then that is his problem and not the the network.

toonfish

MM - how long have you been with Pink?

MortgageMamma

Lets just agree to differ on this one dunstonh. I hope you are not implying my suitability letters are poorly written! You may think its a matter of minor importance but I worked with an IFA who had been riddled with claims and I saw his agony and his PI costs. I never want to be in that position, and its sad that I feel at the beginning of my career I have to take such measures.

Reading this forum, day after day, I am sick to death of seeing people jumping on the claims bandwagon to scratch a few quid, and lie through their teeth to get it just because they can. We are in a major compensation culture, and nobody seems to care whether their claim is genuine or ethical or not. Its the new crime, compensation theft - we need to close the loopholes open to these vultures.

dunstonh

I hope you are not implying my suitability letters are poorly written!

Dont turn into one of those that looks for double meanings or try to twist everything you say to make out a position of extreme. We have enough of those on this forum without you starting.

I never said you letters were poorly written. I said a poorly written letter signed by the client will have less strength than a well written letter not signed.

but I worked with an IFA who had been riddled with claims and I saw his agony and his PI costs. I never want to be in that position, and its sad that I feel at the beginning of my career I have to take such measures.

None of which had anything to do with signatures. It all comes down to quality of documentation and content. Something we all here agree on.

You still havent answered my TCF question?

MortgageMamma

I went through my TCF on a one to one basis with my area compliancer office, and I had to do it this way to get it covered in time because my limited company only got its authorisation on 19th March. I am still working on this on a one to one basis with her now. The fact that they came to me and held my hand rather than me asking for help was good. I can't say what they have done with the other pink ar's as I really do not know because of the date I was registered one of the other existing pink AR's who use this site may be able to comment though

HelpWhereIcan

MortgageMamma wrote: »

HWIC

None of the comments I have made are meant to deliberately Big me up on the other advisers, if you look back I was actually saying its important to document everything as much as possible to protect oneself in the event of a claim. Just look at this forum, every other post is someone wanting information on how to make a successful claim! Would you like to be the object of such a vindictive and calculated complaint? No, and neither would I and I will do everything to the best of my ability to ensure I am not.

No I would not, which is why I remind myself that Sesame are only looking after my interests when they ask me to complete a TCF assessment tool with 11 sections taking god knows how long to complete and to submit an interest only questionnaire (filled out in the client's handwriting) for all interest only cases, and to complete a switch or stay calculator when I reccomend that a client remains with their exisiting lender - just to prove I am not being lazy by not switching them to another lender.

MortgageMamma wrote: »

I am proud of the network I am with and I am proud of my working practices ,and I like the way my network do things, I make no apology for that. But NOWHERE on this thread have I stated that I am more experienced than any other adviser on these boards. My network however has given me an excellent compliance rating and reduced my PI costs, which speaks for itself.

I am proud of all those things too, my PI has not increased since regulation (and actually came down in year 2); I am on the lowest level of supervision possible in Sesame and have only had 2 action points (admin related) on my last 2 Compliance visits - but I fail to see where that makes my network better than yours!

MortgageMamma wrote: »

It was infact DunstonH who referred to me as "paranoid" for wanting to highlight to other advisers that they should get as many things signed as possible by the client in order to protect oneself in the event of a claim.

Possibly because of comments like

MortgageMamma wrote:

I've had an inside view on the running of sesame mortgage markets and they are not doing half of what they should be in my opinion - I wouldnt touch them with a bargepole

making out you know something the rest of us don't

MortgageMamma wrote:

So they are promoting the "give them a key facts, have a little chat with them and sign them up" culture

making out you do something the rest of us don't

MortgageMamma wrote:

That is not proper advice and I would be embarassed to treat my clients in that manner, not to mention constantly anxious that I had no defence in the event of a complaint.

making out you provide a service the rest of us don't

MortgageMamma wrote: »

In a claim (not that I have ever had one yet) it is the file as a whole that is reviewed not a specific document. It is important to document as much as possible and as specifically as possible. There is nothing wrong with making people aware of that.

Glad to see that you agree with dunstonh and I about the need for a complete file rather than a paperfilling exercise. A signature does not support your advice - your research and file notes do.

MortgageMamma wrote: »

this forum has developed to a point where it is as much about the advisers supporting eachother as it is the non advisers.

That is not what this forum is about - I will defend my industry and viewpoint on certain aspects of 'compensation culture', but there are skeletons in the industry's closet.

dunstonh has had to defend himself against many unwarrented accusations but I have never seem him resort to the militancy I see amongst some - it would be a shame if he did.

MortgageMamma wrote: »

There are even non advisers who have recently taken advice on this thread saying they would expect to see and sign a factfind.

As long as they realise that the research and suitability letter is probably more important when assessing quality of advice - fact finds have been known to be mis-interpreted. it may contain the hard facts only - soft facts make advice and if they are not recorded a signed factfind is next to useless - especially next to a complete file.

MortgageMamma wrote: »

but having met an appallingly incompetent sesame adviser on my Pink induction course (he didnt get through the first day)

:rotfl: Which is probably why he was leaving Sesame to join another Network!! As dunstonh says, there are a number of advisers who have been 'nudged out' for one reason or another.

MortgageMamma wrote: »

and then seeing another one putting suitability letters together this weekend long after the mortgage has completed (which boiled my blood), I am hardly likely to start singing their praises am I?

I know a Pink AR here who has been suspected of using self cert to declare fraudulent incomes, buy to let for first time buyer residentials etc tetc - does not mean that I think all Pink ARs are the same.

MortgageMamma wrote: »

The fact a sesame AR didnt get through the pink induction course is proof in itself that they dont just take anyone - I nearly never got in myself for an unpaid default from 2001 and the fact my old employer was being a t-at and wouldnt give me a reference.

I don't think many firms take just anyone - no one is saying they do, buty I would expect Sesame to be harder to get into than most and, in response to shameless, would repeat dunstonh and say that they WILL NOT accept newly qualified advisers unless they are joining an existing member firm.

shameless-about-money

Just to interrupt this discussion to ask about self-cert.

I haven't quite got my head round self-cert and I must understand this.

So - you have a client who wishes to self-cert. He has business accounts which declared a Net Profit of £60K. However, he wishes to self-cert because his income ,according to his bank statements, are £100K.

I take it that a self-cert can be done with no problem?

Somewhere along the line this client is not disclosing some of his income to the Inland Revenue.

I take it that, as a Mortgage Adviser, you have no liability in this at all? You would not be required to disclose this information to anyone?

Mr_helpful

Self cert is fro those who cannot show income. Yes lovingly tagged "lie To Buy" but it could be used where last years profits were lower than this years but no accounts gone in yet. I do love it coz the inland revenue doesnt let you self cert so why should the lender. I always want to see bank stats before I send oe in but yes you should report it if you think they are on the fiddle