breaking news

Income verification critical for low docs: ASIC

4020 people have read this article
Friday, 18 November 2011

Simon Parker

Low doc loans have been singled out as an area of compliance concern under the new NCCP requirements, an ASIC review of mortgage brokers has found.

The review, which looked at 16 mortgage brokers’ compliance in the six months since NCCP regulations were introduced, pinpointed low doc loans as an area at risk of non-compliance with the responsible lending requirements where credit assistance was provided.

The major risk in terms of non-compliance with the responsible lending for loans promoted as low doc was the steps taken to verify a consumer’s income, said Greg Kirk, senior executive leader, deposit takers credit and insurers, at ASIC.

“The requirement is for brokers to make reasonable inquiries about the borrower’s needs, objectives, financial circumstances and an active effort to verify those financial circumstances when assessing suitability for any proposed loan.

“The key risk identified was brokers taking inadequate steps to verify the consumer’s income and other financial circumstances,” he said.

Given low doc loans compliance with responsible lending required a bigger shift from past practice than standard mainstream home loans, the review placed particular emphasis on brokers who marketed themselves as providers of low doc loans, said Greg Kirk, senior executive leader deposit takers credit and insurers of ASIC.

While the brokers were aware that the review was taking place, low doc loans were still identified as a risk area when it came to these brokers complying with the responsible lending obligations.

“Loans promoted as low doc were a particular focus given the role these products played in the lead up to the US sub-prime crisis and in equity stripping as identified in ASIC’s March 2008 report, Protecting Wealth in the Family Home,” ASIC Commissioner Peter Kell said.

While overall most brokers were fulfilling the new responsible lending obligations and attempting to adhere, there was still room for improvement, the review found.

E-mail
 

Comments  

 
0 #12 Ray_Perth 2011-11-23 11:40
The key issue here is NOT ASIC, its the idiot politicians who supported this legislation in the first place.

ASIC are doing exactly what is expected of them, and doing a good job of it too. ASIC's role is to simply enforce approved legislation.

Don't kick the messenger. Kick the government !!
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
-2 #11 jeff C 2011-11-21 10:20
Low doc loans are a thing of the past thanks to ASIC and clearly the ATO we as brokers need to live with this.
My fear is for the clients that have low doc home loans currently. They are completely vulnerable...They cannot upgrade, they cannot downgrade, they cannot sell and buy, they cannot increase their current debt. basically they have one option sell up..and rent..
Hopefully the regulators are proud of themselves because I am not looking forward to telling my clients when thry contact me in the future... to sell their house....
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
+1 #10 Rajiv 2011-11-21 07:00
It is hard to understand why there is TWO rules - one for customers through brokers & one for customers going directly to lenders.

This applies to all loans. Not only to LOW DOC.

ASIC need to formulate rules to protect RESPONSIBLE lending through lenders when they design products and brokers should be given clear guidelines to sell their loans.

Then, if a broker does not comply, you can blame that broker.

I can see lot of differences created by ASIC regulations that are a disadvantage to brokers than to a lenders direct sale and someone need to address it quickly.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
+3 #9 Country Broker 2011-11-18 13:20
I cannot understand the correlation between the US subprime market and Lo doc Loans can ASIC person please clarify that!!
It is really simple,follow the MFAA guidelines have extensive file notes on Board and you will be with in the legislation. ASIC are merely the Sheriff here, not one politician will understand what the consequences of this NCCP legislation is on Genuine Lo Doc borrowers .
Can any one explain to me how a person who wants 60% or less LVR on a house, has had an ABN number for say 3 or more years and has a clear Veda file , is readily Identified and seeks separate Legal advice is at risk , in the good old days solicitors did these using clients money and in 99.99% of all loans never lost a cent!! Now who knows !! it is time to go to the pub its Friday afternoon!
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
+6 #8 KeithJ 2011-11-18 11:38
As "one" of the targeted Brokers, my observations are as follows:

1/ To be "fair" to ASIC, they are not the Legislators but the enforcers of the Legislation. I found them to be very reasonable and "helpful". My main beef was that we were extensively audited in Jan but didn't get the results until 9 months later - that's another 9 months of potential issues.

2/ JonL and TonyH are "on the money" - the Lenders are the ones with the expensive Legal teams, we are just little guys trying to make a living. Having said this, it has all tightened up now, so it probably doesn't matter any more.

End result - we are pretty much out of business. The Legislation was necessary and a gross over reaction to a non existent problem - another Govt sledgehammer to crack a peanut.

As a collective society, we should be very worried for the future of our Kids ... it's "big brother everything" these days - I'm over it, off to the Pub.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
+3 #7 Kim Dorizzi 2011-11-18 11:13
With all due respect to ASIC employees, that is exactly what they are "employees" dependent on a master to pay then a wage. If they were of a different mindset they wouldn't be working as public servants. The notion of using equity in the family home as leverage to secure an investment property and using part of this equity to cover the short fall should the property be negatively geared contradicts the "Protecting Wealth in the Family Home" report in March 2008. The people making these decisions have the welfare of the general populous at heart, unfortunately the minority who know how to manage their assets and structure their finances to the greatest advantage are being penalised.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
+3 #6 Archie 2011-11-18 11:02
Good Work ASIC! Take the responsibility off the banks and put it onto a broker who presents the client to the lender. We don’t sell the product. We don’t give the client the money. The lender decides if they want to give the client the money or not! We don’t make the decisions. There is only one reason why a client would consider a low doc loan. If the lenders don’t want to see certain documents, who are we to ask? If any lender wants to give me the money to lend at my discretion perfect, I’ll ask for full financials every time. But until that day comes, ASIC should pull their finger out and stop blaming the little men! Make the big banks responsible for there actions. Lending in this country has always been responsible anyway. When the world crumbled in the GFC, we thrived. So why are we going through huge dilemma of shifting blame when our banking systems are so strong? What a waste of time and tax payers’ money to perfect the greedy banks!
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
+3 #5 Tony Martin 2011-11-18 10:40
The basic problem is that this Australian Credit Law is a very bad one and was passed with a stated intention but contained a hidden agenda - to force Brokers, Banks and ASIC to work as Tax Collectors. There have been in Australia groups of hard workers [Construction workers, self-employed people of all types] whose taxable incomes were less than their true disposable income, for a number of reasons. Low-Doc Loans just recognized that fact. The new ACL has more or less done away with Low-Doc Loans by forcing 'verification of income' in quite frankly, inappropriate situations. Banks have all been quite happy to lend 60% of a property value without full verification - totally 'no risk' loans, but now a generation of workers are being denied finance SOLELY to protect the ATO. I find this deceitful and likely to marginalize large sections of the Australian workforce, until sorted out. If a new Tax Law was required it should have been drafted, but leave Credit alone - it used to work!
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
+2 #4 John 2011-11-18 10:13
Well said Tony, Keith and Jon. The rubbish being reported here by comparing our Australian lending environment to that which happened in the USA should not happen or at least be put in context. We dont do NINJA loans (No Income No Job or Assets) our Banks are less risk adverse thankfully.
Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
+15 #3 Tony H 2011-11-18 09:59
I am suing the barmaid for serving me alcohol (she she didnt check I was an alcoholic), I am suing the pub for letting me play the pokies (they didnt know I am a problem gambler), I am suing my celebrant for letting me get married (he didnt know about my previous one), and I am suing my broker for getting me something that I wanted - money! Come on, if the lenders weren't prepared to provide Low Doc, then why allow brokers to sell the product.
Just tell the banks they cant lend Low Doc if its too dangerous - see how the banks' shareprice reacts.
Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh