Several major banks have warned the royal commission of the “potential adverse consequences” of moving from the existing broker remuneration structure to an upfront flat fee.
Following a call for evidence regarding the potential impacts of moving to a lender-paid upfront flat fee, NAB told the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry that there was “insufficient evidence presently before the commission to enable a meaningful answer to be given to the question posed”.
The big four bank stated that it was its position, “rare exceptions notwithstanding”, that the upfront and ongoing trail commissions that NAB currently pays to brokers and head groups “do not lead to poor customer outcomes”.
Although NAB backs industry-wide changes to the use of upfront and trailing commissions as recommended by the Combined Industry Forum, it argued that the commission would need to consider several matters before being able to answer the question “meaningfully”.
These matters, the big four bank said, included:
NAB argued that it believes the reforms announced by the Combined Industry Forum would, “in broad terms”, ameliorate potential conflicts of interest from broker remuneration.
Meanwhile, CBA outlined that while it believes “replacing upfront and trail commissions with an upfront flat fee de-linked to loan size can address identified areas of conflict”, any changes should be “carefully designed” to:
It added that its submission to the Sedgwick review noted that “a move to a flat-fee payment would enable brokers to be agnostic towards loan size and leverage… [and] could also consider the removal of ‘trail commissions’ which can encourage brokers to suggest slower paydown strategies (e.g. interest-only) that maximise broker trail commission income”.
While CBA said that the CIF package would ameliorate some of the conflicts of interest issues, it suggested that the CIF’s scope of action was “limited by the mechanisms through which it can work. In particular, the CIF’s ability to co-ordinate an industry-wide response is limited by regulatory and competition law limitations”.
The bank concluded: “As uniform change is key to the effectiveness of reforms, in CBA’s view, legal or regulatory changes will be needed to bring about some important changes.”
Likewise, at an event in Sydney last week, Westpac CEO Brian Hartzer noted the ongoing Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry and its focus on commissions said that “increased transparency around broker commissions, fees and costs would help consumers to make more informed choices” around mortgage broking.
Mr Hartzer added that “one option that could be considered would be for brokers to charge customers directly for their services”.
Indeed, in the bank’s response to the royal commission’s closing statements, it stated further that Westpac is in favour of greater transparency and disclosure around “the commissions and fees paid to brokers and the effect of those commissions and fees on the ultimate charge to the customer”.
It reads: “The commission may also consider whether brokers charging customers directly for their services might enhance transparency and competition for customers.”
It suggested that this type of model would be more agreeable than moving to an upfront flat fee paid for by the lender.
The submission reads: “Westpac does not consider that remuneration based on upfront and trailing commissions necessarily leads to poor customer outcomes, but considers the issue involves a slightly more complex interplay between the structure of the payment, the manner in which it is disclosed to the customer and the current mechanism of indirect payment by financiers to the broker instead of payment direct by the customer to the broker for their services.”
In response to the commission’s question over whether upfront and trailing commission should be replaced by an upfront flat fee, the big four bank warned that introducing a fee “absorbed by the financier as part of the overall mortgage costs” could have “potential adverse customer outcomes”.
Some examples of these potential consequences included:
The bank concluded: “Many of those issues would be less pronounced if the ‘upfront’ fee was paid direct to brokers by the customers rather than indirectly through the financier.”
However, it noted that “potential second-order impacts of this type of structural change would need to be considered carefully”.
In conclusion, the bank said that it “recognises the potential for conflicts; however, it does not consider that current remuneration structures necessarily result in poor customer outcomes”.
“It remains of the view that implementation of the Sedgwick review recommendations, and other industry reforms, is likely to reduce further the risk of conflicts involving brokers and rebuild trust in the industry,” it said.
Several members of the industry have vocally dismissed the notion of moving to a flat fee or fee-for-service model, with the Combined Industry Forum recently warning the Productivity Commission of the “unintended consequences” of introducing a fee-for-service model for brokers.
ANZ did not refer to mortgage broker remuneration changes in its response.
Annie Kane is the editor of The Adviser magazine, Australia’s leading magazine for mortgage brokers. As well as writing news and features on the Australian mortgage market, financial regulation, fintechs and the wider lending market – Annie is also the host of the Elite Broker podcast and regulator contributor to the Mortgage Business Uncut podcast.
Before joining The Adviser team at Momentum Media in 2016, Annie wrote for a range of business and consumer titles, including The Guardian (Australia), BBC Music Magazine, Elle (Australia), BBC Countryfile, BBC Homes & Antiques, and Resource magazine.
The head of a major brokerage is “encouraged” by the revision...
We need to “heed the lessons” from the United States, Canada,...
Personal loan fintech SocietyOne is looking to strengthen its rel...