EXPO 2010: FSA says brokers will still have minor role in checking affordability
The Financial Services Authority has revealed today that brokers will still have a role in checking affordability, but that it will be limited to checking how appropriate products are for clients.
Sheila Nicoll, director of conduct policy at the FSA, was speaking today at the Mortgage Business Expo in London.

She says: “Our view is that intermediaries do have a role to play in assessing affordability but that it should be limited to checking whether the consumer fits within the expected parameters of the lenders’ affordability criteria. After all, it is the lender who has access to customers credit history and who can request additional information if required.
“We know that in reality, intermediaries will be unable to make this assessment without obtaining information about what the customer can afford to pay, so we see little reason to risk blurring our clear line of responsibility by placing detailed affordability rules on intermediaries.
“Instead, we are considering removing these requirements, and replacing them with a high-level requirement which requires intermediaries to ensure a customer is eligible for the product and that it is appropriate for them.”
And she dismissed rumours that this would lead to brokers turning into nothing more than lead generators for lenders.
The FSA will remove its current requirements for brokers checking the affordability of products for clients and it will be replaced by eligibility and appropriateness tests.
All mortgage sellers, not just advisers, will also have to have an existing Level 3 mortgage qualification and not enhanced like it is for advisers under the Retail Distribution Review.
She says: “All sellers of mortgages will need to carry out an appropriateness test and will need a mortgage qualification.”
The FSA’s upcoming Mortgage Market Review paper on distribution and disclosure is set to be published imminently and rumours are rife within the industry that it could be out as soon as Tuesday November 16.
Brokers were also told that the regulator sees value in applying the independent and restrictive labels to advice.
Nicoll says: “We see a case for applying the independent and restrictive labels to the mortgage market. We recognise there are differences between mortgage and investment markets.
“For example the mortgage firm might use the labels to explain their position on direct deals.”
She also says that the FSA would be removing the Initial Disclosure Document but keeping the Key Facts Illustration. However it might insist that it’s given to consumers at a different point in the sales process.
She says: “The aim of the IDD was to provide consumers with information to help them to compare fees, charges and services provided by firms.
“Research has however shown that in practice, the IDD has had little impact on consumer behaviour.
“Further evidence has also shown that consumers do not use the KFI to shop around. They do however, value it as a record of their purchase and we have received strong support from both consumers and firms for retaining the KFI in its current form.
“So, while we do not propose to change the content of the KFI, we think that there may be value in removing some of the trigger points for the KFI to be provided to consumers. This should ensure maximum impact and avoid information overload.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Mortgage Strategy and Follow @mortgagestrat
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page










Readers' comments (21)
ajk | 11 Nov 2010 4:02 pm
What a load of tosh from the Farcical Services Authority
get rid of IDD - appropriateness test give a free biscuit with a KFI why not
They really are clueless arent they
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jonathan | 11 Nov 2010 4:02 pm
It just sickens me to read what this Sheila Nicholl pontificates about. I really cannot understand how they are getting away with this while everyone stands idly by.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 Nov 2010 4:04 pm
Are we to assume that Mortgage Brokers are going to have the same qualification as Ms. Sheila Nicoll and her co directors and visa-a-versa or are we to continue having the blind leading the sighted?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
William Reid | 11 Nov 2010 4:10 pm
Abolish the IDD and keep the KFI. However, the KFI may be disclosed at a different point in the sales cycle? That's how I read it.
What difference will that make? Isn't it just a shuffling of the cards so to speak, and in doing so, try to keep the regulatory staff in jobs?
They need to be on the street doing the job, not just guessing it!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
colin | 11 Nov 2010 4:19 pm
is it just me or is change for change sake to try and justify their existence and jobs....i thought their remit was to make things easier for the man on the street to obtain advice etc etc......instead we embark on some half cocked MMR, installing draconian ideas from an ivory tower.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Baker | 11 Nov 2010 4:23 pm
What about the non-adviced telephone sellers most of the banks have? Do they now have to qualify (That'll be fun!!)? I can't see it as the cost / time would be prohibitive.....imagine the screams from Canary Wharf
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve Wentworth | 11 Nov 2010 4:41 pm
Abolish the IDD
but we still need to inform clients whether we are Independent, restrictive or tied. How will we prove we've done this???
and keep the KFI. However, the KFI may be disclosed at a different point in the sales cycle?
What other point in the sales process, you make a recommendation, you provide an illustration to justify it? Is she expecting us to hand out the KFI before we've even fact finded?
Words fail me!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rudolph Hucker | 11 Nov 2010 4:48 pm
FSA says "Give the KFI out after exchange of contracts"
Don't laugh!!
It could happen.y
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Wilson | 11 Nov 2010 5:02 pm
Clap trap, drivel and utter ineptitude. Do we really pay this woman for this absolutely misguided concept of what is required in our industry. As independent financial advisers it is our job to give clients 'Best Advice' and that includes establishing whether a product is affordable.
How can we have a minor role?
Our role should be 'KEY' to the whole process.
I despair, but somehow feel that is a waste of time and effort.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave | 11 Nov 2010 5:22 pm
How will advisers be able to check if the client meets the lenders criteria unless the FSA forces lenders to reveal their affordability criteria - they won't like that!!
The IDD was poorly thought out and does not fit the purpose - oh, that sounds like a definition of the FSA itself.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment