FSA releases MMR distribution paper
Share
The Financial Services Authority has today released its Mortgage Market Review consultation paper on the role of intermediaries and improving disclosure of information for customers.
The consultation builds on the FSA’s Mortgage Market Review to date, and a key element is requiring that those selling mortgages ensure that each one sold is ‘appropriate’ for the customer’s needs and circumstances, therefore clarifying the role of the mortgage seller, both intermediary and branch based.
This follows earlier proposals by the FSA which looked at responsible lending and the role of the lender and the customer, and which set out that the responsibility to assess whether a customer can afford a mortgage ultimately lies with the lender.
In addition key proposals include:
- Replacing the obligation to issue an Initial Disclosure Document to the customer with requirements to clearly and prominently disclose key information about how the intermediary will be paid and the service they offer;
- Changing the trigger points for providing the Key Facts Illustration to minimise information overload on consumers and reduce burdens on firms;
- A requirement for all individuals that sell mortgages to hold a relevant mortgage qualification ensuring appropriate professional standards across all sales;
- Replacing the existing labels used to describe the firm’s service with the Retail Distribution Review’s ‘independent’ and ‘restricted’ labels; and
- Requiring firms to disclose to customers whether they will consider deals that can only be obtained directly from a lender.
Sheila Nicoll, the FSA’s director of conduct policy, says: “This next step of the Mortgage Market Review recognises the importance of the intermediary and ensuring the quality of every mortgage sale. It also indicates how the intermediary and other sales staff fit into our vision of a sustainable mortgage market that works well for consumers.
“By clarifying the role and responsibility of mortgage sellers, we are removing the blurring that could take place between the role of seller and lender.”
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
Readers' comments (16)
Mr B Lund | 16 Nov 2010 12:24 pm
..more brokers will exit the market next year - and you can add us to that list, brokers are not in lenders plans going forward - and beware the lenders that say they are - they ALL dual prie.
Your better off going direct now - that's where the best deals are for A1 borrowers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
PSTONEY | 16 Nov 2010 12:30 pm
i DONT REALLY SEE ANY MAJOR CHANGES HERE APART FROM A MIN QUALIFICATION FOR ALL SELLERS.FOR THE INTERMEDIARY MARKET WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THESE PRINCIPLES ALL ALONG, THOSE THAT WERE'NT HAVE HOPEFULLY ALREADY LEFT THE BUSINESS
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Nov 2010 12:33 pm
@Mr B Lund - "brokers are not in lenders plans going forward - and beware the lenders that say they are - they ALL dual price."
Well, I know of at least one (Coventry) that has pledged NOT to dual price.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Confused | 16 Nov 2010 12:57 pm
oral disclosure? how many people will "claim" never to have been told about a firm's scope of service and fees/charges. They claim not to know now despite having received IDD, ToB, KFI, suitability letter and a mortgage offer etc all confirming the same facts
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Nov 2010 1:18 pm
Mr B Lund - with a negative attitude like yours you may as well leave the industry - I think things are picking up and the lenders do need us and yes Coventry don't dual price in fact it is getting better all round and not all the best deals are direct don't you know how to source mortgages?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Neil Bellamy | 16 Nov 2010 1:21 pm
Whole of market, should mean precisely that! Direct deals should be avaiable via all distribution channels, thus creating a level playing for the consumer. Differing distribution channels only succeed in mystifying the market & is simply not treating consumers fairly. There may be no requirement to issue, an IDD however, I will continue to do so! Perhaps there is some European disclosure document due out soon, which supercedes the FSA's powers? Maybe one that the consumer must sign to prove they have received, and more importantly understood it - the same with the mortgage offer too.
When (eventually) the housing market recovers in so much to meet the needs of families, the direct channels would not be able to cope, and their mortgage desks would collapse under the weight of applications that they could not service fairly. Also surely the competition authorities should now look at the mortgage market with a view to making that level playing field happen.
There seems to be lots of smoke, and mirrors from the MMR, at the end of which if nothing has really changed with regard to regulation, then perhaps the FSA can justify its cost please! One conclusion is that the FSA staff seemed not to have properly understood the industry, and so are not fit for purpose.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
GMS | 16 Nov 2010 2:11 pm
Requiring all sellers to hold a proper qualification seems like the most logical thing in the world. Makes you wonder why it was never needed in the first place.
Pointing out fees and terms to clients is a joke. As has been mentioned previously it is very often clients claim to have been unaware of these despite IDD, KFI, Suitability Letter and Offer. Surely there needs to be some record of disclosure. Oh yes there is, the FSA have now decided we don't need it!!
Personally I get clients to sign a copy of the KFI. Although this does not prove beyond doubt that they understood it, it does at least show they have taken the time to read it. This together with all other documentation seems to provide a pretty compelling argument for having explained to clients the terms of business.
Will lenders now be happy to train and pay for staff to be fully qualified? Personally I think there may be less appetite for lenders to rely on direct deals as a result and lead to broker channels increasing.
Hopefully this will mean dual pricing will need to be removed, or at least have the gap between the two reduced. If the difference in rates were negligible there would be an informed choice for the client. Either pay the minimal difference to not deal with the lender and have the broker do the work, or take the cheap option of dealing with the application yourself to save a few quid per month.
This paper could have been a disaster for intermediaries but as it is there are positives to be taken from it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Damien Brassneck | 16 Nov 2010 2:43 pm
Can anyone explain how it can take a 98 page document to say next to nothing!
E.G. What's the difference between giving key messages to consumers and what is currently given in the IDD?
Absolute jokers! If it wasn't so serious it would be hilarious.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17 Nov 2010 10:11 am
As much as it pains me to say it - the MAJORITY of consumers don't need a mortgage broker.
I completely understand the need for independent advice but unfortunately the MAJORITY of consumers don't see the benefit of advice and believe they have the know how to sort their own mortgage out.
With comparison sites pushing direct deals and encouraging consumers to cut out the ''middle man' (whilst still selling the leads on to the brokers at the same time!?), unfortunately the consumer has more trust in these sites than they do in brokers.
It really is a sad day. And lets face it, the MMR only protects the lenders as they pay the biggest fees to the regulator. If the FSA wanted complete transparency then they would ensure dual pricing was banned, they won't and because of that they have applied the final nail in the coffin of the independent mortgage broker.
Negative or realistic? An intelligent and forward thinking broker would say realistic.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
PC | 17 Nov 2010 10:44 am
If brokers may be required to disclose the clients whether or not they are including direct lender deals in their sourcing, will this mean that Direct Lenders will have to tell clients they could get a better deal via a broker or other lender?
I must agree with other comments, there is an opportunity to create a level playing field in the market which will ultimately benefit consumers and this is the oft quoted main aim of the regulator.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment