View more on these topics

Phil Young: Dodgy deals in mortgages and protection

The FCA needs to shake up the mortgage and insurance markets and put an end to the fiddling and underhand deals

Phil-Young-700x450.jpg

The investment and pensions industry has been hit with a constant barrage of change over the past two decades. Platforms, passive investing, unbundling, transparency, the RDR and a string of legislative reforms have all forced advisers to adapt to new requirements.

The mortgage and insurance industry, on the other hand, has barely moved in all this time. This is despite mortgages becoming regulated in 2004, the credit crunch in 2007/08 and a Mortgage Market Review in 2014.

Given the damning findings of the FCA’s Asset Management Market Study Interim Report, a review of similar depth and perception into the murky workings of this market will read like a horror story.

The reluctance to change for the better under its own steam will inevitably result in calls for firmer action, certainly from consumer groups. What is remarkable is that the current state of affairs barely benefits advisers either. Here is my take on what needs to change as a minimum.

Insurance commission fiddles

An adviser will be paid a different commission rate for the same piece of advice, on the same product, depending on which network, national or support service they work within.

So an advice business with a perfect advice record will be paid a lower amount than a higher risk firm that buys in support from a business which negotiates better rates based on aggregated volume. This makes no sense from a consumer perspective.

Without having to ban commission or standardise commission terms, forcing insurers to stop volume based deals would improve transparency immediately.

The arguments put forward that such deals are based on criteria beyond volume are spurious and do not stand up to close inspection, and there are far better sanctions for poor quality firms than paying their neighbours a slightly higher rate.

It would also stop the practice of “dirty premiums”, whereby some distribution groups negotiate a higher rate of commission by increasing the premium paid by the consumer. This is something that should have stopped years ago. Advisers are often unaware their network, national or support service provider has done this.

Finally, it would remove the need for protection panels, which are rarely based on anything but commercial terms, and the resulting skim of commission those running them take. These panels, which lock certain providers out, are extremely influential in driving business levels and less transparent than differing commission payments between providers.

We have seen negative national press in recent years about price comparison websites fiddling the direction of business using these tactics. You would expect far better from independent advisers.

Dodgy distribution deals

Mortgage clubs rake off around 9 per cent of almost all advised mortgages placed for virtually no benefit other than assistance in “marketing” a product.

Enhanced procuration fees do not trickle down to mortgage advisers, they are retained by the mortgage club – the largest of which are hugely profitable.

The only competitive advantage a mortgage club or network can offer to an adviser is to secure exclusive deals. The result of these deals is to prevent genuinely independent advisers from being able to demonstrate as much because they are not a member of a certain network or do not want to use a particular mortgage club.

The impact on a directly authorised adviser is potentially thousands of pounds of detriment to a borrower.

Lazy lenders are too willing to distribute via a mortgage club for their own convenience. I doubt the cosy relationship between the distribution directors at lenders and the chiefs of mortgage clubs are seriously questioned, or understood, by lender chief executives. It pays too many salaries.

The current crop of mortgage clubs would not exist unless they created bias. That is how they earn their money. Advisers should not be locked out of access to specific deals without extremely good reason, and lenders should seriously question their approach to distribution before the FCA does.

At present, millions of pounds are disappearing down a hole and into the hands of mortgage clubs and people running protection panels. It is hard to find any benefit to consumers or advisers. Indeed, the whole system seems to be for the benefit of a small number of people profiting from it.

The RDR gave the investment industry a shake-up; it is time to do the same to the insurance and mortgage market, which has a far greater consumer reach.

Here, I must point out I am encouraged by two things. First, the advisers I deal with have little interest in these deals and have often brought it to my attention before I have noticed. The trouble stems from a small number of people negotiating behind closed doors and tidying away any incriminating evidence behind them.

Second, advisers now seem angry enough to want to do something about it. People like London Money’s Martin Stewart are looking to find a way around the current outdated system, seeking to strike their own deals direct with lenders and insurers that cut out the dodgy middlemen.

The question now is whether those lenders and insurers co-operate and act in the interest of advisers and consumers? Or will they dig their heels in to protect the old guard?

Phil Young is managing director at Threesixty

Recommended

1

Hide and seek: Investigating conflicts of interest in advice

Advisers are being challenged on whether they are being open enough on disclosing conflicts of interest which may be skewing their recommendations. Last month, Money Marketing revealed how distribution deals between advice firms, platforms and discretionary fund managers are blurring what are supposed to be clear lines between the cost of advice, platforms and investment […]

FCA logo new 620x430.jpg
1

FCA warns on mortgage network panels and commercial deals

The FCA has raised concerns that commercial deals along the mortgage supply chain and the dominance of networks pose a risk to competition in the mortgage market. The regulator has published two reports today on whether the mortgage market is working effectively for borrowers. In the first report, the FCA says following the Mortgage Market […]

Tablet-Technology-Computer-Business-700x450.jpg

Advisers back Vanguard D2C launch but point to flaws

Vanguard’s platform will be cheaper than many of its competitors Advisers have welcomed Vanguard’s entrance into the UK direct-to-consumer market, but say the offering’s lack of pensions wrapper and fund range will limit its appeal for now. Yesterday, Vanguard launched an online investment platform for UK mass-market investors at a lower cost than many of […]

Where next for the price of oil?

Having stabilised at around $65 a barrel, many investors are questioning if the price of oil will rise, and when. Richard Hulf provides his view. Richard Hulf, manager of the Artemis Global Energy Fund, sets out his thoughts about how the oil price may move through the next six months. At the start of the […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. @Phil Young

    So, where I wonder does this ‘rant’ fir in with your desire to ““support and help implement” plans to launch the new club (The DA Alliance), which aims to deliver 100 per cent of procuration fees to its members”, last published on 26th January 2017?

    Will this ‘new club’ put it’s money where it’s mouth is & pay procuration fees on Exchange or Completion? Will it bring an end to lenders deferring procuration fee payments to DAs a whole month after completion? Will it develop comprehensive lender wide data on the many & varying ‘lending policy criteria’? How much will it cost DAs joining up to it?

  2. Martin Stewart 22nd May 2017 at 12:51 pm

    Derek, the first thing on our agenda is to address the tax all brokers pay to mortgage clubs each and every time they place a case. This will be achieved through a subscription based model, details of which will be announced at the end of the month. Once we’ve achieved that we’ll move on to addressing other issues with the status quo. Please drop me a line to martin@london-money.co.uk if you would like to register your interest in The Adviser Alliance, we’d love to tell you more! Martin

  3. The last thing on my wish list is for the FCA to decimate the mortgage/protection sector as the RDR did to investment/pensions.

    For the vast majority of instances the commission/proc fee differential has no impact on the premium paid by the client so no disadvantage is being suffered.

    Any regulatory interference is bound to come with a long tail of unintended consequences as the impact is rarely thought through in my experience.

  4. Steven Pearman 22nd May 2017 at 1:51 pm

    You should be congratulated on using evocative language to mislead and at the same time promote your own agenda.

    Can I suggest you research what “independent broker” means as a starting point as you clearly do not understand.

    To suggest that the mortgage market has not been through much change displays ignorance of the facts on a Martin Lewis level if in fact you are not aware of the constant changes that are on going.

    If you really do not understand why lenders prefer mortgage clubs / networks over DA advisers to distribute their products then I would be happy for you to contact me. I will happily explain as I do agree that there are far to many cosy deals based purely on profit and not outcomes.

    Regarding life assurance, a good starting point on what I agree is detrimental to a customer, is how certain lenders are still selling single tie, overpriced products, off the back of mortgages sales, as they do with general insurance products. It breaches my understanding of TCF, but then so much of what is allowed still does, with no apparent recourse from the regulator.

  5. So what happened to the comments that were here yesterday?

  6. Certainly seems wrong that those of us acting in clients best interests are paid less than those who auction their clients to the highest paying provider

Leave a comment