View more on these topics

Proc and roll

Our panel consider the merits of a ban on non-advised sales and a plan for procuration fees based on business quality

The final MMR paper called for a ban on non-advised mortgage sales. Do you think this is a good idea?

Hollingworth: I think most brokers feel this is a good thing, being proponents of advised sales. It puts lenders on a level playing field with advisers in terms of the training required, although this could end up being a problem for advisers to a degree.

But I think at least the customer will know that whatever channel they are going into, they will be getting some form of advice, even if it is only on the lender’s own products.

Montlake: Yes I do. The concept that a first-time buyer can get a 90 per cent mortgage on a property without taking any advice is crazy. Also, many who walk into a bank directly leave believing they have had advice even when they have not. We need a level playing field and clarity for the consumer.

Clark: This is not a good idea. Hardly anyone should be able to go non-advised but there is a small proportion of clients who should have that avenue.

The option not to receive advice should not apply to vulnerable people like equity-release clients. The FSA is saying it should be an option for wealthy clients but it has set the bar quite high.

An unnamed lender will be basing proc fees on the quality of business brokers submit. There have been concerns that this will just lead to lower proc fees for brokers. Do you think that is possible?

Hollingworth: There is pressure on proc fees from recent moves by Nationwide and Lloyds. Hopefully, any move to alter the way they are paid with a focus on quality will not just be some kind of effort to down-grade certain levels of business.

The quality issue is something that has come up time and time again.

It is logical that if as an adviser you are giving better quality of business, it will be more valuable to the lender. What you do need to know is what the measures will be for determining that quality.

Montlake: This may be a good idea in theory but there is always going to be a question mark over what each lender defines as quality. I would like to see an agreed minimum with uplifts for higher-quality business rather than the other way round.

Clark: I think I had this unnamed lender in my office yesterday. They said they already keep detailed metrics on their introducers but are looking to work more closely with the people that give them better quality business. Good quality advisers have nothing to fear but my concern is it will mean the best quality people will maintain their proc fees and the poorer will get a cut.

Lawyers are helping clients find ways to avoid coming under the new stamp duty law. Do you think the Government will be able to stamp out avoidance this time?

Hollingworth: I think it was firmly worded in the Budget speech that trying to avoid stamp duty is something the Government views pretty dimly. Anyone going into a scheme to try to avoid stamp duty may well be able to do it on a legal footing but you would have to expect to be under quite close scrutiny. And there is the ability for the Government to say retrospectively it is not an acceptable way to do it. A lot of people could end up owing tax.

Montlake: No. Government departments tend to work too slowly to keep up with the number of schemes that pop up to mitigate stamp duty. I believe the number of those bothering to pay high fees to avoid stamp duty is overegged and we have to be careful not to target the wrong people, such as charitable foundations. I hope the Government does work out a robust method of targeting those trying to buck the system unfairly but history seems to suggest otherwise.

Clark: I do not think the Government will be able to. We used to dabble and we preferred the term “mitigation” but it is avoidance really. The Government would have to alter stamp duty fundamentally and call it something else to end this.

As long as stamp duty is as complex as it is and there are clever solicitors, they will find ways round it. As fast as HMRC shuts down one loophole these companies set up another one.

The panel

David Hollingworth
head of communications, London and Country

Andrew Montlake
director, Coreco

Jonathan Clark
partner, Chadney and Bulgin

Recommended

1

Pensions regulator eases DB funding demands

The Pensions Regulator has confirmed it plans to give employers with defined-benefit pension schemes “greater breathing space” to fill deficits. Over the past year, the eurozone crisis and the Government’s quantitative easing programme have caused a spike in demand for UK gilts. As a result, gilts are becoming more expensive, depressing interest rates and reducing […]

Aegon and Canada Life shut segmented offshore bonds to new business

Aegon and Canada Life International have closed their segmented offshore bonds to new business after the Government’s clampdown on the products. Documents published alongside the Budget in March seek to restrict the use of offshore bonds that are structured so that any gain made across the whole bond arises in only one segment or policy. […]

SFO chief Williamson steps down

Serious Fraud Office chief executive Phillippa Williamson has stepped down from the role. She announced her departure last week just days before director Richard Alderman left on April 20. Williamson says: “It has been a privilege to lead the SFO through a period of exceptional change during challenging times. “I am proud to have worked […]

NAPF proposes DC scheme efficiency tests

The National Association of Pension Funds is calling on policymakers to introduce an efficiency test for defined-contribution schemes as the trade body continues its push for super trusts. Super trusts are large-scale, trust-based, not-for profit DC schemes, such as the National Employment Savings Trust established by the Government. The NAPF believes savers will benefit from […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment