Mortgage News

Regulatory loophole lets rogue financial operators to stay in business

Monday 10th of October 2011

That's because banks, fund managers and others who deal with such advisers and broker don't have to check whether those providers are registered or not.

This appears to be a gaping hole in the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 which makes any financial adviser who operates without registering liable for a prison sentence of up to 12 months and/or a fine of up to $100,000.
An Auckland mortgage broker discovered he had lost clients to two unregistered brokers and complained to the Companies Office, which keeps the register of both registered financial advisers (RFAs) and authorised financial advisers (AFAs).

The Companies Office replied: "There is no penalty in the Act for lenders (or anyone else) to use unregistered financial service providers."

The Financial Markets Authority says it "expects that any financial services provider will have procedures in place to ensure that any distributor of their products is properly registered."

However, this loophole is evidently allowing some rogue operators to continue in business because some lenders are prepared to deal with them, no questions asked, and are able to do so without fear of penalty.

The major banks and major broker groups say they do require registration of all brokers.

ANZ National Bank, for example, says checking a broker is registered is an integral part of its broker accreditation process.

Brendon Smith, general manager of mortgage broker aggregator Allied Kiwi says providing such information to lenders is "par for the course." Mortgage Link managing director Rod Templeton and Geoff Bawden at Prosper Group say the same.

Nevertheless, the Auckland broker whose business has been affected regards the situation as "a big loophole. If lenders had a legal obligation to check their introducers were registered, that would solve the problem in one hit," he says.

"Don't you feel that it makes a mockery of the whole drawn-out, costly, tedious process we've been through over the past few years?"

Comments (4)
Craig Pope
Hi Jeff, I actually have it written in my documents that if the customer goes direct to the bank (or another broker) during the process, then I reserve the right to charge a fee of up to $x amount. My clients have no problem with it and it helps get some commitment from them.
0 0
13 years ago

Simon Rule
Good point Sarah. The customer ultimately has the final say in who they have act for them on their mortgage. This goes without saying. There would obviously have to be a reason why a customer stopped dealing with a particular mortgage broker but in Jeff's case it was the bank poaching the client which has happened to all of us I am sure at least some point in time.
0 0
13 years ago

Craig Pope
To Sarah and amused, I've never really had to enforce the clause but have it there incase I do alot of work on a pre approval and clients play Dutch auctions with the likes of kiwibank. I value the time and effort I put in for clients and testimonials on my website back this up. You can't tell me no matter how good your service was that you never got given the runaround by a potential client. Happy to clarify further to people who have the courage to put their full name on the forum posts.
0 0
13 years ago

Andy Phillipson
As much as a farce I think this is, i cannot see any reason why an adviser would NOT get registered. It is a little expensive initially, but not overly onerous! The unregistered ones would be the cowboys in the industry - I dare the FMA to highlight that point! oops - can open, worms everywhere.....
0 0
13 years ago

Comments to GoodReturns.co.nz go through an approval process. Comments which are defamatory, abusive or in some way deemed inappropriate will not be approved.