Royal Commission Australian Banking

[Dan Moody]

I'm a bank manager of a Big 4 bank in a large full service branch.
I have a lending book of $750m and a full time Lending Manager working for me.
I also have several mates that work independantly as Brokers.
I've used a broker for my last 3 purchases, simply for convenience and the fact that they can get me what I want. As far as trailing commissions go, I couldn't give a s**t what they make out of my loan, I pay a very low variable interest rate on my O/O loan so that's all I care about.
As far as loyalty goes, I'm not entitled to a cheaper interest rate as an employee, it's generally based on the size of the loan.
I'm looking at refinancing in the next 6 weeks, I'll go through a broker again.

 

[theyellowsash]

That's a lot of words to try and justify a cost the banks aren't going to have anymore.

The banks aren't going to have to pay overheads and wages etc to hire internal brokers. They aren't going to hire someone who shows them all their competitors rates and then hands the paperwork to the person across the counter. Besides, what idiot would trust what the banks tell us given all that has gone on.

Smarter people than you or I have determined that brokers used the less educated for their own gain and frequently sold products which were not the best for their customer/victim. And that was because they were incentivised to push their 'clients' towards the banks that would give them the biggest commission. That is reason enough to ban commissions and tell them to either do a job worth being paid for or gtfo.

 

[Dan Moody]

That's a lot of words to try and justify a cost the banks aren't going to have anymore.

The banks aren't going to have to pay overheads and wages etc to hire internal brokers. They aren't going to hire someone who shows them all their competitors rates and then hands the paperwork to the person across the counter. Besides, what idiot would trust what the banks tell us given all that has gone on.

Smarter people than you or I have determined that brokers used the less educated for their own gain and frequently sold products which were not the best for their customer/victim. And that was because they were incentivised to push their 'clients' towards the banks that would give them the biggest commission. That is reason enough to ban commissions and tell them to either do a job worth being paid for or gtfo.

who said I'm justifying anything numbnuts?
I simply put my point of view across that even though I am in the industry and have access to any number of in-house lenders, I choose to use the services of a broker for convenience.
fwiw, I believe the Hayne recommendations were too harsh on brokers and very lenient on banks.

 

[theyellowsash]

Well fwiw I'll take the word of a number of impartial highly educated and experienced lawyers over the word of some guy working in the sector being examined.

You may have found a good broker worth staying with, and presumably if the banks can't pay them you will be willing to pay them for their services. That person will still be able practise. However the brokering industry as a whole preys on the time poor and uneducated so good riddance to the ones who can't justify earning money for their 'service'.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

theyellowsash

The issue is that Hayne was there to comment on matters of law - the ONLY evidence presented with regards to broker commissions was from CBA, this passed without question or qualification. There was no challenge, no counterpoint - indeed no discussion at all.

Fine for the purpose of the RC looking into misconduct of the banks, but should never have been included in the recommendations without ANY research or understanding of the industry.

It is clear from the recommendations, that none of the submissions provided by industry, ASIC, treasury, etc were read or understood by Hayne, but from a legal perspective, what else is Hayne supposed to do?

Initially I thought Hayne was actually corrupt or stupendously arrogant and simply unaware of the massive economic ramifications of his recommendations. I now realise he was merely applying outcome based on what CBA told him to do.

Brokers were never on trial, and CBA used that to the fullest advantage - picking on someone without a voice or capacity to defend themselves for their own personal gain. Why did we expect anything less.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Well fwiw I'll take the word of a number of impartial highly educated and experienced lawyers over the word of some guy working in the sector being examined.

You may have found a good broker worth staying with, and presumably if the banks can't pay them you will be willing to pay them for their services. That person will still be able practise. However the brokering industry as a whole preys on the time poor and uneducated so good riddance to the ones who can't justify earning money for their 'service'.

What about the word of several previous reports, reviews and inquiries which have... On every single occasion... Recommended against the burden of broking fees being passed to customers?