Waverley Mortgage Choice in Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia | Financial planner

Waverley Mortgage Choice

Locality: Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia

Phone: +61 414 583 233

Address: 1 Redwood Drive 3168 Notting Hill, VIC, Australia

Website: www.mortgagechoice.com.au/peter.dall

Likes: 90

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Financial service
• Loan service
• Mortgage brokers
• Financial planner

25.01.2022 What’s not to love? Our free home loan health check means: We’ll negotiate for you We’ll find you a better deal We’ll do all the legwork... bit.ly/3f46SrI

21.01.2022 There's never been a better time to renovate, especially with the $25,000 HomeBuilder grant. If you’re eligible, it offers a grant of $25,000 towards renovating or building their property - but what are some ways to spend the grant money to make it go further? Speak to your Mortgage Choice broker about funding choices available to you. Here's how: https://www.mortgagechoice.com.au//4-ways-to-make-the-mos/

17.01.2022 The new $25,000 HomeBuilder grant could help you get that renovation project underway. Conditions apply, speak to your Mortgage Choice broker to know if you’re eligible. https://www.mortgagechoice.com.au//all-you-need-to-know-t/

16.01.2022 Look who’s open for business! Our brokers are still here, to help you achieve your property goals or relieve the financial pressure no matter where you are.They can meet via Zoom, Skype, email or phone, so you can start saving sooner. www.mortgagechoice.com.au/home-/refinancing/mc-loan-checks/

15.01.2022 The banking royal commission identified numerous misdeeds throughout a number of our leading banking institutions. Post Royal Commission you would be forgiven i...f you thought Mortgage Brokers, not the banks, were the evil element. This article expands on this principle and identifies unintended consequences of some of the recommendations emanating from the Royal Commission that will significantly impact the ability to obtain any sort of finance. Why fill the tumbrels with middlemen? By Henry Ergas COLUMNIST SYDNEY Henry Ergas AO is an economist who spent many years at the OECD in Paris before returning to Australia. He has taught at a number of universities, including Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the University of Auckland and the École Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Administration Économique in Paris, served as Inaugural Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong and worked as an adviser to companies and governments. Even those who delight in life’s little ironies will have been troubled to see the major culprits, in this case the banks, emerge from the financial services royal commission with what so far is barely a scolding, while the mortgage brokers and financial advisers, who were bit players in the drama, are hauled to the guillotine. There are, for sure, plenty of scoundrels in the tumbrel carrying them to their fate. But the miscreants tended to be lone offenders. The banks, on the other hand, devoted entire regiments to plucking, dressing and then devouring the live, the dead and the yet unborn. Were it just an issue of fairness, it might merit a weary shrug of the shoulders. But if there is such a thing as an undeniable fact, it is that the rise of mortgage brokers and financial advisers did more to inject competition into the financial services industry than decades of efforts by governments and regulators combined. They introduced comparison shopping into an area where consumers find comparisons notoriously hard to make. And every bit as importantly, they acted as distribution outlets for smaller providers such as credit unions that lacked (and lack) a national retail presence. The effect was to reduce the banks’ net interest margins by 15 to 20 per cent, saving consumers many billions of dollars. That they proved so effective was not unrelated to their business model, which involved charging no upfront fee to consumers, while receiving commissions from financial services providers. That model is hardly theirs alone: for sound economic reasons, it is common for suppliers to pay intermediaries, particularly in industries where suppliers list their wares with many competing intermediaries while consumers use only one. Moreover, the pressures for charges to be borne by the supplier, rather than by the purchaser, are especially strong when it is difficult for consumers to value the service before they obtain it and where once they have been told which product best meets their needs, they could readily go and obtain it for themselves. That banks, rather than consumers, pay mortgage brokers is no more surprising, and in and of itself no more disturbing, than it is that airlines pay travel agents and hotels and restaurants pay reservation platforms. As for the much criticised trailing commissions, they discouraged excess churning, while giving advisers an interest in signing up consumers who, rather than defaulting, could service their debts. Did the arrangements create scope for conflicts of interest? They certainly did, and they attracted many incompetent providers, along with some who were simply dishonest. For that reason and others, requiring all providers to act in the best interests of the consumer, and stiffening the licensing and enforcement regime, as the commission recommends, makes perfect sense. But it is completely unrealistic to believe that substantially doing away with the charging arrangements, and instead requiring consumers to pay upfront, will lead to a better advisory industry: it is more likely that it will cause the industry to shrink, if not disappear. After all, while the agents will have upfront fees, the banks won’t, or if they do, they will easily bundle them into other charges. As for trailing commissions, while intermediaries will be prohibited from receiving them, it is obvious that banks effectively pay those commissions to themselves, and will continue to do so. The report claims those problems can be dealt with through rules that level the competitive playing field. However, decades of experience prove that it is far easier to assume that such rules can exist than to actually devise and implement them. The likely result is all too predictable. Consumers will be deprived of a service they value, forcing them back to the major banks yes, the very ones the commission’s case studies excoriate. At the same time, those banks will face less competitive pressure, both from intermediaries and from each other, allowing them to rebuild the net interest margins the development of brokers and advisers slashed. It is hard to see how that will solve any of the problems the report identifies. As serious as the conflicts faced by mortgage brokers and financial advisers may be, they pale compared to those that bear on the banks’ employees, who have no interest whatsoever in telling consumers that they could get a better deal by going to a rival down the road. And while there is no doubt that trailing commissions have reduced the incentive for brokers to switch consumers to cheaper loans, it takes a fertile imagination to think the banks themselves will make sure consumers are promptly moved to the lowest cost option, forgoing margins they could otherwise obtain. It is true that eliminating the brokers and advisers may reduce the incidence of malfeasance: the fewer the apples, the easier it is to spot those that are rotten. But as any cost-benefit analysis would have shown, the harm to consumers from lessening competition among the banks, even if it merely increases net interest margins by a few hundreds of a percentage point, greatly outweighs the value of any plausible gain the reduced risk could bring. That the commission undertook no such analysis hardly needs to be said. The damage will, of course, fall on low and middle-income earners the well-off can look after themselves. That won’t bother the ALP, which has no love for small players, whether they are self-managed super funds, mortgage brokers or independent contractors. Large players be it big -unions or big business fit far more naturally into its corporatist view of the world. It is, however, puzzling that a Coalition government would think it can do a better job than market forces of designing charging arrangements for so complex an industry. Those arrangements did not materialise out of thin air: they evolved in a market that was, from the outset, intensely competitive, and in which many alternative approaches were tried and discarded. None of that excuses the misdeeds the report has uncovered. Nor do I have any particular sympathy for the white shoe brigade. On the contrary, like Madame Defarge, I will feel a frisson of excitement as the guillotine’s gleaming blade drops through the air. But if there is evidence that the brokers and financial advisers are any greedier or more rapacious than their counterparts in the banks, it is not contained in the commission’s final report. How ironic then that, as the value of their stock options soars, the bankers are laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, the brokers and financial advisers ride glumly to their doom. Unfortunately, the interests of Australian consumers ride with them. For all of your loan requirements give Peter a call on 0414 583 233 or via email [email protected]

04.01.2022 Not comfortable negotiating your home loan rate? Let our experts do it for you. We’ll talk to your lender about a better deal. Start now: bit.ly/3f46SrI