$4.95 POST APPROVED PP255003/06906
ISSUE 8.18 September 2011
MFAA, FBAA merger calls spark rethink
Tim Brown
Debate rages over whether two voices are better than one
Calls for a merger between the MFAA and FBAA have resulted in one aggregator CEO suggesting brokers should be represented by a combined body separate from lenders. In an admittedly “controversial” opinion, Vow Financial chief executive Tim Brown said in the UK, which is considered a comparable mortgage market to Australia, there is one entity – the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries – that represents third party distributors only. “In actual fact, it sits separately
from the lender body, so the lender body has its own representative group and the broker body has its representative group,” he said. Brown said this presented an alternative model to Australia where lenders and other industry participants form part of the MFAA membership base. “Potentially I’d probably even like to see that split occur,” Brown said. “That might be a bit controversial, but I think it makes a lot more sense.” Liberty Financial executives Brendan O’Donnell and John Mohnacheff recently sparked debate over a potential MFAA and FBAA merger, telling Australian Broker the industry would benefit from having one representative body rather than two.
Clawback choice
“I’m a firm believer that we probably only need one body. I think we don’t have a big enough industry to accommodate both,” O’Donnell said. “I think that will play itself out in the next couple of years no doubt,” he said. Mohnacheff agreed with O’Donnell’s view. “I do live in hope that they [the MFAA and FBAA] find mutual ground for coming together as one, because one strong big body is always better than two,” he said. However, others including Yellow Brick Road executive chairman Mark Bouris, have quashed suggestions a combination would be beneficial for the industry. “It is nothing unusual for any professional group to have two bodies. It happens with the Chartered Accountants – lots of professional groups have two bodies,” Bouris said. “The two bodies both serve a purpose, they can work hand in hand as long as they are not fighting each other.” Bouris said he saw no point in a merger. “Unless members are paying for both and paying a double cost, I don’t really see a compelling reason to put the two together,” he said. Connective principal Mark Haron agrees. “It’s not such a bad thing for the industry to have two industry bodies operating as they do. Even if the FBAA had merged with the MFAA, at some point in time some other group would have started up to take the place of the FBAA,” he said. Page 18 cont.
>>
Adelaide Bank gives options amid cuts Page 2
No FoFA fear Brokers safe from new legal regime, says MFAA Page 4
Seniors incensed Older borrowers face property lock-out Page 6
Inside this issue Analysis 20 Branded brokers the future Opinion 22 Shane Oliver on the economy Insight 24 How to brand your business Toolkit 25 CRMs, efficiency and revenue Market talk 26 The end of the ‘savings binge’ People 27 Q&A: Hye-Young Kim, Now Home Loan Caught on camera 28 Brokers welcome Bank of Melbourne