x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Written by rosalind renshaw

Over three-quarters of brokers expect the Mortgage Market Review to force more intermediary firms out of the market.

Brokers were interviewed by The Mortgage Alliance for its inaugural Distribution Indicator.

When asked what effect brokers expect the MMR to have, 76% said that increasing numbers of intermediary firms would leave the market; 12% suggested that the biggest shift would be from an appointed representative (AR) to directly authorised (DA); and 8% felt that DA to AR would constitute the largest shift. The final 4% said that increasing numbers of firms would have to consolidate as a result of the MMR.

The TMA Distribution Indicator is to be a regular gathering of views about current market conditions undertaken by TMA mortgage desk.

Phil Whitehouse, head of TMA, said: “The results of our inaugural Distribution Indicator regarding broker numbers are concerning but not unduly surprising.

“Figures from the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries show there were between 30,000 and 32,000 brokers at the peak of the market.

“This contrasts sharply with the figure the trade body stated three months ago which was only in the region of 12,000. This latest figure is a debatable one, with some suggestions that the broker community might even be less than 10,000.

“But what is evident is that the brokers interviewed certainly don’t believe the MMR is doing the intermediary market any favours.”

Comments

  • icon

    Small detail, have the FSA actually conducted relevent consumer research to actually establish what the market ideals are to assess the value of advice, and how consumers value this and are prepared to pay for it to get good service, good products and the right end result, rather than talking to some of the 'Listening banks', and banks that 'like to say Yes', only to find they don't because their not allowed too because despite common sense and experience (not that lenders have much of that left allowed to play a role) the computer says no. Or is it easier for us all to finance another of their reports with biased assumptions for them to tell us again how it'sgoing to be. History shows consistant failings with these reports, regulation and interventions, with major costs to individuals and companies, the list goes on and on. Then the authors of the failure produce sequal after sequal at our expense re-writinbg their failures with the next 1. Is it just inconvenient for them to wise up, listen and put something appropriate in place. When advisers have gone because theyno longer want or can afford to play silly games and have to focus elsewhere to receive the respect and remuneration their experience merits, and the void of knowledge, experience becomes a black hole leading to the banks, it's a little late in the day. The whole saga defies belief, and anyone reading the history of the sad affair would never believe it possible it's been so absurd. Got it offmy chest, the whole things just bonkers, should be about meeting reasonable customer need, that after all is treating Customers Fairly, rather than a nice little money spinner for the bureaucrats.

    • 05 October 2010 21:25 PM
MovePal MovePal MovePal