Anyone heard of the new forms the banks are trying to get Brokers to fill out?

Apparently the banks are looking to absolve themselves of blame when someone takes on too much funding by shifting the blame to the Brokers.

Now my views on people being able to blame anyone but themselves for this sort of crap are well known to you all but that's not the purpose of this episode of "Dan's Soapbox"

So apparently some banks are asking some brokers to fill in a form explaining that the client didn't "look" distressed or "seem" like they didn't understand what they were doing. Basically looking to shift the perceived blame from the bank to the broker.

I have two problems with this: 1) Why should the Brokers take the risk for the banks and 2) how many Brokers are actually qualified psychologists? How in the hell is a Broker supposed to put their own name on something like "They didn't look or seem a certain way"?

Anyway that's me done for this one . I would love to know more details if anyone has them, all I know of it was discussed over a few beers at the pub so the deets are a little fuzzy .

Or I could just be completely wrong, like I said there was beer involved but this was my understanding of the conversation.

 

It's been a hot topic over the last fortnight. It's part of the new Banking Code of Conduct. It doesn't just affect brokers, but everyone in banking. Realistically virtually no front line staff (brokers or bankers) are reasonably qualified to assess a borrowers mental state within a meeting or two. I don't feel that any amount of training is going to change this either.

There's been talk about brokers having to sign a statement regarding this. So far I haven't actually seen any such statements. I think the industry back lash on this has either been effective and made lenders rethink their approach, or it's a bit overblown. I could have easily missed it so far, but I've got emails from quite a few lenders that clearly state that this isn't a requirement.

Overall I think the requirements will be reviewed. There will be some training, but I don't think brokers are going to end up being expected to accurately assess the state of mind of a borrower.

 

Our last settlement - which was incredibly stressful due to a bevvy of obstacles - took place on Friday.

After earlier printing off a ream of documents to be signed ... remember the days when you simply signed a piece of paper that said "I promise to pay it back" ... we had to get everything signed off by a solicitor, stating that we understood everything - and another signed off by a financial planner saying that they had approved the deal was part of our plan.

The financial planner was okay - just cost me $750 yet again - but we use a conveyancer, not a solicitor ... so after running around trying to find a solicitor who would take on the overview at short notice, and another $770 later ... sheesh

 

Hi Lizze,

I enlist a Property Lawyer in the hunter that charges Conveyancer fee's etc, perhaps it may be worth a look, recommended highly by @tomlemke.

Regards,
Arc

 

Thanks for the offer - I've been using my Conveyancer for 20-ish years and there is nothing he doesn't know about real estate settlements - from caravan parks to dashed strata plans. He reckons my hourly rate is really ***** - but he loves me as I bring him some amazingly interesting jobs.

Doesn't hurt that I send him the occasional box of wine