Brokers can't live without banks and it seems more and more banks need brokers. While three big banks, ANZ, ASB and Westpac, have dominated the mortgage adviser space for many years that has all changed in recent times.
For instance, BNZ realised it needed third party distribution, and the smaller banks have all ramped up their activity in the third party space. It's really a no-brainer as around 35-40% of all home loans are originated by mortgage advisers.
It's no secret that brokers often grumble about banks and how they are treated. While there is talk of partnerships, brokers often feel like they are treated as the poor cousins, compared to banks' branch networks and their mobile mortgage managers.
The tension was smashed on Friday when the Professional Advisers Association sent an email to members more than firing a shot across the bows of banks - one in particular.
In it the PAA Board makes some pretty strong allegations saying: "This type of disingenuous business tactic must be seen for what it is and be stopped. The attempt by some banks to dismantle the adviser channel, that has taken decades to build up, demonstrates poor integrity and indecisive business strategy."
Unfortunately the problem hasn't been defined.
While they have received some kudos for finally standing up for its mortgage adviser members, it has also muddied the waters. The PAA hasn't said which bank it considers to be the culprit, nor has it spelt out what the actual problem is.
By inference it is tarring all the banks with the same brush.
It is unclear how much communication there has been between the PAA and the bank; if any at all.
Mortgage advice is built on partnerships between advisers and lenders.
As Mortgage Link managing director Josh Bronkhorst said at his group's conference this morning the relation between banks and advisers is like a marriage. "You only have to be happy most of the time."
Talking though issues and problems is the best way to get a resolution.
QUESTION: What are your thoughts on the PAA's tactics? Is it doing the right thing? Should it name and shame the bank it has taken aim at? Send our comments to email@example.com