sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Financial Advice New Zealand rejects concerns about mortgage broker commissions raised by Consumer NZ in wake of Aussie Royal Commission

Financial Advice New Zealand rejects concerns about mortgage broker commissions raised by Consumer NZ in wake of Aussie Royal Commission

An organisation representing mortgage brokers is, not surprisingly, rejecting concerns Consumer NZ is raising about broker remuneration in the wake of the Australian Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

Consumer NZ told Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Select Committee that ideally commission payments to mortgage brokers should be banned. Failing this new rules around commissions, bonuses and soft dollar benefits should be introduced preventing payments from being linked to the amount a customer borrows.

However Katrina Shanks, chief executive of Financial Advice New Zealand, told it would be "imprudent" to suggest an overhaul of the remuneration model for New Zealand advisers solely based on the outcomes of the Royal Commission in Australia.

"Commissions are a remuneration tool. The more important discussion is ensuring that the practices and processes of lenders and advisers always put the consumer’s best interests at the centre of any decision, and support a well-informed decision by the borrower," Shanks says.

"Through the work of the Financial Markets Authority, associations such as Financial Advice New Zealand and the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill, the advice sector has undergone a concentrated review to identify areas for greater clarity and change. One of the key areas advocated for by Financial Advice New Zealand on behalf of our members and consumers is disclosure."

Shanks says new disclosure rules are an opportunity to boost public trust through transparency, ensuring consumers are in a position to make an informed decision, giving advisers a tool to clearly communicate the value of advice and their services, and ending confusion over what advice actually costs.

"Financial literacy levels in New Zealand are such that often the adviser’s time is spent educating clients as to what their options are so that they can make informed decisions. There is immense value in this. We must arrive at a framework that both ensures clients have all information they need to make a fully informed decision, but also that supports advisers’ ability to provide this crucial service to more New Zealanders," says Shanks.

"The recent reviews performed in New Zealand have emphasised the importance of being consumer centric when providing financial advice. Financial Advice New Zealand is developing standards to ensure we continue to support consumer-first outcomes."

Touting itself as the professional body for financial advisers, Financial Advice New Zealand was formed this year bringing together the Professional Advisers Association, Institute of Financial Advisers and the New Zealand Financial Advisers' Association.

'None of our regulatory agencies has been investigating the broking market'

Below are comments Consumer NZ made to the Select Committee. They came in a submission following a briefing from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Financial Markets Authority on the outcomes of the Australian Royal Commission.

One of the most damaging revelations to come out of the Royal Commission was the practice of banks overstating income and understating expenses in order to offer larger mortgages. In New Zealand, around 40 per cent of mortgages are arranged through brokers rather than direct with the lender. However, none of our regulatory agencies has been investigating the broking market to gauge whether the same problems exist here. 


Similarly, there has been no investigation into the problems that commissions may be causing. Mortgage brokers in New Zealand earn both upfront and trail commission on mortgages. They also earn commissions on life insurance products. Brokers also earn bonus commissions and soft-dollar benefits, such as overseas trips. The amount of commission a broker receives is directly proportional to the value and volume of the loans and insurance policies they sell. Brokers are therefore incentivised to sell big loans and expensive life insurance policies, and to move clients from one financial product to another (“churn”) in order to maximise their commissions. 

A recent report by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) into mortgage brokers found the standard commission model of upfront and trail commissions could encourage consumers to take out bigger loans, when doing so was not in their best interests. The report recommended moving away from the standard commission model so payments were not linked to the amount a customer borrowed. This proposal was aimed at reducing the risk that brokers might attempt to inappropriately maximise their commissions by encouraging consumers to take larger loans. The report also recommended moving away from bonus commissions, bonus payments and soft-dollar benefits which increased the risk of poor consumer outcomes. 

In our view, commissions should be banned. However, in the absence of a ban on commissions, we support the introduction of new rules around commissions, bonuses and soft dollar benefits, along the lines of those recommended by ASIC.

*This article was first published in our email for paying subscribers early on Tuesday morning. See here for more details and how to subscribe.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


The banks have lost over site of who they lend to and their ability to pay. Opting to pass their responsibility on to a third party, who've used fictitious valuations and other unethical methods to benefit themselves, unvetted creating NZ's massive debt bubble to outdo GDP. When subprimers start defaulting can Banks be held responsible?

They will be when the mortgagor defaults.

One year and two year fixes are the ideal staple in a mortgage brokers diet. A quick call a month before the term expires, a switch to a new product (ideally a new lender too), then maybe a bit more borrowing on top thanks to all that wonderful equity. 'You deserve it, go and buy that new boat!' and boom, commission every couple of years. Why are there so few long term rates that track the Reserve Rate? It's not in the interest of any of the market players.

Under-regulated? Perhaps.

If the banks have competitive rates, why wouldn't the broker advise the highest commission option. I would suggest good brokers have a more laser like focus and understanding of the commission available, than the benefits of what lender you would take.

Commission put simply, is the death of independence.

"The more important discussion is ensuring that the practices and processes of lenders and advisers always put the consumer’s best interests at the centre of any decision, and support a well-informed decision by the borrower"
And you are going to achieve that by lenders rewarding advisers winning borrowers for them? what a strange idea. It is like expecting a lawyer representing a plaintiff to be paid by the defendant (and the payment being conditional on plaintiff losing at court) and then say that you expect such a lawyer to act in the best interest of the plaintiff. Such a lawyer is either crazy (unlikely to be a competent one) or destined to go out of business very quickly (as he wont be remunerated for a competent representation of his client)

So let's say we ban commissions, what's the consequences. First brokers will have to charge the client. Perhaps some will see this as worthwhile but most probably won't. So when it comes to getting a mortgage they will go to their bank and surprise surprise the insurance they get is also from the bank and the credit card and kiwisaver too.
I think transparency is a better approach. So the broker will have to say (orally and via a statement) that they will receive a commission of $X. People then can make their own decisions based on that.

A lot more work needed to show transparency. As mentions, brokers don't need to state what lenders they work with - are you getting the best deal in the market if they won't work with BNZ etc? Many ways to sell a mortgage, but NZ/AU very fragmented, ultimately protecting the industry.