The National Association of Mortgage Brokers and Advisers says that discussions so far with the FSA ...
The National Association of Mortgage Brokers and Advisers says that discussions so far with the FSA indicate its response document to CP146, the consultation paper proposing reform of the way mortgages are sold, is being taken seriously and it is fairly confident that its message is getting through.
NAMBA, which jointly issued its response together with AIFA, says the key to successful reform is undertaking proper cost/benefit analysis of the proposed new rules.
This will ensure that the industry does not flounder in too much red tape that does not actually improve the outcomes for customers.
AIFA's influence on the response seems to come forth in the response calling on the FSA not to introduce rules that make it impossible for smaller IFA firms to carry the costs to the advantage of larger players in the industry.
It is impossible to confirm this influence because AIFA is referring all questions on the response to NAMBA as the association with more expertise on mortgage issues.
The response also controversially states that the "mortgage intermediary market has been largely free of scandal and the regulation should reflect this."
Some five million Britons snared up in the arguments over endowment mortgages may beg to differ.
However, a NAMBA spokesman says that in constructing its response the association was keen to stick to the particular proposals put forward in CP146 specifically regarding regulation of mortgage advice.
Endowments are an issue of investment advisory regulations rather than the mortgage adviser rules put forward in CP146, the spokesman says, and the response has been constructed with this in mind.
He says that it may of course be difficult to explain the nuances to customers, but associations can only respond to the proposals put forward by the regulator and raising tangential issues may not be the best way to do this.
The LIA meanwhile has returned a short answer to CP146 based on its understanding that the proposed new rules may have to be significantly altered once CP121 is finalised.
And with the FSA's response to the responses to CP121 likely delayed until sometime early next year, the whole CP146 schedule could slip too.
The LIA is particularly concerned about two issues with regard to CP146.
Firstly, it has concerns about differences in the way the word 'independent' will be used in the mortgage adviser and investment adviser roles.
And it is concerned about just what is meant by the 'non-advised sales' route given the proposals for filtering questions that the LIA says may create the "misunderstanding on the part of clients that they are receiving advice".
Partner Insight: Introducing the Architas education series for clients.
'Fewer than 1% of firms PROD-compliant' - Rory Percival
'Left holding the can'
'VCTs and EIS compared' panel
Letter to Women and Equalities Committee