Broker news forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
  • Tim Brierley | 22 Apr 2015, 01:59 PM Agree 0's a broker association that is too broker focussed? What is wrong with that? Do the insurance brokers have an association that includes insurance companies or is it just for insurance brokers? CAAMP started out as CIMBL and was created by lenders. CMBA is a BROKERS' association. CAAMP is feeling paranoid because they are becoming less relevant, and the AMP designation provides nothing to brokers, being just a cash cow for an association that is leaning too much towards lenders and is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
  • Anonymous | 22 Apr 2015, 02:01 PM Agree 0
    It appears that CAAMP's proposal suggested that all the provincial associations dissolve hence why the province's have started on this path. From what i hear, it was also agreed that if one party decided to withdraw from the discussions, the other 4 would still continue...the CMBA is the result of that. If CAAMP wants to work with the provinces, why don't they reach out?
  • Michelle | 22 Apr 2015, 02:03 PM Agree 0
    Too broker focused!!!!! Isn't the majority of CAAMPS membership mortgage brokers and agents?
  • Boris | 22 Apr 2015, 02:09 PM Agree 0
    Would somebody in three sentences or less
    explain the pros and cons of this new CMBA association ?
  • Boris | 22 Apr 2015, 02:09 PM Agree 0
    Would somebody in three sentences or less
    explain the pros and cons of this new CMBA association ?
  • Ron Butler | 22 Apr 2015, 02:16 PM Agree 0
    I am a bit disappointed by CAAMP's immediate and somewhat strident reaction. Last year the provincial leaders and CAAMP tried to negotiate towards an arrangement that simply did not work out. Good people can have honest differences, that's life. The concept that CAAMP has expressed in their disappointing press release is that the new organization is "potentially fragmenting our unified voice" this is their opinion but it seems a rush to judgement, perhaps it makes more sense to sit back and watch what happens for a few months and see what the new group pursues.

    I support CAAMP but I also support CMBA because I do not see why they need to be at loggerheads. The senior organization (CAAMP) might have taken a less aggressive and negative approach to this new development. Let's face it, CAAMP has the history, the money and multi-lateral support from many constituents. CAAMP has all the strength, maybe CAAMP should show restraint, wait a bit, don't lob grenades for the time being because as people are constantly telling me; nobody likes a bully.
  • Jesse | 22 Apr 2015, 02:27 PM Agree 0
    Yes CAAMP, we need an organization that is "broker focused" because you are too "bank focused"!!! CAAMP's comment should confirm to us who they are really working for and/or looking out for!
  • Gord | 22 Apr 2015, 02:35 PM Agree 0
    "too broker focused" is a term used by this publication... c'mon guys.
    The fact is that we need a UNIFIED voice, not multiple voices. CAAMP and CMBA (and AMBA) should get in a room and figure it out.
    Without lenders, what are we going to broker? We count on lenders for our product and to finance our events, let's be respectful of that. Also let's not forget that all associations have lawyers, insurers and other related professionals as members. If you don't want their voices, dont take their money. Now that we have 3 associations, do our annual due go up too?

    Let's get on the same page and start growing the channel rather than arguing over the scraps the banks haven't gobbled up yet.
  • Dave | 22 Apr 2015, 02:58 PM Agree 0
    Do I smell fear from the CAAMP folks? That quick a response without even hearing what CMBA has to say or offer and the negative comments can only mean that CAAMP is afraid of what may be coming. Should have maybe been more open to what the Provincial Associations had to say for the past 2 years instead of trying to steam roll their own objective.
  • What a waste | 22 Apr 2015, 03:04 PM Agree 0
    I predict that the CMBA will run out of money within 2 years.

    A second national association is a flagrant waste of broker and lender dollars. Broker revenues are SHRINKING people! This is N-O-T the time for wasteful spending or reinventing the wheel. CMBA is a product of politics. The purported broker benefits are a secondary consideration. Its formation is an incredibly short-sighted self-centred decision by CMBA's founders, one that will ultimately lead to squandered membership and sponsorship monies.
  • Ida | 22 Apr 2015, 03:06 PM Agree 0
    Thank you for your comments Tim Brierley. I concur in spades!!!!!
  • Gary | 22 Apr 2015, 03:28 PM Agree 0
    Tim--well said! You hit the nail right on the head!
  • Gary | 22 Apr 2015, 03:28 PM Agree 0
    Tim--well said! You hit the nail right on the head!
  • RJ | 22 Apr 2015, 03:32 PM Agree 0
    CAAMP is too Lender focused. Years ago when I worked for a lender, our disgusting VP got brokers to join this org through fear and financial intimidation. He told the brokers if they didn't join CAAMP (CIMBL) he would not allow any broker to send us business. Hopefully CAAMP will go the way of the dodo. We need a broker-focused national association. We don't need CAAMP.
  • Derrick | 22 Apr 2015, 03:54 PM Agree 0
    When CIMBL first started it was started by brokers to provide a uniformed voice and strength to an ever changing financial environment.
    After a while lenders where invited to participate to provide credibility throughout the community, however, after a while they started taking over, dictating how we should do business and at the same time not abiding by their own rules.
    If I'm not mistaken a few years ago the head of one major financial institution went on record with his displeasure of mortgage brokers in general while at the same time being a member of the CAAMP. While, apparently, he was warned about his actions nothing else was said and no further action taken.
    Now we have several financial institutions that no longer deal with the broker channel, however, remain a member of CAAMP. How is that possible?
    While I agree that having more that channel of representation could dilute our collective voices I for one feel that in order to unify our voices CAAMP needs to look at itself as I see two streams within the organization. One for the lenders and one for the brokers and neither can effectively serve the other.
    While CMBA has the right broker focused idea if CAAMP were to rethink it's current structure both might survive together but while lenders are self serving it is highly unlikely that we will maintain one voice.
  • John Sayer | 22 Apr 2015, 04:04 PM Agree 0
    caamp on the Ropes

    Many received an open letter from caamp today telling you about their failure to unify a group they said were represented but sorely over time have been proven to layer other groups with funding before their #1 mandate, Mortgage Brokers!

    Like the illegal practice of Predatory pricing caamp have grown into an unbearable, intolerable beast. Simple human nature and Canadian laws might be run over but never down and out. Just like some lenders who have leveraged broker's clients with lower cost products while remaining a participant in the broker channel caamp have also not allowed a level playing field to exist with the cause being money, greed and self interest. If mortgage brokers are reliant upon lenders for their product this activity is predatory at the minimum and if caamp were to represent mortgage brokers it should have done so for all. caamp's current model is upside down.

    Who is looking out for this type of lender activity and acting on it? Currently due to the middleman, gunslinger position mortgage brokers maintain caamp have not been held accountable. Like the predatory lender, caamp's website does attempt to convince otherwise:

    To be recognized as the premier voice of Canada’s mortgage broker channel and the leading authority on mortgage issues.

    Simply, caamp are not focused upon their mortgage broker members if you consider their Vision Statement along with their leaders unveiled disinterest in the 85% rank and file non AMP members who caamp certainly would have ended long ago without. The best, most glaring recent example of their plight is of a certain 2012 presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, who disenfranchaised 47% of the voting base by having his views on those 47% repeated in the media. His view did not respect 47%, yet he wanted their vote, he spoke against them, ultimately losing. caamp’s vision statement says that they want to speak for mortgage brokers yet they have damaged the integrity of more than 85% of the Canadian base by propping up less than 15% at the personal and professional expense of the majority non AMP's.

    Mortgage brokers, already treated as a middle person in the mortgage transaction process had caamp lording over them. Mr. Murphy might argue against this and so too will caamp, but what would you expect from a group grown accustomed to inaction and lobbist monies.

    Last spring, Jim Murphy, caamp President and CEO, came out and publicly drove wedges between AMP and non AMP mortgage professionals by publishing in national media the superiority of AMP, a small segment of the organization rather than embracing the whole mortgage broker community he was chosen to represent. Many AMP are on record that the amp program is ill advised, does not serve the majority while providing little amp advantage and consumers alike. Mr. Murphy’s choice to publish caamp’s amp stance in the spring 2014 was a slap in the face to all mortgage brokers. Worse, monies supplied by all members was used to prop up an already unsatisfied amp minority. Some who could opted out of caamp that day, I certainly did, while many more would have were they given the ability to ignore their brokerage mandate “must be a member of caamp”.

    Mr. Murphy’s stance that AMP’s are more worthy and subsequently have received advertising and national promotion while the balance of the group ignored, was egregious and a topic requiring a proper retraction with support to the greater group. None was provided. In my opinion there are many more important battles in the mortgage industry, recent topics such as predatory pricing or possibly employee vs. licensed professionals and the impact this significant differentiation has on the Canadian consumer due to antiquated legislation. Other industries less close to home are far more regulated. No single business transaction in Canada has ever been more important than a home mortgage. caamp currently appear to have too many constituents more valuable than the mortgage broker they claim to represent.

    Choosing to advertise for such a small group against an entire constituency was extremely poor judgement. Mr. Murphy’s lauding and advertising of amp’s at the expense of the entire group was idiocy and points to a need for change. Providing the environment for growth of the mortgage broker market share in the Canadian consumer realm is the over arching mandate mortgage professionals belonged. Mr Murphy's choice to differentiate did nothing to improve the landscape for his members. Mr. Murphy’s then divisive statements against 85% of member brokers is compounded by the fact he also somehow represents and accepts monies from lenders who control mortgage funding. caamp’s distancing of its lowest tier members can no longer be argued as they have drawn their line in the sand indicating the place holder for 85% of its membership. The Canadian brokers who do go to work each day are subjugated by designation and lender issues that do not provide benefit for the Mortgage Broker industry and caamp’s final stated objective mortgage consumers.

    In British Columbia, FICOM and MBABC through UBC Sauder School of Business over see legislation, oversight, licensing and education. Each province has its own program as do banks with their own federal program. caamp requires a review if nothing else for their misguidance and subversion of the provincial, legislative and education options available and demanded upon more and more licensed mortgage professionals.

    Currently caamp’s AMP is a wedge along with lender revenues that do not belong nor wanted by 95% of the broker membership, obviously many AMP’s included. Sure AMP can and will be argued for by its team but the membership numbers tell a different story and for this caamp is a year past due on a reality check since its CEO spoke. Click the following link to see the disparity of representation of non AMP caamp representation

    While caamp may want to be recognized as the premier voice of Canada’s mortgage broker channel and the leading authority on mortgage issues as clearly voiced in their Vision Statement, they have failed and clearly demonstrated to fail for more than 85% of their broker members in 2014.

    Who has taken the predatory lender(s) to task, caamp appear not to have.

    In a true underwriting capacity the caamp is certainly a red flag.
  • John Bargis | 22 Apr 2015, 04:17 PM Agree 0
    Well said Mr. Butler.....

    It's unfortunate that CAAMP would immediately react by going on the defensive on the announcement of CMBA, by providing only it's perspective of the discussions and reasons for the failed result between the associations, when in fact there was much more behind the disappointing outcome.

    CMBA forged ahead to address the calls for change by the industry, (including by many of CAAMP's own membership as has been evident with the many on line exchanges over the past several years), - CAAMP was simply unwilling to entertain a transformation.

  • Brad | 22 Apr 2015, 04:19 PM Agree 0
    Wow... CAAMP's analysis of this new development is consistent with its past performance - selfserving business decisions for itself, those in charge of it, and those who can coerce membership - without regard to the best interests of brokers.

    By its own admission, CAAMP does not focus on brokers. That can only mean that CAAMP is not committed to furthering brokers' interests because it compromises them with the interests of others.

    CAAMP has collected too much money from members for too long and produced far too little of value.

    Provincial organizations to address issues and interests arising at the provincial level under provincial legislation, with an umbrella national organization to address shared issues and interests makes natural sense.

    CAAMP, a national organizational acting under no national legislation and unable to address the various concerns at the provincial level (without unnecessarily compromising the interest of so many to hopelessly try to make it fit all of its members across the country) simply does not and cannot work.

    CMBA, where does one sign up or do the interests of brokers in the provinces who are members of MBCA automatically get covered?
    CAAMP, are proportional refunds available for those who resign early?

    Well done to those who came up with the CMBA structure. Finally, a choice that makes sense.

  • Ida | 22 Apr 2015, 04:26 PM Agree 0
    Bravo John Sayer!!!
  • Brad | 22 Apr 2015, 04:43 PM Agree 0
    John Sayer said above that some who could opted out of caamp that day, I certainly did, while many more would have were they given the ability to ignore their brokerage mandate “must be a member of caamp”.

    Hopefully the reason for the mandate is at least legitimate in the minds of those making it and not the result of anything dishonest or lawbreaking (undisclosed benefits for anyone making the mandate).
  • Brad | 22 Apr 2015, 04:43 PM Agree 0
    John Sayer said above that some who could opted out of caamp that day, I certainly did, while many more would have were they given the ability to ignore their brokerage mandate “must be a member of caamp”.

    Hopefully the reason for the mandate is at least legitimate in the minds of those making it and not the result of anything dishonest or lawbreaking (undisclosed benefits for anyone making the mandate).
  • Dave | 22 Apr 2015, 04:44 PM Agree 0
    Brad I almost had tears in my eyes reading that. Well said my friend.
  • Brad | 22 Apr 2015, 06:06 PM Agree 0
    Thanks Dave.

    Following the article in MortgageBroker News announcing CMBA Bc broker on 21/04/2015 9:24:20 PM said,

    "It's been a longtime coming. CAAMP wasn't really a broker group. CAAMP is just a front for lenders and head office types. Ask them how much of the membership fees they kickback to the head offices to push the brokers to join."

    Following up on my above comment, that should answer the question as to whether the mandate imposed by the brokers is legitimate. "Kickbacks" are for sure dishonest. Not disclosing them says a lot about whether the people who accepted them are appropriate to be licenced as brokers. Abuse of power? Fraud? Class action to get the money back? Labour standards?

    Brokerages fleecing brokers out of money in exchange for kickbacks is not an image the industry could be proud of.
  • Derrick Foster | 22 Apr 2015, 06:31 PM Agree 0
    Since my original comments I noticed that most of you are voicing dissatisfaction with the way CAAMP is perceived as being run and it's leanings.
    I was pleased to see that this year Dan Putnam was elected to head up CAAMP, he was a mortgage broker in his first life and then successfully ran the Mortgage Centre franchises before moving on.
    Dan is the one person, in my opinion, that does understand the broker needs and given time, will address the discrepancies in how memberships are given and who should have a voice in OUR association.
    I know Dan well enough to know that he would welcome all comments, both positive or negative and that criticism is a base from which to build.
    The lenders, I perceive, have taken over but with channeled effort we can strive for change and take back what we feel is ours.
    Drop Dan a line after all "you don't know what you don't know until you know it".
  • Bc broker | 22 Apr 2015, 09:15 PM Agree 0
    The new association is completely the result of Jim Murphy's inability to build bridges and listen to CAAMP members. If the industry is fractured its CAAMP's responsibility to unite it. CAAMP is an association of aloof expense account types, not day to day brokers
  • Bc broker | 22 Apr 2015, 09:40 PM Agree 0
    To Gord I will say that the lenders dollars will follow the brokers and an organization that has to resort to kickbacks to head offices for mandatory membership demands , has a suspect value proposition to begin with. If I were head of one of those groups I would distance myself as quickly as possible. The veil will be lifted.
  • OkanaganBroker | 23 Apr 2015, 01:06 PM Agree 0
    No offense, but I simply haven't seen much benefit to CAAMP in my business as a BC Mortgage Broker. I am proud to be a member of MBABC and benefit from my membership...whereas CAAMP rarely has anything available in my area, and the AMP designation and courses are a joke (sorry) I have encountered MANY "AMP" designated brokers who don't have a cliue, and I do recall some lenders wanting to make an AMP designation a requirement of dealing with them..Sorry...MBABC has my back, and provides ALL the support a Mortgage broker in BC could even need...and CMBA is probably a good move.
Post a reply