Industry association launches petition

Industry association launches petition

Industry association launches petition The MBABC is calling on mortgage brokers to sign a petition against an upcoming disclosure rule.

“As some of you know, the government in BC is in the process of implementing changes to disclosure of remuneration requirements for mortgage brokers,” Samantha Gale, MBABC CEO, said in an email sent to MBABC members, which she shared with “Please read our petition and sign it to let government know that consultation with industry is required on this issue.”

FICOM is putting forth a new interpretation of a regulation that requires mortgage brokers to detail to clients how much they earn from lenders on deals.

And while MBABC is arguing the regulator has not properly consulted the industry, FICOM recently told that it is, in fact, working with various organizations. Including the MBABC.

“We are actively consulting with MBABC, CAAMP and directly with leaders in the BC mortgage broker community on implementation,” Chris Carter, Deputy Registrar of Mortgage Brokers at FICOM, wrote in an email to “We are mindful that industry members may need to make adjustments to respond to the new requirements.

“Given these ongoing consultations, it would be premature to identify a precise implementation date at this stage.”

According to Gale, the MBABC is not happy with the new interpretation of the legislation.
For their part, brokers are torn on the updated interpretation of the legislation.

“What we make on our transaction is our business and ours alone. Maybe the party who thinks this is a good idea should tell everyone what they make,” Bart Durrant, a mortgage associate with Dominion Lending Centres Key Financial, wrote in the comments section of “Why not have everybody who earns a buck disclose and then we wouldn't have to put up with this nonsense.”

Others, however, have been more welcoming of the change.

“This is the same type of disclosure that financial planners are going through with mutual fund fees; it will mean that we will need to know what our value proposition is and make that clear to the client,” another commenter wrote. “It also would bring to light if we got paid more on one product or institution versus another.

“I think it is good for the sustainability of our industry, long term.”

Click here to access the petition.
  • Victor - ON 2015-11-02 9:07:58 AM
    Compensation for service rendered is an agreement between the independent contractor and the lender. Do business disclose to the public what their margins are? Would doctors disclose how much the Crown is paying them? There is enough documentation available to ensure that the public is protected.
    Post a reply
  • Ron Butler 2015-11-02 11:24:28 AM
    Actually in most provinces there are "sunshine" lists that reveal incomes for those paid by the province who earn more than $100K so the answer to your question is "yes", well paid doctors in Ontario do disclose their incomes. So do civil servants, cops, firefighters. I will once against point out that we exist in a regulated industry and the regulator controls what we disclose to the public. Period, the regulators are in charge.

    That being said; I do not agree that precise disclosure of compensation makes sense but for a slightly different reason than most. I question how accurate it will ever be, what is the real compensation? if an mortgage broker is on a 80/20 commission split with the brokerage house they are simply NOT receiving 20% of the total compensation, why would they be forced to disclose 100% of the comp? Will large brokerage's like MI/Invis, Mortgage Alliance, MCC and the rest be forced to disclose the overrides paid directly to the Head Offices by the lenders. What about trips and perks some receive and not others? the spot contests? the short time comp increase on a special rate?

    How can ACTUAL compensation be fully disclosed? It is a minefield. So it makes more sense to simply disclose there IS compensation than do a bad job of giving a truthful number.
    Post a reply
  • Andrew 2015-11-02 11:51:59 AM
    Ron, your idea that regulators are in absolute charge is for sure a very wrong assumption. They only have the powers that the law gives them. In BC that is the very issue, does the BC law give the regulator that power? To assume the regulator has broad brush powers and then submit to such imagined powers is not warranted and is sometimes dangerous. Whether it is dangerous here may be for debate but it would not change the answer to the specific question whether the law gives the regulator that power.
    Post a reply