Mortgage Market Study inconsistencies make for frustrating read
27 Mar 2019
The press release which accompanies the FCA’s Mortgages Market Study Final Report has the headline, ‘FCA acts to help mortgage prisoners’.
Now, if I was heading up the PR strategy for the regulator when it comes to the report, that’s exactly how I would have couched it. Who can argue with intervention in this part of the market?
It is to something of our shame that we have let this particular issue fester on for so long, and that there are still tens of thousands of borrowers sat on expensive rates, who are completely up to date with their payments, and would (ordinarily) be able to move to a new lender/cheaper product.
By the same token, there should be industry support to help those who are essentially prisoners of their own making – who do not move off more expensive rates when they could clearly save money by doing so. Advisers have worked hard to help these borrowers and there should clearly be a role for the advice community to market its services to those who would benefit from them.
So, all well and good then? Following last year’s Interim Report which set the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons on any number of intermediary-related areas, the FCA has clearly listened to the industry and decided to roll-back on its rhetoric, to accept this market works well, to support the work of advisers and the importance of advice in this increasingly complicated space, and to allow the market to function as it should do.
You’ll sense a hint of sarcasm in that paragraph, because that’s very far from the approach adopted by the FCA in its Final Report. While it has clearly hoped that all the media headlines would be garnered by its focus on mortgage prisoners, it also seems to have thought that the mortgage industry would not read the rest of the report, and would not have a viewpoint on the document.
If that was its intention, then I’m afraid it’s got the temperature of the market very wrong, especially when it comes to (amongst other things): a continuation of its fixation on price from the Interim Report, it’s suggestion that advisers pick the first suitable product they see in order to secure a quick procuration fee rather than a potentially cheaper option, the persistent pursuit of an advisory firm comparison tool, the suggestion that advice is not necessary for certain groups of consumers, not forgetting a seemingly continued drive towards more execution-only business delivered by ‘tools’ which it does not give any further detail on.
At the same time – and indeed in the same report – it also states that the market works effectively for the vast majority of consumers, it says those consumers using intermediaries are less likely to be on a more expensive rate, plus it has no plans to intervene when it comes to pricing, despite suggesting that large numbers of borrowers are seemingly missing out.
To say this is a report of contradictions is something of an understatement. Indeed, at times it feels like it’s been written by two different teams who have failed to communicate with each other.
Within 50 pages it outlines how the market absolutely needs a comparison tool/directory to allow consumers to better compare intermediary firms, and yet it makes inclusion in this directory voluntary. It says that consumers absolutely need better upfront information on the products they are eligible for, even though advisers have all this available to them, and argues that the industry needs to come up these tools in order to make it happen.
My overwhelming feeling is that last year’s Interim Report was a chastening experience for those who wrote it, and that the criticism has been taken on board, but not truly accepted. How else would you explain the constant attempts to justify the recommendations outlined last year which still do not add up to any intervention?
If the FCA was that concerned consumer detriment was high, surely it would have put measures in place? Apart from the warranted measures regarding mortgage prisoners, there is precious little to suggest the regulator believes the issues it raises so vociferously warrant any sort of action. Which to my mind suggests they don’t need raising in the first place.
The example regarding brokers choosing products based on ‘incentives’ seem particularly ludicrous – those ‘incentives’ being the procuration fee. To suggest advisers can’t marry up eligibility and choose the most suitable/best priced product because they are too intent on picking the first product that shows its head in order to secure a quick proc fee, is just nonsense.
Brokers can be quick, efficient and ensure the most suitable product is chosen – and for any FCA person reading this, price is still not the sole arbiter. Regardless of whether you can find a product cheaper, the adviser considers much more, even if it seems like you still can’t buy this argument.
Overall, the mortgage prisoner action apart, it’s hard not to be disappointed by this Final Report. It seems far too intent on justifying last year’s Interim Report rather than accepting it may have mis-judged the market. When your work does not add up to your conclusions, sometimes it’s better to say you got the work wrong rather than present it for marking again.

Blog Archive
Lenders have not got to grips with how the pandemic impacted borrowers
05 Mar 2021
Supply needs to match demand
02 Mar 2021
Don't overlook product transfers
19 Feb 2021
Stamp duty debate a black hole
05 Feb 2021
Industry wide levy is a head scratcher
02 Feb 2021
Long-term imposter product may finally become relevant as a high LTV option
29 Jan 2021
Uncertainty continues into 2021
07 Jan 2021
Stay ahead of the fraudsters
21 Dec 2020
Industry change starts with what we do ourselves and within our businesses
11 Dec 2020
Second lockdown will keep lender resource focused on payment deferrals
09 Nov 2020
Is now the right time to add to property portfolios?
08 Sep 2020
Advisers have duty of care as fraudsters step up scam activity
17 Aug 2020
IFAs and mortgage advisers – two sides of the same coin
12 Aug 2020
Brokers need fair play from lenders in high LTV space
31 Jul 2020
Are you ready for lock-stalgia?
03 Jul 2020
Show your clients what you can do
19 Jun 2020
Specialist lenders may need end to self-cert payment holidays to survive
16 Jun 2020
Reading the signals
15 Jun 2020
Is the FCA really in this with us?
28 May 2020
Self-employed people must not be locked out of future mortgage borrowing
11 May 2020
I wish I could say the worst is over
07 Apr 2020
Looking for scintillating letters of recommendation
11 Mar 2020
FCA must answer why it is promoting execution-only
25 Feb 2020
Goodbye doesn’t have to be forever
17 Feb 2020
FCA changes could have harmful consequences
07 Feb 2020
This could be the year of economic stimulation
03 Feb 2020
Putting the cart before the horse
17 Jan 2020
The start of a new decade
15 Jan 2020
The importance of advice
12 Dec 2019
Keep in touch with clients or lose them for good
06 Dec 2019
Later life market still needs work to be fit for purpose
22 Nov 2019
Helping mortgage prisoners
04 Nov 2019
Combatting mortgage fraud
20 Sep 2019
Upping demand for green mortgages
17 Jul 2019
Tory leadership hopefuls are right to be focused on social care in later life
01 Jul 2019
Responding to political messages about the housing market
20 Jun 2019
Promoting execution-only is not treating customers fairly
10 Jun 2019
Changing regulatory permissions can be the making of your business
14 May 2019
If we don’t talk up the market, then who will?
02 May 2019
Deeper product transfer data would show lenders’ market shifts
29 Mar 2019
Mortgage Market Study inconsistencies make for frustrating read
27 Mar 2019
The relationship between lender, broker and borrower
18 Feb 2019
Advisers must not leave mainstream mortgage market to lenders
28 Jan 2019
Let’s not blow Fleet and Secure Trust Bank out of proportion
17 Jan 2019
‘Regulation should not be reworked purely to support automated advisers’
04 Jan 2019