Aggregators putting the pressure on - NZFSG

The country’s biggest adviser network NZFSG says banks are acutely aware of pain points for advisers.

Wednesday, March 26th 2025, 9:31AM 4 Comments

by Sally Lindsay

The country’s biggest adviser network NZFSG says banks are acutely aware of pain points for advisers.

As the boss of the aggregator company, chief executive Martin Baden says he works with the banks individually and through FANZ’s CEO advice forum, which brings all the aggregation groups together so there is a single voice to lobby industry stakeholders and regulators around pain points for advisers.  

He was replying to comments from commercial finance brokerage Capital Connect senior manager and market commentator Ziggy Munz who says mortgage advisers should be putting pressure on their aggregators to be reminding banks there are five or six of them and the flow of origination can disappear if they don’t compete to better serve the third party distribution channel.

“There is power in numbers and advisers should be pressuring their aggregators to make a stand on banks’ turnaround times.”

Martin says over the past 12 months aggregators have expressed their concerns about banks’ turnaround times and the differences in customer outcomes between proprietary channels and the adviser channel. We believe that greater consistency and channel neutrality would benefit both customers and the broader industry.”

He says according to the banks they have been investing in putting more people into their assessment and loan maintenance teams. 

“I understand that loan maintenance volumes significantly challenged banks following the February OCR drop. That has put a lot of pressure on loan maintenance teams as borrowers roll off higher fixed or short-term rates. That will come back to normal once banks get through that bubble.”

Advisers also been particularly concerned about the increasing mortgage assessment timeframes, which have extended to 10 days in some instances. “Banks are putting more staff on to process applications and answer adviser queries faster, but it takes time to resource them.”

Unacceptable and anti-competitive

The Finance and Mortgage Advisers Association of New Zealand (FAMNZ) has again slammed banks for slow approval times.

FAMNZ country manager Leigh Hodgetts says she has heard reports that real estate agents are telling buyers to deal with banks direct.

“This is unacceptable and anti-competitive and if the Commerce Commission is serious about competition, it needs to divert its focus away from advisers, who are doing all they can to ensure consumers are being looked after, to the banks who clearly see delays as a way to increase their profits.”

She says many of the association’s members are solo advisers and “this directly impacts their income and ability to write new loans”.

“Some are struggling emotionally as they see their income drop through no fault of their own.”

“Our members are spending 70% of their time on work that should be taking 20% of their time, chasing banks, getting errors fixed, and following up loan applications that have been in a queue for way too long.”

Feedback from members is the workload and delays advisers are experiencing is “next level” and, in fact, worse than before Christmas, Hodgetts says.

She is concerned the situation will worsen as housing market activity increases with dropping interest rates.

“We cannot accept more excuses from banks about staffing and lack of technology. Just fix the problem. Similar delays don’t happen in most other countries.”

Hodgetts has called on the Commerce Commission to put more pressure on banks to support mortgage advisers and their customers.

She recently met with new Commerce and Consumers Affairs Minister Scott Simpson over the Commerce Commission’s insistence mortgage advisers getting three completed offers for clients, but says FAMNZ’s efforts are being undermined by poor banking practices.

“Our members are spending 70% of their time on work that should be taking 20% of their time, chasing banks, getting errors fixed, and following up loan applications that have been in a queue for way too long.”

Martin says he remains committed to using established channels and maintaining an open, ongoing dialogue with the banks to drive positive outcomes.

“A positive sign is that the volume of business mortgage advisers are handling continues to grow. It’s now up to the banks to keep pace with this increasing demand.” 

Tags: aggregator Martin Baden

« Aggregators should be pushing back on banksMortgage borrowers switching to new lenders continues at a steady pace »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 26 March 2025 at 1:34 pm valkyrie6 said:
Aggregation groups haven't been advocates for advisors for a very long time and their sole purpose is to profit from their members, period.
In their simplest form they need to make their members as sticky as possible to extract revenue from them.
The Master FAP agreements groups have with lenders is their sole strong hold /monopoly over mortgage advisers.
Banks in lenders are happy to have minimal Master FAP licences as the cost to them is small but the FMA clearly didn't take this into account that there would be FAP’s under FAPs creating over regulation.
This creates duplications like regulation I.E advisers being forced to comply with master FAP Regulation requirements as well as their own FAP licences via the FMA so a complete double up, All at the so called group made up cost to the adviser.
Dealer groups /master FAP holders, also create behind the scenes referral structures based on bulk referrals by their members, where the groups receive back-office referral fees that are not disclosed to the advisers let alone the public.

Advocates for advisors I think not.
On 26 March 2025 at 4:38 pm The Terrace said:
Why can't aggregators do this for their adviser customers? If all banks put out a note each day, say at 9am, with these details (a) what date of the month's applications were being assessed i.e. the most recent (b) the same date information for refixes (c) the same information for top ups & restructures if different from (a) it would save huge numbers of phone calls not to mention time spent listening to elevator music. Then banks could get on with the real work & advisers' customers could be given realistic time frames sooner.
On 27 March 2025 at 6:18 pm Laurie said:
Martin is very, very good at what he does. A credit to NZFSG. He would make more as a politician or a as diplomat.
On 28 March 2025 at 12:20 pm Amused said:
Clearly when it comes to their Australian counterparts fighting for better outcomes for mortgage advisers and their customers the aggregators operating in New Zealand have been regrettably missing in action for some time.

As Ziggy Munz correctly pointed out aggregators in this country are preoccupied primarily with growing their user base and competing with one another. The main selling point of aggregator membership is supposed to be “strength in numbers”.

When aggregators start letting certain lenders get away with routinely offering loan approvals to customers directly whilst telling mortgage advisers there is no current funding allocation available for these types of loans people start to question the value of an aggregator.

Many advisers have likely observed that the aggregators holding Master FAP agreements in place with the lenders appear to be reluctant nowadays to “rock the boat” when it comes to bringing up the subject of turnaround times, loan maintenance requests not been actioned promptly and insufficient bank staffing levels. Particularly sensitive is the above mentioned subject of certain lenders who routinely offer loan approvals to customers directly whilst telling mortgage advisers there is no current funding allocation available for these loans. Essentially the mortgage adviser industry is being lied to now on a regular basis, but the aggregators choose to look the other way.

Aggregators realise that the Master FAP agreements are their only safeguard now to preventing mortgage advisers with their own FAP licence dealing directly with the banks, the main banks having all previously communicated that they would deal directly with anyone who was licenced to provide advice by the FMA. A recent example of aggregators been reluctant to rock the boat is ANZ reducing its clawback periods for mortgage adviser commissions from the 1st of March this year. Not a single other bank or lender has followed ANZ’s lead despite it been almost 2 months now since this change was first announced. Where are the aggregators on this? Crickets chirping.

It’s hard to believe that in 2025 those mortgage advisers who now hold their own FAP licence are still having to belong to something called an “aggregator” just so they can submit a loan application on behalf of their customers to one of the banks. Insurance advisers have been able to deal directly with the insurers for years now so with the arrival of licensing it's just a matter of time before the banks also elect to have direct relationships with those mortgage advisers whom they trust. Any mortgage adviser who backed themselves to run and operate his/her own FAP licence did so with a view to eventually have a direct relationship with the banks without any aggregator involvement.

Some industry commentators have said they are still to be convinced that not been under an aggregator's FAP licence has a huge benefit for a straightforward advisory business - well the huge benefit is we won't eventually need to pay an aggregator money just for the privilege of being able to submit a mortgage application to one of the banks for our customers.

There will always be a need for the aggregator model in New Zealand as it still holds relevance to mortgage advisers new to the industry, but experienced operators providing advice under their own FAP licence are likely wondering what it is now that aggregators still do for us aside from passing along our commission once a week. Gone are the days of aggregators been the single source of PI insurance and anybody can now purchase a fit for purpose CRM right off the internet which is ISO security compliant and has the added benefit of not being controlled by the aggregator themselves. From a “risk” perspective there is also statically far less likelihood of a complaint happening for a 1–10-person mortgage advisory business holding its own FAP licence than this business been an authorised body among many others working under an aggregator’s licence.


Sign In to add your comment

www.GoodReturns.co.nz

© Copyright 1997-2025 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved