FTAdviser.com

Advertising

I believe a lot of short-term fixed rate deals were agreed with clients to keep advisers' renewal income ticking over. I have frequently commented about advisers rushing to remortgage, particularly as changeover fees increased, before they have checked deals with the client's current lender. Anyone who remortaged to a two-year fixed rate in 2006 should be getting their paperwork out to check why this product was recommended as a product mis-selling scenario might just be unfolding. What do others think? Douglas Kemp, Duddingston Financial Services, Edinburgh.

Gemma Harle, Mortgage Next, Caterham, Surrey

Dear Douglas,

It is a dangerous game to make blanket assumptions about the motives behind the decision making of an entire industry, especially when you have the benefit of hindsight.

To assume virtually every borrower who took out a two-year fixed rate two years ago received bad advice from intermediaries who were more interested in lining their own pockets than finding their clients the best deals is, to be quite frank, absurd.

Two years ago short-term fixed rate deals were extremely competitively priced and, unsurprisingly, very popular with borrowers. For many homeowners these deals enabled them to either move or remortgage and they represented good value for money.

Clearly, it was not possible to know at that stage what would happen to interest rates or the economy in two years time.

If any client feels their adviser has given poor or misleading advice they are perfectly entitled to make a complaint and ask for their case to be investigated. However, simply because someone was sold a short-term fixed rate a couple of years ago is not within itself a reason to pull out the paperwork to see if there is a basis for suing a financial adviser. This is the UK not the US.

Alex Cotton, Network Data, Chertsey

Dear Douglas,

Hindsight is always a wonderful tool when looking to apportion blame to an unavoidable outcome, but claiming advisers were being unscrupulous and were only looking to secure a regular income stream seems a little short-sighted.

What experts and clients alike were unable to predict was the liquidity crisis that occurred in the third-quarter of 2007, which has led to one of the largest groups of maturations in memory experiencing payment shocks of sometimes in excess of 1 per cent despite the base rate being at the same 5 per cent level it was at the end of 2006.

Any adviser helping a customer coming to the end of their current fixed or tracker product now would be remiss at best and possibly negligent if they did not research the retention products of the existing lender.

However, in 2006 lender's retention strategies were in their infancy and as such not as competitive as new deals available elsewhere.

Tim Sutcliffe, Pi Financial Dixon Sutcliffe & co, Shrewsbury

Dear Douglas,

Once any offer period is about to end an adviser's first port of call should be the existing lender and I have left many clients with a lender based on a new offer they have made.

The question for the client is whether or not they want a fluctuating repayment or a known amount for a period of time. Many clients prefer the security and they will pay a fixed amount for a given period.

It allows them to budget properly and gives peace of mind until a renewal date. Most clients want to minimise the risk they take around their home and so close to the endowment issues security has become more and more relevant.

Rate tarting has become very much the norm for many, be it a mortgage or a credit card, whether we advisers like it or not. A good adviser has enabled these clients, who want to minimise their payments and interest over the life of the product, to do so with the best available products at the time. Every file should have full research and be easily read as to why a mortgage was arranged.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I am sure some advisers, if they had known what was coming, may have advised something different. We do not know what is around the corner and in two years time we might have a very different picture again.

Kay Leslie, Pink Home Loans, Lichfield

Dear Douglas,

You are correct to remind us of the merits of long-term fixed rates and to consider other aspects such as arrangement fees.

However, the idea that customers who arranged two-year fixed rates in 2006 have a case against their adviser is dead in the water.

The key facts illustrations and mortgage offers issued at this time would have included prominent warnings the monthly payment could go up at the end of the deal.

Also, if the customer indicated during the fact find process they wanted the stability of a fixed monthly payment and also the time frame they required this stability for there cannot be much evidence of mis-selling.

Mortgage advisers already take into account the retention deal being offered by the existing lender and cannot avoid this as this is frequently brought up by the customer who may have received retention offers from their existing lender.

Let us face it, if the overwhelming proportion of an adviser's customer base buys two-year fixed rates then it is up to the adviser to justify this within his advice records. This is no different however than if the adviser's customer base predominantly buys two-year trackers.