Did Journalists only report on what was presented at the BRC rather than investigate for themselves?

Opinion piece that needed to be shared. 

Scott writes to the ‘Investigative’ journalist, Dan Ziffer (and his publishers) in regards to a number of inaccuracies reported in podcast (link below) that aired in Aug 2019 as the dust was setteling in the wake of the Royal Commission into the Misconduct in Banking had closed mid that year.

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/dan-ziffer/11372304

Scott discribes "that for an investigative, published journalist, the inaccuracies in this case are amateurish at best.  Simply sitting through a Banking Royal Commission or any hearing clearly makes no difference to expertise, nor as a self-appointed expert as his response shows". We have also published the response from Dan. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3/11/2019

Hi Dan

I listened with great interest to your podcast on the ABC on the 7 th of August, 2019 @ 11am regarding your expertise on the Banking Royal Commission, particularly on mortgage brokers, which I am can only assume that after hearing your interview, that as you listened to the Commission hearing , made you feel that you had the expertise to write about the mortgage broking industry, without any further research.

You may recall that I tweeted you about this and you simply asked if I had read the report as I must clearly know nothing otherwise. In the interest of disclosure, I will ask you to note that I am a 29 year insurance and finance industry veteran and have been a self-employed mortgage broker since 2005. I have listed below the time and the point of the time in the interview, with my comments and corrections for you below.

13.12 Mortgage Brokers references start
Upfront (UpF) Commission is correct, typically paid the following calendar month post settlement (and although you failed to mention it, is it risk of a clawback for up to 2 years from when the loansettles (as a rule,100% in the first year and 50% in the second) – so, in short, if the loan discharges for any reason (i.e. sale, refinance, death, bankruptcy, a better deal is on offer), the lender will clawback the UpF commission.

So, imagine if I purchased your book, you would be paid a royalty for it (known as trail, or in your words, money for nothing) and now, for any reason within the next 2 years, I was no longer satisfied that this was the best book for my needs, I could return the book and your next commission run would be clawed back that commission without any warning. To put that in perspective, if I were a mortgage broker and reported inaccurate information (like in your book - known as fraud in the mortgage industry), not only would I not be paid (or if I was, my income could be clawed back within 2 years), I would likely lose the ability to assist my clients in seeking credit in the future.

14.20 Trail Commission – you have explained it as $10 bucks for month money paid until the end of time. This is incorrect for a number of reasons and the lack of research into both yours and Commissioner Haynes reporting of this is staggering. Lenders initi