Improve/Simplify balancing Financial Settlement Statement - Introduce Auto Tally Line Items-limtd

[DMc]

Merely a suggestion in the idea of improving/simplify the balancing of the Financial Settlement Statement (FSS)

Why not treat the Buyer/Incoming Proprietor (IP) source of funds as an fluid (automatically calculated/tallied) 'Bucket'.
Specifically;
The Available Funds (AF) Bucket figure/amount (If multiple sources apply then think of if as one bucket or Source of money, simply filled by various contributors. ie Lender, Subscriber Trust account, PEXA source account. -some of these might set a minimum draw down or some might allow for refund to Buyer nominated account)

AFAIK most jurisdictions would have Subscribers/Practitioners do a balance of rate and outgoings adjustment and then agree on the Balance required To Settle (BTS) Bucket.
From this AF Bucket the IP subscriber would draw their fees; pay the buyers outgoings and the agreed BTS bucket to the Seller
The Buyer would usually add their fees & outgoings to the BTS This should then equal the Buyers AF or allow for refund to/additional contribution from the buyer.
Currently This Seller BTS would then be agreed and requested Outside of PEXA (Away from the FSS: why not have the seller and buyer propose and vary the BTS amount within FSS) where currently only Split Directions (SD) end up as listed as line items in the destination of FSS.
Currently the Buyer side does not usually get to see the AF and has to ask &/or source additional funds to the AF.

If you used 'Settlement Room' the Buyer Subscriber would see the AF from the Banks and add additional sources early in the settlement. The Destinations were loaded by responsible party. Each party were able to easily balance their tally/Bucket of funds.

Then we could also treat the Seller Outgoing Proprietor (OP) destination (Sale Proceeds) funds as a bucket also.
Out of the BTS the Seller Acting subscriber would normally instruct the SD as follows amounts;
The amount to go to themselves
The amount to the Listing Agent along with any other authorised payments, usually by Account details
Then usually the Balance of Proceeds goes to either;

• A) Discharging Lender where applicable -would have a minimum payout amount which they need to instruct for them Required to settle, but most often they can accept Full Net Proceeds(FNP) surplus funds as they may have an authority to bank surplus funds on behalf of the Seller- Since this amount often seems to be loaded as (static) line destination- it remains in fluid to any changes this ideally should automatically update where the Seller Lender &/or
• B) Seller nominated Account or
• C) Subscriber:- is to collect FNP (Bucket) to disburse as instructed.
  Suggest a fluid (automatic update) figure is used, where Full Net Proceeds (tick box) figure is possible.

I guess my point is each participant subscriber &/lender needs to balance to their own figures. But they need to know which Bucket they need to balance too...

It would be handy if those buckets (at least certain line items) could tally/auto level themselves...

But it seems that some are not understanding which bucket to use and simply making the source & destination balance merely to settle.

[BrettCS]

Hi @DMc,

Great detailed feedback...

Funny you mention this, as we have just started to review an auto-balance solution. At this point of time it is looking at addressing specifically the payout figure issues that many of our subscribers have voiced in the past. It would touch on some, but not all of the points you have raised.

I will forward your detailed feedback to the product team looking into the Financial Settlement functionality. Once they start to get a bit further down the path of designing the solution for auto-balance, it would be great if we could reach out to yourself and any other interested members to get involved. 

Please let us know if you'd like to be involved in helping us with this auto-balance function.

Thanks and please keep the engaging feedback and ideas coming our way,

Brett

[DMc]

Something that might help, is a visual representation of what each parties virtual 'bucket' would look like (detail where required-especially who is bringing each lodging fees 'WA thing' at least by lodging party, being brought to the virtual 'settlement table'.

[cpscon]

When acting for a vendor why why why can’t we get the payout figure included in the financil report?

I know the loan repayment belongs to the bank/discharging mortgagee – BUT IT DOES FORM PART OF THE CONTRACT.

It would be so much easier – not that we want to do things easier – but so much more efficient

Therefore all destinations belonging to a vendor should be shown and included as a total – not the extra BS that I have to do manually to prove the figures are correct AND run the risk of calculator input error! Which means my big clumsy fingers make me use the calculator about 5 times!!!

Our great computers should be doing the job for us – but they don’t!

PRODUCTIVITY is what it is all about together with minimizing risk

Surely the bank payout could be included in the report – even under a different line like BANK PAYOUT OR BANK FUNDS – but include the figure in the total which then gives us what I would call a proof by way of reconciling with the Statement of Adjustments

Positive idea I thought

Regards to all

Terry

[cpscon]

The financial statement just doesn't work!

We need to bank payout included in destination report - really getting those big clumsy fingers of mine on a calculator is just crazy

I have a computer to do this stuff automatically - it just leaves it all open to error

FURTHER COMPLICATED TODAY when a purchaser conveyance enters destination funds - now the report includes someones elses funds and I have to add in the bank payout figure and take away funds that belong to some-one else.  Just more room for error.

I also now have access to that Third Party Beneficiary's name and bank account number - I would have thought that would be a privacy issue and it raises the question can the purchaser side access my client's bank account details?

This really concerns me and I would like to have some confirmation

Terry

[cpscon]

Brett  -  I would love to assist in the balancing function

I have just posted another message about it today as I have discovered more issues with a destination line

I hope you have a chance at seeing that post

Regards

Terry

CPS Conveyancing

[BrettCS]

Hello Terry @cpscon

Thanks for your feedback. Yes, we are investigating ways to improve this as we speak.

I will loop in both @Marty and @DougPun who are the Product Owners who are investigating the financial settlement statement functionality. We'd really like to get you involved in helping with the solutions we are investigating, so we will be in touch to see what can be done.

Thanks

Brett

[DMc]

@BrettCS like the FSS vendor destination group view.

Is Auto tally feature still being looked at?