iscover
iscover 
The services a broker requires to operate effectively will determine which aggregation group works best for them
This can vary widely depending on the individual and as a broker develops, the need for offerings may shift.
Despite this, changing aggregators comes with significant challenges that make it difficult to make the switch.
Plenty of hurdles
Accendo Financials’ partner Trent Carter said that the biggest hurdle is the transferring of lender accreditations.
“This can leave a broker without the ability to submit deals to certain lenders for two to three months, which can seriously impact their capacity to trade,” he said.
“Migrating historical data is another big issue – it’s not just about moving contact details but also opportunities, file notes, and attachments. Losing that history creates operational headaches and risks gaps in client management.”
There are further challenges that can delay the process. Business Advice Agency founder Phil Rice listed some major ones:
- Waiting for the issuance of a separation certificate and hoping the wording is acceptable to the new aggregator.
- New ‘due dilligence’ requirements, background checks, police reports that could take days.
- Selecting an aggregator that is going to be the most suitable for the broker’s business circumstances and requirements.
- Both new-to-industry brokers and seasoned brokers are confronted with having to learn a new aggregator platform and AOL system that takes weeks to effectively learn and become accustomed to.
- Understanding the compliance regime of the new aggregator, managing expectations and requirements of the new ACL holder.
- Having to cancel all current lender accreditations, then reapply for the same lender accreditations under the new aggregator (a new broker number is issued to the broker, specific to the new aggregator). This can take weeks for all accreditations to be reinstated.
- On occasion, a broker may not receive a favourable separation letter or something may arise from due diligence that might not appeal to a new aggregator, which will stop the migration.
The challenges some face in migrating to another aggregator deter them from making the move. The downtime and loss of income prove to be a significant barrier.
Stifling growth
This is restricting the development of brokers. Eva Loisance, Finni’s head of broker, said she hasn’t considered switching aggregators due to the complications that come with it.
“I can see how the current aggregator contract could [come with] potential exit fees and issues to collect commissions later. The idea of migrating the data seems undoable in a timely manner and without losing information,” said Loisance.
“It would certainly disrupt the business and slow down the activity for a while. This is without mentioning that we need to keep the data secure and meet compliance. Just thinking about it would discourage me from trying.”
Further, Rice said that the more a broker switches aggregators, the less attractive they become to potential aggregators.
“Aggregators can spend considerable time and resources setting up brokers and as a business themselves, would like a return on the investment,” Rice said.
“The real consequence of a two-week stall is not just the immediate revenue loss (e.g., $10,000–$20,000 for an average broker) but the compounded effect of delayed marketing, disrupted client relationships, and extended recovery time. It could take four to six weeks to fully regain momentum, potentially costing 25 per cent to 50 per cent of a quarter’s revenue, depending on the broker’s efficiency and market conditions.”
Clearly, the current system is creating unnecessary stress for brokers. The prevalence of so many aggregation groups is important for choice and competition, but what good is it if you’re locked into one for the rest of your career?
Shore Financial's Theo Chambers believes the benefits of switching don't outweigh the burden.
"Most aggregators today offer very similar lender panels, CRM/processing systems, fee structures, and overall aggregation fees," he said.
"Given that, the operational disruption and hassle involved in migrating systems, retraining staff, and adjusting workflows just isn’t seen as worthwhile unless a broker has a major issue with their current aggregator or is pursuing a fundamentally different business model."
The way forward
Carter said he’d like to see these challenges addressed: “Standardisation of lender accreditation processes would be a huge step forward – ideally, banks and lenders should be able to accept a common set of documentation across the board.
“There should be broader acceptance that if a broker has been accredited through another aggregator (and the move is purely commercial, not due to compliance breaches), existing accreditations can be honoured until systems catch up.
“Better software solutions that manage migration of data and lender accreditations efficiently would also make a big difference.”
Chambers added that the best improvements could come from better technology and integration:
- Better, cleaner migration processes for CRM/application processing systems, ensuring data moves accurately and cleanly between platforms without manual fixes.
- Faster aggregator ID switching with lenders to minimise any downtime in deal lodgement.
- More investment in open APIs — it would be a huge step forward if aggregators allowed proper connectivity between their platforms and third-party CRMs like HubSpot or Salesforce. As brokerages grow and professionalise, many are being forced to use external CRM systems because current aggregation platforms have limited lead management, marketing automation, and reporting capabilities. Enabling better integration would make brokers’ businesses more scalable and ultimately deepen their loyalty to the aggregator.
There aren’t many tools on the market that can assist with changing aggregators. Emerald Edge was established by Rice with these challenges in mind.
The AI-powered, automated platform integrates with 95 per cent of aggregator platforms with APIs for AOL data transfers.
“Emerald Edge continues to facilitate new client applications during ‘down times’ and when the broker is reaccredited with a particular lender under the new aggregator, the broker just presses a button to push all the information to AOL and onto the lender for approval; no rush, no double handling,” said Rice.
With brokers reporting trouble with switching aggregators, there is demand for platforms that ease the burden.
Until the day we see standardisation of lender accreditation, these challenges are likely to persist.
