Comments on: Mortgage Brokers and Loan Originators Should Support HR3915

By: shelley safronek

shelley safronek — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:39:10 +0000

I don’t feel we as brokers need to apologize for making money. I am not or have ever….participated in predatory lending practices. If a borrower does not feel I am worthy of a 1 to 1.5% fee paid on the front end or the back end (and of course, I provide them the education and the option), then they obviously do not see our value and can move on to work with someone at a bank. We as loan originators/brokers do have a choice of where we are most comfortable and all the whining about level playing field does not increase our value. Education, great customer service and a fair fee will differentiate us. People want to do business with people the like and respect! Nothing good is ever free!

By: Randall C Frost

Randall C Frost — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:02:32 +0000

In Post #5 Where Colleen Jane described what happened to her client, when he was taken out of a 30 yr fixed loan, at a good rate. She is right those are the things that make it bad for us all. I don’t oppose hr3915 as such, but I oppose the implication that all brokers and Loan Originators are low life crooks. I say don’t pass laws that make things tough on good hard working business people. Catch the bad guys and punish them to the full extent of the law. I wonder why it is that for every bad act by some one individual, many will suffer. This is not a bad law, what bothers me is that it should not be necessary.

By: Casey Camby

Casey Camby — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:43:55 +0000

Again, all the positions needed for checks and balances are in place. At the bank the underwriter will enforce a denial on a loan with no Net Tangible Benefit. Maybe further action should be taken when a bank see’s a Brokerage do this repeatedly? I see a very big grey area after reading the article! I have an idea, why wouldn’t the government adopt a common Mission Statement with a set of Rules that we need to abide by, like the Constitution? We have a common goal, we have a mission to help the people, and we have rules to abide by. If incorporated, I don’t see how anyone left in the business could complain. We’re getting there slowly…

By: Gina Kwon

Gina Kwon — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:32:57 +0000

I agree with you Jillayne! The only ones who need to truly fear this bill are the mortgage brokers and LOs who have been abusing the system anyways. If you have truly been acting ethically and in the best interests of your clients, then there is nothing in this bill to stop you from continuing to offer the same great services to your clients and make the same money you made before the bill. The abuse of YSPs need to stop somehow, and if this bill can do it, then more power to it.

By: Thayne Westerman

Thayne Westerman — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:20:25 +0000

HR3915 seems fine, however the Senate version has the same limitations on prime/government loans as well, not just subprime.

By: C Seal

C Seal — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:48:22 +0000

As a profession, we are better off licensed. The legislation makes it better for the consumer, and for the ethical LO. Common sense should dictate the loans we are originating. The ability to repay the loan should always be something we can justify. I work for a correspondence lender so YSP disclosure is not a factor. When you have the best interest of your client in mind, you will get repeat business, and grow your business slowly, over time. It is this business model that will ultimately keep government intervention out.

By: Brady Fisher

Brady Fisher — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:24:30 +0000

I’ve got to say that this was the funniest blog of yours that I’ve read. You called out a lot of people, and I think it’s pretty amazing that the simple changing of the name subprime to nonprime or something to this effect can make the whole bill not apply.
I think that this legislation only makes things better for the consumer, and if the economy turns around Real Estate agents and Loan Originators will be in a better position. An important part of HR3915 is that it looks in greater detail to whether a borrower truly has the ability to repay the loan. There are way too many people going into foreclosure, and it’s something that I would like to see change.

By: Jonathan Roy

Jonathan Roy — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:23:30 +0000

The Senate bill prevents YSP even on prime loans, so I’m not sure what you were meaning there. Of course prime loans are better. But we still have the issue we can’t do the same no points loans banks do for higher rates, we’d need to charge our fee as a closing cost prime or not.

I’m trusting the Senate bill will eventually get changed to be more similar to the House bill, so we all stay in business and customers don’t get gouged by the banks by eliminating us.

By: Dave Harmon

Dave Harmon — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:36:21 +0000

I think the fear comes from lack of knowledge over the bill. I had heard and Im sure most can relate that the bill would remove YSP. I almost had a stroke! But seriously this may seem like a dumb question or maybe I missed this in mortgage 101 but wouldnt it be adventagious to all to have your borrower in a prime loan? by lowering your borrowers rate you would make more YSP anyway wouldnt you? I guess you couldnt refi them in six months! I know that YSP is like Oxy Contin While heavily abused some cannot do without it and some borrowers cannot do without YSP. I dont think its going to hurt the originators nearly as much as the borrower.

By: rebecca

rebecca — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:29:00 +0000

I agree with you that YSP can be used to help our borrowers. I agree with Jonathon that if YSP goes away, we’ll see a huge decrease in FHA loans. If more loan originators voice this opinion then I would like to believe that our voice will be heard since we do outnumber consumer loan bankers.