prettiful
pretty + beautiful

and

chillax

chill out + relax

Sorry, I forgot to check in on this discussion.

Clearly, there are much more DFI actions in 2007 compared to earlier years. I do not think it is so much a rush to pin the blame for a deteriorating situation, although I could certainly understand one connecting the dots in such a fashion.

I think the increased number of DFI actions is due to the following factors:

1. Increased budget and staff, funded in large part by licensing fees from 15,000 LO’s. They’ll have to get by on a fraction of that in the years to come.

2. Increased actionable items related to the licensing. Going after the low hanging fruit, as it were, is always a good idea, especially when there is so much of it. Knocking out some 170 or so convicted felons would be considered low hanging fruit, as it only requires accessing records that are readily available.

3. A target rich environment. Previously, there were VERY few (if any) charges directed against loan originators. Prior to licensing, loan originators were like ghosts in the machine. After licensing, there were 15,000 very real targets, with numbers on them.

I expect 2008 will be a year of considerable progress for DFI, and a lot of challenges, as they will no doubt be tasked with interpreting any number of new laws passed regarding wholesale lending, along with rooting out the remaining wrongdoers who have tarnished this business.

BTW, my favorite sniglet was musquirt. Do you have any favorites?

I believe banks have systems in place that brokers do not.

We have a record here of one convicted felon at Golf.

We have record of 170 convicted felons originating through mortgage brokers in this state who applied for an LO license during 2007 and answered the question “NO” when asked, “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” They were denied a license, but went ahead and originated loans all throughout 2007, without their broker running a background check on them.

Our state IS regulating LOs who work for banks. If they work for a state-chartered bank, DFI regulates that bank.

http://dfi.wa.gov/banks/default.htm
click on “commercial banks” to see a list.

If the LO works for a lender licensed under the consumer loan act, and their company brokers out, these LOs are also subject to the licensing provisions under the MBPA. (Mortgage Broker Practices Act.)

http://dfi.wa.gov/cs/loan.htm

A good homework assignment would be to sit down and take a look at all the requirements for becoming a state or federally chartered bank, and compare that to the very thin list of requirements to become a mortgage broker in any state.

If loan originators, no matter where they work, want consumers to feel “safe” then it is up to the industry to change that perception, not the government.

I didn’t necessarily imply that my examples were only mortgage broker examples. I do mean to imply that the chances of the examples happening at a state or federally chartered bank are far less.

There is no way to predict what someone with a good history will do in the future but to miss one with a bad history, particularly convictions, is inexcusable.