Thanks for the insight, but I think we need both underwriters and LOs, and maybe the input from few appraisers, title specialists, and escrow folks, too, to come up with relevant education and testing.

I try not to do other people’s jobs in lending, but I do try to understand them, and of course, I am very interested in how underwriters do their jobs.

It appears from my observation that there is more to underwriting a loan than just black and white, and certainly different lenders publish slightly different guidelines, and likely train their underwriters to slightly different standards.

I completely agree that the questions and answers should accurately reflect how loan decisions are made and the lending process is carried out, but I would add that it should include more facets of the process than just the underwriters’ processes and decisions.

The decisions of other parties, including LO’s, are critical to the entire process working.

I’m glad I could keep the subject of testing interesting at least.

Thanks for chiming in!

You make an interesting point. Part of the problem comes when non-practictioners are the ones writing the test questions.

If you look up the defition of the word “discount” one of the possible meanings is “to leave out or disregard.”

Imagine the amount of money a person could command if they had, say 30 years of experience in mortgage lending COMPLIANCE and they were also well trained in test-writing. Instead vendors typically will just rely on banks of already-used test questions that may not be worded in such a way for a practitioner with a high school education to understand.

As an educator, this concerns me. But I suppose there will always be a dynamic tension between trying to keep costs down and trying to deliver a quality product.

Interesting point on the second question. I answered D) 90% only because I read the wording in the question to say when is MI discounted, not when is it eliminated. I am wondering if little details like this will be how the test is a bit tricky to catch people. What are you thoughts?

I met a loan-teller this week when I went into my bank that was just purchased by another bank to re-order checks… I should have lied about my career as he cheerfully confirmed my data… I just couldn’t do it. I KNOW he would have tried to sell me a mortgage.

The way it has been explained to me is that company owners can make more profit off of a loan originator that has a minimum level of experience because they can justify paying that person less of a commission split.

I know Russ and others could easily make the opposite argument (that a company could make more off of a highly competent LO).

Russ, I love your new phrase “phoneofficers.”

Underwriters (and hopefully the mortgage originators) will also look for variances in the hours someone works… I can see this could make a good post–Jillayne’s struck something (again).