Category Archives: Investing

Is “fiduciary” level of care “old school”?

Posted on by
13

I would not respect a doctor who would hand me three phone numbers of his/her patients, who just had a recent surgery, as “references”.

While it’s true that highest degree of confidentiality is a fiduciary duty, and WA has statutory vs. fiduciary duties, I just can’t honor the request of people who want me to “use” my past clients as “references”.  Using your client for your own benefit is such an anti-fiduciary concept.

Some time ago I received an email from a total stranger seeking to hire me as his buyer’s agent.  He asked for a complete list of all of my client’s names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers prior to our meeting. I responded that he should think very hard about hiring anyone to represent him in a client relationship, who would acquiesce to that request. The issue has come up again, and while I fully appreciate a person’s need to “check references”, I still won’t give out personal info of my past or present clients.

Once I connected two of my clients by asking a former client to have lunch with a current client.  The former client was a whiz at hunting down the absolute best loan available. They worked for the same Company.  They were about the same age and neither had extensive local contacts, both having relocated here and away from their family and friends. I was careful to not give out any info of either party until they both agreed to the lunch, which I did not attend so as to be absolutely certain I would not reveal anything about one to the other. Asking one client to help another client is not the same as asking my clients to help me GET new clients.  I just cannot get my brain around that concept.

I turned 55 the other day and Craig Blackmon’s recent remark that I am “an old war horse” is reverberating in my ears at high volume. I became “a fiduciary” for the first time back in 1974. We were constantly warned about never going out to lunch with a colleague and discussing a client by name in a restaurant. It was the blackest of mortal sins to use a client’s last name in public, and if they had an unusual first name like mine, no first names either.  To this day even when my partner Kim and I speak of clients, we never use last names even to one another. Clearly my age is having an impact, as we seem to be treating all of our clients as if they are our children. “Honey, the kids are coming over to sign the papers in an hour!” [I yell up the stairs]

In many ways, people reveal more about their personal lives to me, than they do their doctor or lawyer. Regardless of whether or not the State views me as a “salesperson” or holds me to a fiduciary standard, I’ve just been a fiduciary for way too long to erase that concept from Who I Am.  Fiduciary = “without regard to self interest”.  So while it is perfectly acceptable and understandable for someone to “want references”, it is just not possible for me to accommodate that request. Many agents have argued with me that I am wrong, old school, old fashioned, etc… Well, maybe turning 55 comes with the convenience of being allowed to be “an old war horse”.

The First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit Advance May NOT Be Used Towards the 3.5% Down Payment…UNLESS…

Posted on by
71

Update 6/10/2009 11:20 am:  Please read the comments 1-21 (especially Aubrey Cohen’s comments).   Apparently according to a HUD representative, the tax credit can be used for down payment if it’s received through State Housing Finance Agencies.   (I called the FHA help line twice this morning and both FHA representatives say this is not the case).  The representative from HUD apologizes for the confusion and will make sure the Homeownership Centers understand… I apologize for the confusion too!

I feel like shouting “THE TAX CREDIT ADVANCE IS NOT DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE!” up and down the streets of Seattle.  Home buyers utilizing FHA loans still need to come up with a minimum of 3.5% for their downpayment (see the update above).   Per HUD’s Mortgagee Letter 2009-15 dated May 29, 2009:

“The proceeds of the sale of the tax credit to FHA approved mortgagees, the seller, or any other person or entity tha tis reimbursed, directly or indirectly…may not be used to meet the 3.5% minimum down payment, but may be used as additional downpayment, buying down the interest rate, or other closing costs.”

Jane and John are buying a home using FHA for financing with a sales price of $300,000.   FHA requires they invest a minimum of 3.5% of the sales price into the transaction.   Jane and John need to have $10,500 of their own funds (which can be gifted or loaned from a family member) invested into this transaction.   Assuming they qualify for the First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit and the IRS figures out how to resolve the issues of how to pay the FTHB Tax Credit Advances, they could use the $8000 towards closing costs, prepaids and any extra funds (after paying closing costs and prepaids AND after they invest $10,500) could go towards downpayment.  (Unless…see the update above).

This is not a zero down program and this is not like the ol’ DPAs (Nehemiah, etc.).   This is (if the details are ever worked out in time) an advance or loan against your tax credit.

Haaa… I feel a little better now.  🙂  One of the benefits of blogging… venting!

More Upcoming Changes to Underwriting

Posted on by
20

Fannie Mae issued Announcement 09-19 amending some very basic underwriting guidelines that will not only impact conventional financing; it will apply to FHA insured loans that are underwriting using Fannie Mae’s DU.   You can read the entire announcement by clicking  here.

Here are some of the changes:

  • Credit documents will be valid for 90 days instead of the current 120 for existing construction.   The age of the document is measured from the date of the document to the date the Note is signed.
  • IRS Forms 4506 or 4506-T is required at application and at closing.  This is due to fraud (misrepresentation of income).
  • Age of appraisal is reduced from 6 months to 4 months.
  • Trailing Secondary Wage Earner Income is eliminated.   Now with a relocation, only the income of the spouse with actual employment may be considered.  Previously, it was possible to use the relocating spouse’s income from their employment prior to the relo without having an actual job.
  • Verbal Verification of Employment required within 10 days of signing the Note for employment income and within 30 days for self-employed income.  (Our company has always performed a verbal VOE prior to funding).
  • Stocks, bonds and mutual funds now valued at 70% instead of 100% to be used as reserves.   Due to market volatility, Fannie Mae is devaluing your portfolio.   This means that if you provide your mortgage originator with a stock, bond or mutual fund statement showing an ending balance of $10,000; the figure used for qualifying and on the application will be $7,000 (70% of the value).   Stock options and non-vested restricted stocks are no longer eligible to use as reserves.
  • Retirement accounts valued at 60% instead of 70% to be used as reserves.  

Fannie Mae’s effective dates are to follow…if the loan is manually underwritten, this applies to applications dated on or after September 1, 2009.   However, expect to see lenders and banks to adopt these guidelines early.

The Dream Home You May Never Own

Posted on by
10

newtown-borough1Blythe Lawrence over at The Seattle Times asked me to write a little something about “people who fall in love with a particular house or houses and eagerly wait (sometimes for years) for them to go on the market.”

Have you ever “stalked” a home? Blythe’s request reminded of a time when I lived and worked in the little town of Newtown Borough, Pennsylvania, which was laid out by William Penn in 1682.. The town was chock full of historic and unique homes of varying styles, shapes and sizes. It was not uncommon for people to schedule their daily walks past their favorite houses and dream of some day owning “The big yellow house” or “the Grand Home near the Buck Hotel”.

Fairly often people would come to me and say “if the yellow house ever goes up for sale, can you let me know?” The yellow house was just about everyone’s favorite. More often people would come to my office wondering if any of their favorite homes, of which there were many, might be coming up for sale.  Being a rather bold person myself, I would say, “Well, why don’t we take a walk around town and you can point to all of the homes you like, and I’ll write down the addresses.  Then we’ll just knock on the door and ask the people if they are thinking about moving.  Or you can write them a letter complimenting their home and ask them to please let you know if they are ever thinking about selling. It always surprised me when they didn’t want to do that.

As Blythe pointed out in her email, more often people become “Real Estalkers” walking by the house almost every day. Dreaming that one of their favorites would one day have a “For Sale” sign out front and they would buy it. I thought it was pretty simple to just write them all and find out…but I realized that people didn’t want to know that NONE of their favorite houses would be coming on market. They didn’t want to shatter their dream that someday soon it would. They didn’t want to spoil their morning walks fantasizing about the possibility.

Do you have any stories for Blythe?  Have you ever stalked a home hoping it would someday be for sale, and then eventually buy it? Seems to me Rhonda Porter may have stalked and found her dream home. Blythe is planning to write a little something on this on Thursday, so if you have any stories for her, please post them here in the comments.

Thank you.

The Third Bubble …

Posted on by
44

It has often been said that we have even more of a bubble in real estate agents than we have in real estate prices. In fact we have had three concurrent bubbles – house prices, number of purchases, and number of agents. Unfortunately for the members of the residential real estate sales profession, we are making a lot more ‘progress’ on reducing the first two bubbles than we are on the third bubble.

Last week I went through an exercise of trying to track the growth and reported decline of the number of licensed agents in King County, including metro Seattle and Bellevue, who are members of the Northwest Multiple Listing Service. I had heard that the NWMLS had expected about 25% fallout in 2008. As I got into it, it looked like taking the transaction volumes and median prices at the same time might produce some interesting insights into agent incomes and the desirability of the profession. ( I admit that I considered an alternate title for this post: ‘The Grass Is Not Always Greener…’)

So here’s what I found, using year-end data from published NWMLS statistical reports, but doing my own analysis (and making my own errors – please let me know if you find some or think I missed a point of interpretation).

First are three charts to show the Three Bubbles of King County Real Estate:
bubble-triptych

Second is to show how the growth in number of agents has affected the average number of transactions per agent. A couple of notes on methodology here. For transactions per agent, I split each transaction into two sides, and then just divided the total transaction sides by the number of agents. For the 2009 estimate, I took the business volume for the first four months, through April, and factored it up by the same ratio as the last 8 month of 2008 were to the first 4 months of that year. We’ll get another check on it shortly with the May 2009 data.

(Required disclaimer: Statistics not compiled or published by the Northwest multiple Listing Service)

agents-vs-transactions1

Note how the average number of transactions per agent have been dropping dramatically as the total number of agents rises and the total number of transactions falls. Total number of agents is only down about 10% so far. Some people expected a far faster fallout rate, including NWMLS in one talk I heard, but the inhibiting question is probably ‘Where would they go for an alternate job in this economy?’ A related article from Inman News appeared in the Times last Sunday – Less Experienced Hands Leaving the Business.

And third is to show how the combination of all three factors plays out in average agent earnings. For nominal earnings, I assumed 2.5% commission on each transaction side – we don’t always get 3%, and we often have to give up a bit here or there to keep everyone happy and on track. The data behind the charts is stored here.

agent-earnings1

So for the average agent (and I recognize that most clients would prefer to deal with an above average agent), earnings have dropped from a decent professional income to a pretty marginal income. Last year (2008) it was a little over $30,000 – about $15/hr if you work full time, and this year looks worse. How about $10/hr?

I guess the grass really isn’t always greener…

Zillow Blog:Tim Geithner says Rent vs. Sell

Posted on by
50

Very interesting article on the Zillow Blog about Tim Geithner’s home shown above.

I disagree with Whitney’s comment: “Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner claims to see signs of economic improvement for the nation, but the same does not appear to be true for his personal pocket book.”

Whitney, if Geithner thought the market was NOT currently improving and did NOT believe in the upward tend, he would be selling it now vs. renting it.  By taking it off the market and renting it, he is confirming his belief that he sees “signs of economic improvement”, not the other way around.

California Attorney General Demands All Loan Modification Firms Register with his Office and Post a 100K Bond

Posted on by
11

From the Orange County Attorney General’s Office:

Oakland — Continuing his fight against scam artists who “prey on” vulnerable Californians, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today issued a directive forcing foreclosure consultants to register with his office and post a $100,000 bond by July 1, 2009. Those who fail to do so will be in violation of state law, subject to criminal penalties of up to a year in jail and fines ranging from $1,000 to $25,000 per violation.

“California is awash with con artists who prey on vulnerable families facing foreclosure,” Brown said. “By forcing foreclosure consultants to submit detailed information to my office and post a $100,000 bond, this registry will help bring long-overdue transparency to this shadowy world.”  Up and down the state, scam artists pose as legitimate foreclosure consultants, promising homeowners they will prevent foreclosure. In reality, these scam artists charge huge up-front costs, but don’t provide an ounce of help.

Earlier this month, Brown’s office prosecuted a scam artist who provided hundreds of homeowners with forged bank documents and directed them to send their mortgage payments to accounts she had created, instead of the homeowners’ lender. Additionally, Brown’s office has seen a significant increase in the number of complaints from homeowners regarding foreclosure consultants.

The registry unveiled today will provide Californians with information about potential consultants and recourse in the event that a consultant violates the law. All foreclosure consultants operating in California must post a $100,000 bond and register with Brown’s office by July 1, 2009 and submit the following information:

– Name, address, and telephone number;
– All names, addresses, telephone numbers, websites, and e-mail addresses used or proposed to be
used in connection with their business;
– Copies of all advertising;
– Copies of each different contract the consultant will use with consumers; and
– A copy of its $100,000 bond.

Foreclosure consultants who provide proper information will receive a Certificate of Registration. Brown’s office, however, may refuse to issue, or revoke, a Certificate of Registration if the foreclosure consultant has made any misstatement in its registration form, has been convicted of fraud or misrepresentation, has been convicted of a violation of the state’s foreclosure consultant laws, California’s false advertising, unfair or deceptive practices laws or other laws dealing with mortgages. If the company violates the law, a court may order restitution to victims out of proceeds from the $100,000 bond. After July 1, 2009, consumers can call the Attorney General’s office to determine whether the company they are considering dealing with has been issued a Certificate of Registration.

There is more in the press release including the names of several companies busted by his office.  California is asking all “foreclosure rescue” firms to register which includes the pre-foreclosure scam artists and also loan modification firms.  I wonder how long it will be before Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna makes a similar move towards foreclosure rescue companies? Unlicensed loan mod firms out of California continue to make a run for Washington State homeowners (based on the phone calls and emails I continue to receive about this company which sends paperwork to another loan mod firm under a different name for processing,) even though loan mod firms doing business in WA State must be licensed under DFI.

Do you think this registration system will help California homeowners?  Should we consider a similar system for Washington State?

Good Faith Estimate – Protecting Your Earnest Money

Posted on by
12

Protecting your Earnest Money Deposit starts before your offer is written.  I highly suggest you do the following, before going out to look at homes for sale. It’s a little unorthodox, but very effective.

1) Ask your lender to base your pre-approval on the current interest rate PLUS.  I’d say +.50% to +.75% at this time.  Use the higher number if the going rate is 5% or less at the time of the pre-approval.  If the going rate is 5% (rates move in 1/8ths) have the lender qualify you as if the rate is 5.75%.  Give yourself a little breathing room for rates to fluctuate while you are looking at property and making offers.  You don’t want the fact that rates are moving up, to stress you into making bad choices about other things, during the process.

Example: If you have salaried income of $95,000, you qualify for a payment of roughly $2,375 if the rate is 5%.  Take the $375 off for taxes and insurance, and make sure you check that $375 a month against the taxes on the house you make an offer on later in the process, and the amount the lender assumed as the taxes when doing the pre-approval letter.

After deducting RE taxes and Insurance, we are looking at a monthly payment for Principal and Interest of $2,000 which gives you a loan of $372,500 at 5% and a loan of $342,700 at 5.75%.  If you are planning to use an FHA loan, deduct $5,500 for the upfront MIP that you are likely going to finance, and that gives you a loan amount range of $337,200 to $367,000, depending on the interest rate at the time you lock it.  Add the 3.5% downpayment, and you are looking at a sale price of about $355,000 to $385,000.

Remember that your approval is based on a % of your gross income and you qualify for a monthly payment, not for a sale price.  So if you qualified for a house price of $385,000 (and the letter is absolute max within the lender’s assumptions), and they assumed taxes and insurance of $375 and the real taxes and insurance are $500, you no longer qualify for the sale price on your pre-approval letter. Likewise, if they used an interest rate of 4.875% and maxed out the price of home based on that rate, and rates are 5.125% when you lock, you won’t qualify at the sale price noted on your preapproval letter.

By asking the lender to use current rate PLUS  X when issuing the preapproval, you can worry less about rates fluctuating while you are busy trying to find the right house, and making the best deal.

These days, the very best deal OFTEN has RE Taxes higher than the amount assumed when producing your preapproval letter, making this issue of importance moreso now than it has been in the last 10 years. Plus lending guidelines are stricter, so a slight variance out of the assumptions can clearly make the difference between loan approval and denial, moreso now than in the last 3-5 years.

Make sure your pre-approval is based on a higher interest rate than today’s “going rate” and higher annual real estate taxes. The reason this is MORE important today is many people are buying short sales and foreclosures. The better the “deal”, the more likely annual real estate taxes are going to be higher than a lender will estimate as an area average for that purchase price.  So if you are Woo-Hooing about the fabulous price you just negotiated, it’s a good sign you need to check the ACTUAL RE Taxes against the lender’s original assumed monthly tax amount.

2) Get a Good Faith Estimate along with your pre-approval letter.  Before you even begin to look at property, you want to be sure you have the total cash you will need to close escrow.  While a Finance Contingency may protect you if Step 1) is done incorrectly, it will not protect you if you do not have the funds to close escrow.  If your loan is approved, but you can’t close because you don’t have the amount of money escrow tells you to bring to closing, the Finance Contingency will not protect your Earnest Money.

Again, this is a little unorthodox, but I have found this method to be essentially foolproof. So much so, that I have been able to guarantee that there will be no surprises at closing, unless the buyer elects to buy down the interest rate for reasons other than needing to do so to qualify.

Don’t just look at the bottom line monthly payment, interest rate and cash to close on your Good Faith Estimate (GFE).  Turn it into a “working” document by converting the format to the official HUD 1 you will see at closing.  This gives you the added comfort of seeing BEFORE you start looking at homes, exactly the same Closing Statement you will be facing the day you go to sign your closing papers.

Find a blank HUD 1 and print it out. I always do these numbers by hand in blue ink, so I can clearly differentiate it from the forms that come later in the process. I have seen many and varied formats for Good Faith Estimates over the last 20 years, but the final closing statement, the HUD 1, has been virtually the same from year to year and even from State ot State.

I just printed one out directly from the HUD website.   Always round the numbers up, and get the numbers directly from the source as much as possible.  I expect lenders to be absolutely accurate when “estimating” their own charges, so the lender fees on the Good Faith Estimate should be accurate. BUT when they are estimating 3rd party costs on the Good Faith Estimate, such as Title and Escrow charges and even County recording fees, I often find those numbers to be underestimated.  Remember to add the Home Inspection fee, which is almost never on a GFE.

Every time a sale closes, I double check the actual costs against my own original estimates. By getting your numbers directly from the source, and rounding up, you will not likely have any surprises at closing, in fact most often, the amount you need to bring should be less than you originally anticipated.

Always use worst case scenario when calculating your monthly payment and your Cash needed to Close BEFORE you go out looking for homes. This will insure that your real case scenario will always be brighter by comparison.

VERY IMPORTANT: If you do not have enough cash to close, that often means the agent needs to include a credit toward closing from seller to buyer IN THE OFFER.  So doing this after you are in escrow…is too late.

Often there will be changes DURING the process that can throw these numbers off. By doing the numbers yourself, by hand, as I do, the little red flags will pop up as changes are proposed during the process.

EXAMPLE 1:  Closing date is the 25th of the month, so the cash to close on your Good Faith Estimate has 6 days of interest at $55 a day = $330.00.

Two days before closing the seller asks you to extend close to the 11th of the next month instead.  These discussions happen all the time WITHOUT the buyer knowing that the $330 for 6 days interest will increase to 20 days at $55 a day or $660. In reality it costs you less, but for practical purposes it costs you more with regard to “cash needed to close”.  ALSO, often the lender doesn’t know the date was extended until they are sent the addedum changing the close date AFTER both the buyer and seller have signed agreeing to that change.  If they only locked the rate to the day of closing or until the 3rd or 5th of the next month, you could end up with a different interest rate by signing the close date extension, and in this period of volatile rates they will likely hold you to the HIGHER of the two rates.

Again, if you are buying a short sale or bank owned property, the extension of close date may not be something within your control. You can’t MAKE the seller close on a given day, regardless of contract provisions.  So being qualified from the beginning at a higher rate becomes a necessity vs. a preference, if you plan to close escrow.

EXAMPLE 2:  You receive your Good Faith Estimate and it says you qualify for a sale price of $300,000. It says your total costs will be $13,000 of which $5,000 is up front MIP, which will be financed.  Total cash needed to close is $18,500 and you have $15,000.

Two months later you make an offer on a property and it is accepted.  No one told the agent that the approval assumed the seller would be paying $3,500 toward the closing costs, and it is now too late to rework the agreement with the seller. Escrow fails for insufficient funds to close, and seller keeps the Earnest Money which is more than the $3,500 you needed to complete the transaction.  You don’t get the house AND you lose $5,000.

It is very important that you turn your Good Faith Estimate into a working document, and not just file it away as another piece of paper.  THE AGENT WRITING YOUR OFFER DOES NOT GET THE GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE, unless you personally give it to them, or instruct your lender to send it to them.  There are many assumptions made by the lender when producing a pre-approval letter.  If the real facts don’t match those assumptions at time of offer and acceptance, it will likely be too late to turn back the clock, and that can put your Earnest Money at risk.

A Small Window of Opportunity for Washington State Unlicensed Loan Originators (Correspondent Lenders aka CLAs)

Posted on by
56

June 1, 2009 Update:  I just got off the phone with someone in the licensing department at DFI.   They hope to have more information available soon for mortgage originator licensing.  Some details are still being worked out.   From what I could gather from my conversation this morning, the main advantage for licensing now vs. later is that you will have more time to complete the clock hours, take the exams and to be able to spread out the costs for said classes and exams.  I sincerely apologize for misinterpreting DFI’s site on the requirements for LO licensing…I wish I could line out my title of this post!

In April, SHB 1621was signed by Governor Gregoire requiring loan originators employed by correspondent lenders/consumer loan companies to obtain a Washington Loan Originator License  by July 1, 2010.   The State passed SB6471  last summer which had “unintended consequences” causing some loan originators who were regulated by the Mortgage Brokers Practices Act (and therefore licensed) to become defined under the Consumer Loan Act–allowing those LO’s to be “unlicensed”.    With the passage of the SAFE Act, the State is stepping up to National laws which include CLA loan originators.

So my fellow mortgage professionals who are employed at correspondent lenders, here is an opportunity for you:  if you submit your application to become licensed by July 30, 2009; you’ll reduce your education requirements by 12 hours and pass one less exam. 

Here are the requirements to apply for a Washington Loan Originator Licenese from DFI.

All applicants (regardless of when you decide to sumbit your license) must complete Form  MU4 via the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLSR) and submit one fingerprint card, pay $155 licensing fee and…

LO Applications Submitted by July 30, 2009 (in addition the above):

  • Pass the PearsonVue Loan Originator test
  • Complete 8 hours of approved continuing education by December 31, 2009.

Or you can wait until after July 30, 2009 to submit your LO Application and in addition to the above requirements:

  • Pass the State and National exams.
  • Complete 20 hours of approved continuing education by December 31, 2009.

Do you really like to procrastinate?  Opt to delay this process until January 1, 2010 and you still get to pass both exams and complete the 2o hours of CE prior to submitting your license prior to the July 1, 2010 deadline.   (DFI ask that you submit license no later than April 1, 2010 to allow processing time).

Deb Bortner of DFI will be speaking about the SAFE Act and Washington State Loan Originator Licensing at two upcoming events:

  • June 4, 2009 from 4:00 – 8:00pm at The Venue on South Union in Tacoma.   $50 includes dinner and wine from The Three Chicks.  
  • June 19, 2009 from 12:30 – 5:00pm at Safeco Field – Ellis Pavilion in Seattle.  $50 includes a ticket to the Mariner’s Game and lunch.

Both events include presentations on social media for mortgage professionals.  I’ll be one of the speakers at Safeco Field along with David Gibbons from Zillow.   🙂    If you’re interested, you can get more info or register for either event with the Washington Association of Mortgage Professionals (membership to WAMP is not required).

As someone who’s gone through licensing, I can tell you it’s (an important) chore.  Classes will fill up as the deadlines approach and I had the pleasure of being fingerprinted three times before I had a print that was acceptable.   If you fail your exam three times (I wonder how often this happens); you’ll have to wait six months before you can try your luck at the exam again which means no loan originating for you until you have successfully passed your exams.

If you are originating mortgages in Washington State, I would not delay getting your Loan Originator License.

WA Loan Originator Licensees Drops to 5335

Posted on by
12

At the end of 2007, Washington State had 13,722 loan originators licensed under a mortgage broker.  At the end of 2008, that number fell to 8739.  As of May 5, 2009, we’re at 5335.  This number also includes inactive licensees. Based on the number of LO students who tell me that they already have a full time job elsewhere and are just keeping their license active “just in case” they want to originate a deal for a friend or family member, I’d say the number of active licensees is below 5335. 

In 2008, many mortgage brokers were forced to re-license as consumer loan companies due to changes in state law. Subsequently, many of those LOs let their license go in 2008. LOs who work for a consumer loan company will start their licensing process in August and we will be able to better track the number of consumer loan company LOs licensed in WA State.  As more lenders begin using the National Mortgage Licensing System to verify if the person who originated the loan is licensed in that state, perhaps some of the unlicensed, out of state shadow LOs will start being counted.