| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
learntoswim
55 Posts |
 Posted - 08/12/2008 : 11:14:00 AM
|
| I am a licensed real estate broker and loan originator in Wisconsin. Currently, I work for a local Mortgage Broker but I'm feeling very limited as to the programs we offer and the fact that we're only licensed to do business in Wisconsin. Ideally I would like to have access to FHA and nationwide lending while keeping my Real Estate license active. I'm looking for feedback on the best way to accomplish this. In addition, anyone that feels that they may have an opportunity for me to look into is welcome to contact me. |
|
learntoswim
55 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 10:14:41 AM
|
| Anyone with any input? |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 10:45:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by learntoswim
I am a licensed real estate broker and loan originator in Wisconsin. Currently, I work for a local Mortgage Broker but I'm feeling very limited as to the programs we offer and the fact that we're only licensed to do business in Wisconsin. Ideally I would like to have access to FHA and nationwide lending while keeping my Real Estate license active. I'm looking for feedback on the best way to accomplish this. In addition, anyone that feels that they may have an opportunity for me to look into is welcome to contact me.
HUD does not permit any outside activity in RE or finance, so while it would be ideal, it is not feasible if you will be originating FHA. |
|
|
WorldWideWayne
2444 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 10:45:39 AM
|
The company I work for has a sizable real estate company as well. I will be out of the office today but if you email me off the board your contact info i would be glad to get you in touch with someone that can answer your questions and get you info on our company.
We offer FHA and a national presence in about 25 states. |
|
|
isabella2113
295 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 11:02:22 AM
|
| That's great but she still has the problem of HUD not allowing her to do FHA while having an active RE license. Soon with Nationwide licensing, I would assume that HUD will be able to tell when RE agents are licensed LO's. It seems like a very shaky path to take in today's market. This casual attitude of ignoring the rules is what got many people in trouble in this industry. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 11:03:41 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by WorldWideWayne
The company I work for has a sizable real estate company as well. I will be out of the office today but if you email me off the board your contact info i would be glad to get you in touch with someone that can answer your questions and get you info on our company.
We offer FHA and a national presence in about 25 states.
A mortgage company can also own a RE company, the caveat is that an active realtor can originate conventional, commercial, hard money, etc, but HUD will not permit FHA origination if the agent is actively selling RE.
Employment Restriction
Any employee of a FHA lender who earns compensation on FHA loans cannot have other employment including self employment and outside employment in the mortgage lending, real estate, or a related field.
See paragraph 2-9 of the Title II Mortgagee Approval Handbook 4060.1, Rev-2 at: http://hudclips.org/sub_nonhud/cgi/pdfforms/40601HB.doc
|
|
|
learntoswim
55 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 11:08:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by isabella2113
That's great but she still has the problem of HUD not allowing her to do FHA while having an active RE license. Soon with Nationwide licensing, I would assume that HUD will be able to tell when RE agents are licensed LO's. It seems like a very shaky path to take in today's market. This casual attitude of ignoring the rules is what got many people in trouble in this industry.
By no means am I ignoring the rules. I asked the question for the purpose of potentially finding a legal solution. |
|
|
WorldWideWayne
2444 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 11:11:41 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by learntoswim
quote:
Originally posted by isabella2113
That's great but she still has the problem of HUD not allowing her to do FHA while having an active RE license. Soon with Nationwide licensing, I would assume that HUD will be able to tell when RE agents are licensed LO's. It seems like a very shaky path to take in today's market. This casual attitude of ignoring the rules is what got many people in trouble in this industry.
By no means am I ignoring the rules. I asked the question for the purpose of potentially finding a legal solution.
And that is exactlly why I would like to get you on the phone with the right person at my company. There are legal ways to do most things...some are not legal. you do what is legal and avoid what is not legal. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 11:16:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by learntoswim
quote:
Originally posted by isabella2113
That's great but she still has the problem of HUD not allowing her to do FHA while having an active RE license. Soon with Nationwide licensing, I would assume that HUD will be able to tell when RE agents are licensed LO's. It seems like a very shaky path to take in today's market. This casual attitude of ignoring the rules is what got many people in trouble in this industry.
By no means am I ignoring the rules. I asked the question for the purpose of potentially finding a legal solution.
Many have tried, myself included, but there is not one. We have all called, written and e-mailed HUD repeatedly to get the same answer. You must choose to forego FHA if you don't want to give up RE commissions. One FHA licensing company told me that although HUD regs permit FHA approval to companies who also own and operate a RE company, his recent experience is that if the company DBA even hints at RE activity, HUD will not approve the FHA broker application. They do not want FHA loans originated by realtors.
This is a better link (must copy & paste):
http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/handbooks/hsgh/4060.1/40601c2HSGH.pdf
Chapter 2-9 G on page 6
2-9 G. Full Time, Part Time and Outside Employment. A mortgagee may
employ staff full time or part time (less than the normal 40 hour work
week). They may have other employment including self employment.
However, such outside employment may not be in mortgage lending, real
estate, or a related field. Direct endorsement underwriters are included in
this provision. An underwriter may not work on a part time basis for any
other mortgagee, even underwriting conventional mortgage loans. An
underwriter may not underwrite loans for a parent or subsidiary of the
underwriters approved employer. A direct endorsement underwriters
authority is through the employer and does not extend under any corporate |
|
|
gc46
398 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 11:16:32 AM
|
quote:
http://hudclips.org/sub_nonhud/cgi/pdfforms/40601HB.doc
Thanks for the link, this looks like a good website to keep..... |
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 11:31:35 AM
|
| Can do and keep in compliance. Contact Erica Walker at 866-714-4119 Ext. 954 or by email Click-to-Email |
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 12:27:16 PM
|
There still seem to be some questions in the broker community regarding FHA "in programs" or "Adviser programs".
For those that still have questions please see:
Mortgagee Letter 08-17
http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/letters/mortgagee/files/08-17ml.doc
Recording From 08-04 Pertaining to New Legislation where caller asked if FHA Forward Adviser programs were being done away with as well as the HECM Adviser Program.
www.dialingprime.com/hudcall.wav |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 12:31:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
Can do and keep in compliance. Contact Erica Walker at 866-714-4119 Ext. 954 or by email Click-to-Email
Doesn't sound like it's at all compliant after talking to her. They have the typical "FHA advisor" set up where the realtor does not personally originate the loan, but acts in an advisor capacity by referring the loan to the corporate office. She says the realtor may collect up to 1.5 pts. origination up front for this advisor service of collecting info, etc. HUD has recently issued a mortgagee letter to specifically adress this non-compliant practice. A realtor may not be approved to originate FHA under any circumstance, as a non FHA approved broker/LO, the realtor circumvents the regs by taking on the capacity of an "advisor" on the loan. The requirements for collecting an advisor fee is clearly outlined in the new mortgagee letter. Among other requirements, the advisor fee must be commiserate with what is considered reasonable for the services rendered - 1.5 pts. for someone not performing origination services is not reasonable by any industry standards.
http://portal.hud.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/FHA_HOME/LENDERS/MORTGAGEE_LETTERS/2008_MORTGAGEE_LETTERS/08-17%20NON-FHA-APPROVED%20MORTGAGE%20BROKERS.DOC
June 20, 2008
MORTGAGEE LETTER 2008-17
TO: ALL APPROVED MORTGAGEES
SUBJECT: Non FHA-approved Mortgage Brokers – Forward Mortgages
This Mortgagee Letter reminds lenders of existing FHA policy regarding the use of non FHA-approved mortgage brokers when originating FHA-insured forward mortgages. FHA loan origination services must be performed by a FHA-approved lender or FHA-approved mortgage broker (loan correspondent). A FHA-approved loan correspondent may be compensated for the actual loan origination services it performs either directly by the consumer or indirectly by the FHA-approved lender without being in violation of either the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) statute and regulations or FHA regulations.
While FHA regulations permit a borrower to engage a broker who is not FHA-approved to assist him/her in obtaining mortgage financing (24 CFR 203.27(e)), the loan origination services may not be performed by that broker and the FHA approved mortgagee shall not compensate the broker for such services. FHA requires that these services be performed by either an FHA-approved lender or loan correspondent . RESPA prohibits the payment of duplicative fees. The payment to the unapproved broker for duplicated services amounts to an unearned fee in violation of section 8(b) of RESPA. Further, this payment may also act as a disguised referral fee for steering the borrower to the FHA-approved lender or loan correspondent, which is in violation of section 8(a) of RESPA.
In RESPA Policy Statement 1999-1 (FR-4450-N-01), the Department identified the services normally performed in the origination of a loan. It has been FHA’s experience that when non FHA-approved entities perform origination functions and services on FHA-insured loans, the instances of serious compliance problems increase as do the associated risks. As a result, there are particular origination functions and services that FHA requires to be performed by an FHA-approved lender or loan correspondent:
• taking information from the borrower and filling out the loan application;
• collecting financial information (tax returns, bank statements) and other related documents that are part of the application process;
• initiating/ordering Verifications of Employment and Deposit;
• initiating/ordering request for mortgage and other loan verifications;
• initiating/ordering appraisals;
• initiating/ordering inspections or engineering reports;
• providing disclosures (truth in lending, good faith estimate and others) to the borrower(s);
• maintaining regular contact with the borrower, real estate professional, and lender between loan application and closing to apprise them of the status of the application and gather any additional information needed;
• ordering legal documents; and
• determining whether the property is in a flood zone or ordering such service.
Other services that are considered counseling in nature (e.g., educating prospective borrowers in the home buying and financing process, advising the borrower about different types of loan products available, and demonstrating how closing costs and monthly payment could vary under each product), may be performed by a non FHA-approved broker so long as the services provided constitute meaningful counseling, and not steering. Under RESPA Policy Statement 1999-1, when “counseling type” services are performed, HUD also looks at whether, (1) counseling gave the borrower the opportunity to consider products from at least three different lenders; (2) the entity performing the counseling would receive the same compensation regardless of which lender’s product were ultimately selected; and (3) any payment made for the “counseling type” services is reasonably related to the services performed. In these instances, the fee charged must be paid from the mortgagor’s own available assets, must be disclosed on the HUD-1 at closing and a copy of the contract for these services must be included in the loan file submitted for insurance endorsement.
Under no circumstances may a borrower be charged a fee that is not commensurate with the amount normally charged for similar services. If the payment bears no reasonable relationship to the market value of the services provided, the excess over the market rate may be used as evidence of a compensated referral or unearned fee in violation of section 8(a) or (b) of RESPA and 24 CFR 3500.14(g).
RESPA provided further guidance to industry regarding payments by lenders to mortgage brokers in Policy Statement 1999-1. While the policy statement specifically speaks of lender payments to mortgage brokers, those payments are indirectly paid by the consumer and the policy statement would apply equally to payments made directly by the consumer.
If you have any questions regarding this Mortgagee Letter, please contact the FHA Resource Center at 1-800-CALLFHA (1-800-225-5342).
Sincerely,
Brian D. Montgomery
Assistant Secretary for Housing-
Federal Housing Commissioner
|
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 12:49:35 PM
|
quote:
Doesn't sound like it's at all compliant after talking to her. They have the typical "FHA advisor" set up where the realtor does not personally originate the loan, but acts in an advisor capacity by referring the loan to the corporate office. She says the realtor may collect up to 1.5 pts. origination up front for this advisor service of collecting info, etc. HUD has recently issued a mortgagee letter to specifically adress this non-compliant practice. A realtor may not be approved to originate FHA under any circumstance, as a non FHA approved broker/LO, the realtor circumvents the regs by taking on the capacity of an "advisor" on the loan. The requirements for collecting an advisor fee is clearly outlined in the new mortgagee letter. Among other requirements, the advisor fee must be commiserate with what is considered reasonable for the services rendered - 1.5 pts. for someone not performing origination services is not reasonable by any industry standards.
Talk with a compliance officer. If it was not signed off on by the compliance department and by the departments of (insert major FHA lenders names here...citi, wells, chase, etc.) it would not be available.
The max is 1.5% and what is reasonable by industry standards is something that can argued until the end of time. Additionally, the borrower must agree to the fee and the role of the adviser is disclosed in this agreement. If the borrower feels the fee is unreasonable they simply will not agree.
If this was a non-compliant practice why would HUD not put an end to it on Forward Mortgages as well as HECM?
The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot be a RE Agent and originate FHA Loans, period. The only way to receive any compensation and to be involved in the FHA loan process at all as an RE Agent is to work in the capacity of an Adviser. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 1:05:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
quote:
Doesn't sound like it's at all compliant after talking to her. They have the typical "FHA advisor" set up where the realtor does not personally originate the loan, but acts in an advisor capacity by referring the loan to the corporate office. She says the realtor may collect up to 1.5 pts. origination up front for this advisor service of collecting info, etc. HUD has recently issued a mortgagee letter to specifically adress this non-compliant practice. A realtor may not be approved to originate FHA under any circumstance, as a non FHA approved broker/LO, the realtor circumvents the regs by taking on the capacity of an "advisor" on the loan. The requirements for collecting an advisor fee is clearly outlined in the new mortgagee letter. Among other requirements, the advisor fee must be commiserate with what is considered reasonable for the services rendered - 1.5 pts. for someone not performing origination services is not reasonable by any industry standards.
Talk with a compliance officer. If it was not signed off on by the compliance department and by the departments of (insert major FHA lenders names here...citi, wells, chase, etc.) it would not be available.
The max is 1.5% and what is reasonable by industry standards is something that can argued until the end of time. Additionally, the borrower must agree to the fee and the role of the adviser is disclosed in this agreement. If the borrower feels the fee is unreasonable they simply will not agree.
If this was a non-compliant practice why would HUD not put an end to it on Forward Mortgages as well as HECM?
The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot be a RE Agent and originate FHA Loans, period. The only way to receive any compensation and to be involved in the FHA loan process at all as an RE Agent is to work in the capacity of an Adviser.
Citi, wells, chase, etc. do not monitor whether the "advisor" (realtor who is otherwise prohibited from working on FHA loans) has referred the borrowers to at least three different lenders nor whether the realtor performing the counseling would receive the same 1.5% compensation regardless of which lender’s product were ultimately selected. In an audit, it would be pretty coincidental if every borrower a realtor counseled happened to choose the same mortgage broker/bank where the agent also happens to hang his license for his other mortgage activities. Anyone who believes that HUD or anyone else would interpret 1.5% advisor fee charged over and above origination for services considered counseling in nature is simply going out of their way to bend the rules (e.g., educating prospective borrowers in the home buying and financing process, advising the borrower about different types of loan products available, and demonstrating how closing costs and monthly payment could vary under each product).
FHA guidelines have always been very clear about the advisory program. MORTGAGEE LETTER 2008-17 further clarifies the guidelines in implicit terms. "Questions in the broker community regarding FHA "Adviser programs"" only exist amongst those intent on circumventing HUD approval requirements and RESPA. |
|
|
benjamin
2297 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 1:17:35 PM
|
Got to go with Slants on this one.
For those of you that are still bending rules until they break, I can only hope you get audited, which may be forthcoming as there are several businesses on this site looking for those that make up their own rules.
|
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 1:59:08 PM
|
So let me get this right. Today an FHA Adviser and an FHA approved broker both receive a loan request.
By working with the adviser the home owner pays a 1% adviser fee, $495 for processing and standard underwriting and third party fees and receive a rate of 6.5% on a 30 year fixed.
The FHA broker offers the same terms and costs except they have a 1% origination fee on the front.
The argument is that somehow the homeowner has been dis serviced and over charged by the adviser even though the terms and cost of the loan are exactly the same?
What about those FHA approved brokers that are making 1% on the front and offering a rate of 7%? They are still somehow in a morally and legally superior position as compared to the adviser?
|
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 2:13:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
So let me get this right. Today and FHA Adviser and an FHA approved broker both receive a loan request.
By working with the adviser the home owner pays a 1% adviser fee, $495 for processing and standard underwriting and third party fees and receive a rate of 6.5% on a 30 year fixed.
The FHA broker offers the same terms and costs except they have a 1% origination fee on the front.
The argument is that somehow the homeowner has been dis serviced and over charged by the adviser even though the terms and cost of the loan are exactly the same?
What about those FHA approved brokers that are making 1% on the front and offering a rate of 7%? They are still somehow in a morally and legally superior position as compared to the adviser?
Yes, actually that's called steering and unearned fees by a non approved agent and a violation of RESPA. If the broker/lender is able and willing to lend at 6.50%, why is the advisor collecting 1% over and above? I would not pay someone $6,000 on a $400,000 closing for "other services that are considered counseling in nature" (e.g., educating prospective borrowers in the home buying and financing process, advising the borrower about different types of loan products available, and demonstrating how closing costs and monthly payment could vary under each product). If a homeowner is willing to pay an FHA "APPROVED" broker 7.0% w/ higher SRP, then that is an "earned" commission by someone performing licensed activity.
RESPA prohibits the payment of duplicative fees. The payment to the unapproved broker for duplicated services amounts to an unearned fee in violation of section 8(b) of RESPA. Further, this payment may also act as a disguised referral fee for steering the borrower to the FHA-approved lender or loan correspondent, which is in violation of section 8(a) of RESPA.
Under no circumstances may a borrower be charged a fee that is not commensurate with the amount normally charged for similar services. If the payment bears no reasonable relationship to the market value of the services provided, the excess over the market rate may be used as evidence of a compensated referral or unearned fee in violation of section 8(a) or (b) of RESPA and 24 CFR 3500.14(g). |
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 2:28:14 PM
|
Just as a homeowner can review a GFE and TIL from a broker and say, No to the fees they can also review the adviser agreement and say no to the services. Again, the consumer is provided with a disclosure and no one is twisting their ARM to sign, just like no FHA approved broker is twisting someone ARM to sign for a loan with 4 points baked in.
Additionally, if you listened to the most recent conf. call with HUD then explain why they would not close this "loophole" when they shut down the HECM Adviser program? Better yet, I've talked with the folks at HUD, why did they open the "loophole" in the first place?
When I pay an adviser (in the case of legal counsel) who is to say what the value of my relationship with and trust and confidence in that individual is?
And it's fine for a homeowner to pay MORE for their transaction as long as the originator is FHA approved? Seems I must remind that the Originator on these programs is FHA Approved AND the homeowner gets and adviser services (should they elect to use them) too. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 2:43:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
Just as a homeowner can review a GFE and TIL from a broker and say, No to the fees they can also review the adviser agreement and say no to the services. Again, the consumer is provided with a disclosure and no one is twisting their ARM to sign, just like no FHA approved broker is twisting someone ARM to sign for a loan with 4 points baked in.
Additionally, if you listened to the most recent conf. call with HUD then explain why they would not close this "loophole" when they shut down the HECM Adviser program? Better yet, I've talked with the folks at HUD, why did they open the "loophole" in the first place?
When I pay an adviser (in the case of legal counsel) who is to say what the value of my relationship, and trust and confidence in that individual is?
And it's fine for a homeowner to pay MORE for their transaction as long as the originator is FHA approved? Seems I must remind that the Originator on these programs is FHA Approved AND the homeowner gets and adviser services (should they elect to use them) too.
And I'll bet when you spoke with HUD, they didn't tell you that they had a "loophole" for you. There is no "loophole" and they did close any imagined "loophole" by publishing a mortgagee letter dedicated to spelling it out. The advisor program is available and specific guidelines exist to prevent its abuse. The set up you describe is a blatant abuse - realtor does not recomment 3 non affiliate lenders and borrower's fee would not be the same if he did. The logic behind the argument that "a homeowner can review a GFE and TIL from a broker and say No to the fees they can also review the adviser agreement and say no to the services" is about as logical as saying "if an uninformed consumer agreed to my charging unearned fees, then why is it not okay?"
"But the borrower signed the agreement" probably will work about as well as it does for the MBs whose files get audited with the excuse: "but the borrower signed the GFE & TIL."
I'm not trying to convince you. You can continue to do what you do and tell yourself it's an acceptable "loophole" because HUD told you so, but others reading this can read the actual guidelines for themselves. |
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 3:21:45 PM
|
"Loophole" was for your benefit since that's how you treat it. It's in fact been a policy update in effect for nearly a decade.
I've been aware of this option for years and when first approached about it contacted HUD in regards to it thinking it must not be legit and I was advised of the policy history and guidelines.
I have had my "head around it" for quite a while now. You are the one that called this afternoon and could not "get (your) head around it" and became an instant expert after reading the mortgagee letter I posted a link too.
You have no idea about the compliance procedures followed, the frequency of audits or even who the auditing entities are.
I can say:
1. Counseling does give the borrower the opprotunity to consider products from three different lenders. 2. The compensation is the same regardless of the product selected. 3. The payment is reasonable (especially when considering that the total costs for the financial transaction could be considerably less than some "fine" loans originated the conventional way)
I don't need to be convinced. I educate myself before running off at the mouth about what the facts are and I expect the same of everyone I have dealings with. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 3:34:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
"Loophole" was for your benefit since that's how you treat it. It's in fact been a policy update in effect for nearly a decade.
I've been aware of this option for years and when first approached about it contacted HUD in regards to it thinking it must not be legit and I was advised of the policy history and guidelines.
I have had my "head around it" for quite a while now. You are the one that called this afternoon and could not "get (your) head around it" and became an instant expert after reading the mortgagee letter I posted a link too.
You have no idea about the compliance procedures followed, the frequency of audits or even who the auditing entities are.
I can say:
1. Counseling does give the borrower the opprotunity to consider products from three different lenders. 2. The compensation is the same regardless of the product selected. 3. The payment is reasonable (especially when considering that the total costs for the financial transaction could be considerably less than some "fine" loans originated the conventional way)
I don't need to be convinced. I educate myself before running off at the mouth about what the facts are and I expect the same of everyone I have dealings with.
Apparently you don't "educate myself before running off at the mouth about what the facts". If you did you'd know that I have not only posted that link but the text from that link numerous times on this forum since the Morgagee Letter was released in June and have been posting the the text from Hudclips about the same topic going back prior to that. Like I said, you're not the only person here or anywhere who has spoken to HUD and there are more problems with what you're doing than just the reasonableness test of the fees charged. You are right, I couldn't "wrap my head " around what your rep Erica was saying about a realtor charging up to 1.5% fee and in her words: "for getting the 1003..." - licensed activities. I was typing my lengthy post when you posted the link. Somehow you construe that posting the link first makes you superior or more correct? We have ALL had that link since it was released by HUD. Like I said, do as you wish, we won't. |
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 4:02:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by slants
...there are more problems with what you're doing...
Again, how in the world do you know what we are doing?
Please. Please... Please!! If you are so sure what we are doing and how wrong it is I implore you to report me. Please email off board and I will provide you with any contact information you need so that the appropriate authorities can haul me off. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 4:16:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
quote:
Originally posted by slants
...there are more problems with what you're doing...
Again, how in the world do you know what we are doing?
Please. Please... Please!! If you are so sure what we are doing and how wrong it is I implore you to report me. Please email off board and I will provide you with any contact information you need so that the appropriate authorities can haul me off.
You really ought to stop making a fool of yourself. I keep telling you I could not care any less what it is you are doing. If you're convinced, then that's fine with me. You're the one who is compelled to justify it. I only know what it is you're doing from speaking with your rep Erika whose information you posted here for readers to contact.
"I implore you to report me. Please email off board and I will provide you with any contact information you need so that the appropriate authorities can haul me off." Are you 5 years old? If it bothers you so much what I think, then you can call them. Okay? I DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU DO AND I DO NOT CARE WHY YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT. |
|
|
homebroker@sbcgl
3535 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 4:28:38 PM
|
| OK, to be compliant, keep your real estate license hung, have your wife or brother work for a net branch Banker (no license required) you sell real estate, they originate loans! HUD will be happy, and maybe you too! |
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 4:32:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by slants
I DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU DO AND I DO NOT CARE WHY YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT.
I don't care what your opinions are, but I do care that you present them as fact and imply that somehow others are breaking the laws...I do care a bit about that. Beyond that...well, it's a late night managing some marketers which is kind of boring and I take enjoyment in calling you out on your BS. Maybe it's because I'm annoyed that while on a conference call Erica came into my office asking why some "nut job" called her and said I referred you to her (oddly enough I guessed it was you before you indicated as much)...maybe it's just because I don't like you and have never said as much until now. 
So, do I care what you think? No. Do I think I'm going to settle some long standing argument regarding FHA Adviser programs on this post? No. Do I think that the thread has become a bit juvenile and if continued will remain so? Sure, but I'm fine with that.
In any case...I'm here until midnight and since I'm getting paid for the time we can do this all night as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 4:41:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
quote:
Originally posted by slants
I DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU DO AND I DO NOT CARE WHY YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT.
I don't care what your opinions are, but I do care that you present them as fact and imply that somehow others are breaking the laws...I do care a bit about that. Beyond that...well, it's a late night managing some marketers which is kind of boring and I take enjoyment in calling you out on your BS. Maybe it's because I'm annoyed that while on a conference call Erica came into my office asking why some "nut job" called her and said I referred you to her (oddly enough I guessed it was you before you indicated as much)...maybe it's just because I don't like you and have never said as much until now.
So, do I care what you think? No. Do I think I'm going to settle some long standing argument regarding FHA Adviser programs on this post? No. Do I think that the thread has become a bit juvenile and if continued will remain so? Sure, but I'm fine with that.
In any case...I'm here until midnight and since I'm getting paid for the time we can do this all night as far as I'm concerned.
Actually, Erika put me on hold and went into your office before I even asked her a single question when I told her that I got her # from Managing Prime. If she thinks someone calling from being directed by Managing Prime makes the caller a nut job, it clearly is more a reflection of you. Calling me out? Hmmm, then how is it that you're the one who got called out? As far you not liking me, don't make me laugh. You feel like a big man telling someone you don't like them? Go back to kindergarten and run you scam telemarketing and 1.5% realtor origination "advisor" program. |
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 4:57:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by slants
Go back to kindergarten and run you scam telemarketing and 1.5% origination "advisor" program.
Actually. She put you on hold to ask me a question as I was headed out the door. But, I've got to give you credit for your certainty about the chain of events...uncanny...almost like you were in the office.
Scam telemarketing is interesting. You do know that it's all in-house now, right? We don't work with outside clients anymore. Thus, the burden of "service provider" has been lifted and now I am free to say exactly what I think about certain people.
I think I'm hungry right now and I'm going to go pickup some Chinese. In the mean time I hope you can come up with some insult better than "Go back to kindergarten and run you scam telemarketing and 1.5% origination "advisor" program."...I've got 4 more hours to go and you're just going to have to come up with something better than that to keep this kindergartener entertained. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 3:08:19 PM
|
Okay, learntoswim, here is your info straight from HUD, not shooting off at the mouth braggadocio from someone on the internet. Just got off the phone with Ms. Ann Acosta at HUD (800) 225-5342 regarding HUD's interpretation of how much advisory fee would be looked at as being commensurate with the amount normally charged for similar counseling services. I have her e-mail address if you want to inquire personally. She stated emphatically that 1 - 1.5 points as a counseling fee is excessively high and definitely not the intent of the law and represents a RESPA violation. She indicated that the advisory program will likely be done away with altogether due to the fact that even with the announcement in mortgagee letter 2008-17, it continues to be improperly used for disguised referral fee kickbacks. She said she is very much aware of the improper practices as she has numerous letters on her desk to go out to the offenders as we speak. She says that they will address the entities abusing the guidelines if known and if they are on the internet.
Like Benjamin said, those that abuse the system will keep breaking the rules until they break it for all of us. |
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 4:26:10 PM
|
Wow. You got a clear answer from HUD regarding an issue that both they and the Broker community realize is gray. I would hope that Mrs. Acosta does not get into trouble for interpreting a HUD Mortgagee Letter. Here's the thing about gray areas left to interpretation...you can interpret the issue however you are pre-dispositioned. If you want to believe something you will have all the "supporting evidence" right there infront of you to justify your prejudice.
I too just called the same number and spoke with the Santa Anna Office and I have a recording of the call so that I get my facts straight (would hate to jeopardize someones employment by putting words in their mouth).
FACT: HUD is pursuing brokers where they perceive gouging.
FACT: HUD is currently drafting clarification on reasonable fees.
FACT: HUD employees can not explicitly state what is and what is not "reasonable" if it is not in writing.
FACT: The HUD employee "thinks" that 1% - 1.5% may be considered unreasonable when purely counseling agencies do not charge that much.
In regards to the last fact. That employees opinion changed when the question was presented differently. I Agreed that many felt that 1%-1.5% fee was unreasonable when looking at the non-fha approved brokers function purely as consultive in nature and comparing the function to counseling agencies and that many felt that a flat fee of $500-$1000 would be more reasonable. I noted that many brokers have per loan marketing and advertising costs of $500-$1000. When considering those costs and the value of the counseling services I asked if 1%-1.5% would be considered unreasonable if the FHA approved originator limited their compensation to the point where the total fees to the borrower for counseling and origination were under 2.0-2.5%?
The HUD employee stated that HUD is looking for price gouging and those who are gouging are being pursued by HUD. She emphasized that she cannot interpret a HUD Letter and state what is reasonable and what is not when HUD has not put it in writing and that very soon HUD will issue guidance on what is reasonable and what is not.
We all know that HUD is rarely clear in their communications and leaves a lot of room for interpretation, even the HUD employee noted this and we shared a laugh. As in all things some people take things to extreme....like the companies that allow the counselor to charge two points and then the originators takes their fees to within a few dollars of section 32. There are other companies that insure that the homeowner receives a high level of service at competitive market rates. You have other companies that are afraid of the gray undefined area and stay as far away as possible. This is life.
In any case HUD is going to issue guidance on this matter and anyone who tries to interpret the current letter and state FACT based on their interpretation is wrong. I'll take an opinion based on sound reasoning, logic and a code of ethics over those kinds of "facts" any day.
I would like to state that I'm not religious, but the whole biblical 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a deep principal that we can all use in our day to day dealings and we could all stand to improve in that department. These gray areas are debated without end by legal professionals and arm chair lawyers alike, however it's not rocket science and it does not take a JD Degree to understand the underlying principals...Do right by your clients. While as humans we do err from time to time and can use counsel and correction, if it comes to the point where we need some authority to spell out exactly what is right and what is wrong in every situation then we are all truly in a very dire situation that extends far beyond the mortgage industry and business in general.
FACT: HUD will issue new guidance on this matter and invariably there will be some gray area that people will debate, so this issue is far from settled.
FACT: If you use a little common sense and your moral compass in your dealings you have very little to worry about in regards to the consequences from your actions. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 4:43:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
Wow. You got a clear answer from HUD regarding an issue that both they and the Broker community realize is gray. I would hope that Mrs. Acosta does not get into trouble for interpreting a HUD Mortgagee Letter.
Yes, she provided emphatic answers regarding the fact that 1.5% for couseling service is definitely excessive, not the intent of the law and that directives will be issued by HUD indicating such. Neither she or I are worried about her "getting into trouble". Those subject to being pursued for their gouging fees need to be more worried about "getting into trouble."
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
FACT: HUD is pursuing brokers where they perceive gouging.
FACT: HUD is currently drafting clarification on reasonable fees.
FACT: HUD employees can not explicitly state what is and what is not "reasonable" if it is not in writing.
FACT: The HUD employee "thinks" that 1% - 1.5% may be considered unreasonable when purely counseling agencies do not charge that much.
I Agreed that many felt that 1%-1.5% fee was unreasonable when looking at the non-fha approved brokers function purely as consultive in nature and comparing the function to counseling agencies and that many felt that a flat fee of $500-$1000 would be more reasonable.
FACT: If you use a little common sense and your moral compass in your dealings you have very little to worry about in regards to the consequences from your actions.
If you think touting "moral compass" makes it acceptable to charge $6,000 for service you admit should be rendered for $500-$1,000, you obviously need a new moral compass. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 4:47:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
Wow. You got a clear answer from HUD regarding an issue that both they and the Broker community realize is gray. I would hope that Mrs. Acosta does not get into trouble for interpreting a HUD Mortgagee Letter. Here's the thing about gray areas left to interpretation...you can interpret the issue however you are pre-dispositioned. If you want to believe something you will have all the "supporting evidence" right there infront of you to justify your prejudice.
I too just called the same number and spoke with the Santa Anna Office and I have a recording of the call so that I get my facts straight (would hate to jeopardize someones employment by putting words in their mouth).
FACT: HUD is pursuing brokers where they perceive gouging.
FACT: HUD is currently drafting clarification on reasonable fees.
FACT: HUD employees can not explicitly state what is and what is not "reasonable" if it is not in writing.
FACT: The HUD employee "thinks" that 1% - 1.5% may be considered unreasonable when purely counseling agencies do not charge that much.
In regards to the last fact. That employees opinion changed when the question was presented differently. I Agreed that many felt that 1%-1.5% fee was unreasonable when looking at the non-fha approved brokers function purely as consultive in nature and comparing the function to counseling agencies and that many felt that a flat fee of $500-$1000 would be more reasonable. I noted that many brokers have per loan marketing and advertising costs of $500-$1000. When considering those costs and the value of the counseling services I asked if 1%-1.5% would be considered unreasonable if the FHA approved originator limited their compensation to the point where the total fees to the borrower for counseling and origination were under 2.0-2.5%?
The HUD employee stated that HUD is looking for price gouging and those who are gouging are being pursued by HUD. She emphasized that she cannot interpret a HUD Letter and state what is reasonable and what is not when HUD has not put it in writing and that very soon HUD will issue guidance on what is reasonable and what is not.
We all know that HUD is rarely clear in their communications and leaves a lot of room for interpretation, even the HUD employee noted this and we shared a laugh. As in all things some people take things to extreme....like the companies that allow the counselor to charge two points and then the originators takes their fees to within a few dollars of section 32. There are other companies that insure that the homeowner receives a high level of service at competitive market rates. You have other companies that are afraid of the gray undefined area and stay as far away as possible. This is life.
In any case HUD is going to issue guidance on this matter and anyone who tries to interpret the current letter and state FACT based on their interpretation is wrong. I'll take an opinion based on sound reasoning, logic and a code of ethics over those kinds of "facts" any day.
I would like to state that I'm not religious, but the whole biblical 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a deep principal that we can all use in our day to day dealings and we could all stand to improve in that department. These gray areas are debated without end by legal professionals and arm chair lawyers alike, however it's not rocket science and it does not take a JD Degree to understand the underlying principals...Do right by your clients. While as humans we do err from time to time and can use counsel and correction, if it comes to the point where we need some authority to spell out exactly what is right and what is wrong in every situation then we are all truly in a very dire situation that extends far beyond the mortgage industry and business in general.
FACT: HUD will issue new guidance on this matter and invariably there will be some gray area that people will debate, so this issue is far from settled.
FACT: If you use a little common sense and your moral compass in your dealings you have very little to worry about in regards to the consequences from your actions.
Here it is unscribbled so that it's legible to all reading.
Originally posted by Managing Prime
Wow. You got a clear answer from HUD regarding an issue that both they and the Broker community realize is gray. I would hope that Mrs. Acosta does not get into trouble for interpreting a HUD Mortgagee Letter. Here's the thing about gray areas left to interpretation...you can interpret the issue however you are pre-dispositioned. If you want to believe something you will have all the "supporting evidence" right there infront of you to justify your prejudice.
I too just called the same number and spoke with the Santa Anna Office and I have a recording of the call so that I get my facts straight (would hate to jeopardize someones employment by putting words in their mouth).
FACT: HUD is pursuing brokers where they perceive gouging.
FACT: HUD is currently drafting clarification on reasonable fees.
FACT: HUD employees can not explicitly state what is and what is not "reasonable" if it is not in writing.
FACT: The HUD employee "thinks" that 1% - 1.5% may be considered unreasonable when purely counseling agencies do not charge that much.
In regards to the last fact. That employees opinion changed when the question was presented differently. I Agreed that many felt that 1%-1.5% fee was unreasonable when looking at the non-fha approved brokers function purely as consultive in nature and comparing the function to counseling agencies and that many felt that a flat fee of $500-$1000 would be more reasonable. I noted that many brokers have per loan marketing and advertising costs of $500-$1000. When considering those costs and the value of the counseling services I asked if 1%-1.5% would be considered unreasonable if the FHA approved originator limited their compensation to the point where the total fees to the borrower for counseling and origination were under 2.0-2.5%?
The HUD employee stated that HUD is looking for price gouging and those who are gouging are being pursued by HUD. She emphasized that she cannot interpret a HUD Letter and state what is reasonable and what is not when HUD has not put it in writing and that very soon HUD will issue guidance on what is reasonable and what is not.
We all know that HUD is rarely clear in their communications and leaves a lot of room for interpretation, even the HUD employee noted this and we shared a laugh. As in all things some people take things to extreme....like the companies that allow the counselor to charge two points and then the originators takes their fees to within a few dollars of section 32. There are other companies that insure that the homeowner receives a high level of service at competitive market rates. You have other companies that are afraid of the gray undefined area and stay as far away as possible. This is life.
In any case HUD is going to issue guidance on this matter and anyone who tries to interpret the current letter and state FACT based on their interpretation is wrong. I'll take an opinion based on sound reasoning, logic and a code of ethics over those kinds of "facts" any day.
I would like to state that I'm not religious, but the whole biblical 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is a deep principal that we can all use in our day to day dealings and we could all stand to improve in that department. These gray areas are debated without end by legal professionals and arm chair lawyers alike, however it's not rocket science and it does not take a JD Degree to understand the underlying principals...Do right by your clients. While as humans we do err from time to time and can use counsel and correction, if it comes to the point where we need some authority to spell out exactly what is right and what is wrong in every situation then we are all truly in a very dire situation that extends far beyond the mortgage industry and business in general.
FACT: HUD will issue new guidance on this matter and invariably there will be some gray area that people will debate, so this issue is far from settled.
FACT: If you use a little common sense and your moral compass in your dealings you have very little to worry about in regards to the consequences from your actions. |
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 4:54:50 PM
|
Agreed in regards to the first comment.
In regards to your second comment...Well, I was just reminded by John Tattan that your reading skills are selective at best and that your ability to reason and use logic are just as faulty, so I'm not going to even bother responding. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 5:13:06 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
Agreed in regards to the first comment.
In regards to your second comment...Well, I was just reminded by John Tattan that your reading skills are selective at best and that your ability to reason and use logic are just as faulty, so I'm not going to even bother responding.
"John Tatten says you suck!" Well then it must be true. Yes, John Tattan your paid employee who is untruthful and failed to deliver services for which I paid, along with your employee Erika who disclosed that your "realtor" advisors get paid 1.5% for collecting 1003's and documents and refering to corporate (not to 3 lenders)- all activities that are illegal to be performed by non-FHA approved agents - ie. your realtor advisors.
Did it make you feel better to tell me that you don't like me because you still never gave me a refund? You see Patrick Lawson, I do not like you either; moreover, I do not respect how you conduct your business and manage your employees. Now I despise your immoral business practices of gouging FHA borrowers. Hmmmm, it does feel good. |
|
|
Managing Prime
2802 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 5:34:38 PM
|
Cathartic, Yes?
You know what stings even worse than a smattering of insults? Smacking someone with the facts. Yeah, that hurts and I want to thank you for sparing me that discomfort.
Well, It's a short night for me so I'm headed home to relax.
Good Night and God Bless, Dear Helen. |
|
|
slants
4274 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2008 : 5:39:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Managing Prime
Cathartic, Yes?
You know what stings even worse than a smattering of insults? Smacking someone with the facts. Yeah, that hurts and I want to thank you for sparing me that discomfort.
Well, It's a short night for me so I'm headed home to relax.
Good Night and God Bless, Dear Helen.
Every word I posted came from HUD. But of course your "interpretations" are more factual, huh?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Managing Prime
Just as a homeowner can review a GFE and TIL from a broker and say, No to the fees they can also review the adviser agreement and say no to the services. Again, the consumer is provided with a disclosure and no one is twisting their ARM to sign, just like no FHA approved broker is twisting someone ARM to sign for a loan with 4 points baked in.
Additionally, if you listened to the most recent conf. call with HUD then explain why they would not close this "loophole" when they shut down the HECM Adviser program? Better yet, I've talked with the folks at HUD, why did they open the "loophole" in the first place? |
|
|
| |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
Search for: