Update on the May 7 Mortgage Broker Commission Meeting and SB 6471
At the beginning of every law, there’s a preamble and then a set of definitions. Many of you know this: A mortgage broker is not a lender.
A lender is defined by federal law, RESPA, as an entity that makes loans. This means the entity has the money to fund the loans.
Brokers, by definition do not loan their own money. Instead, they’re middlemen who go out and find the mortgage money. The entity funding the loan is the “lender.” This definition comes to us via RESPA. Nothing has changed here, and I predict state law will mirror federal law.
In terms of state law, and in particular, SB 6471, it should now be made crystal clear to the consumer that a MORTGAGE BROKER IS NOT A LENDER.
Okay, fine. We got it. However, there’s one small problem. As I addressed in my four part series on the differences between a banker, broker, consumer finance company, and a credit union within the realm of licensed mortgage brokers we have a hybrid. A “correspondent lender” is an entity currently licensed as a broker, but they have their own warehouse line of credit with a bank. They can fund their own loans, and they can also broker out to other lenders, if they so choose.
Most correspondent shops are very well run, with onsite underwriting, training, auditing, and compliance departments. Currently, many hold a mortgage broker license. Some of these entities are exempt from holding a mortgage broker license because DFI has granted them an exemption certificate because they have direct Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac approval. Unfortunately, these companies with the exemption certificate, (DFI estimates that we have about 300 brokers with exemption certificates,) have been largely unsupervised at the state level. Senate Bill 6471 was supposed to close this loophole and bring all exempt brokers under the Consumer Loan Act.
Many correspondent lenders also broker loans in addition to closing them with their own warehouse line of credit. This leaves the correspondent lenders with a dilemma. Correspondent lenders have the option now of holding two state licenses, or just one. They can keep their license under the Mortgage Broker Practices Act and they also now must operate with a Consumer Loan license, or they can decide to just hold the consumer loan license.
This change affects only correspondent lenders.
Pure mortgage brokers, entities that ONLY broker ALL their loans, are not affected by SB 6471.
Correspondent lenders are mad as hell and many showed up at today’s meeting to express their shock and awe at having to pay an assessment to the state at .000180271% of their annual volume. Depending on the breakdown of correspondent-funded loans v. brokered loans, estimates provided by the correspondents at today’s meeting range from an additional $20,000 to $60,000 per year in fees that the correspondent lender will have to pay to the state of Washington each year.
Existing consumer loan lenders already pay this assessment. Realize though, that many consumer loan lenders loan money at much higher interest rates and charge much higher fees than traditional mortgage companies. Correspondent lenders argue that these higher fees will be passed on to the consumer. One lender present testified that he plans on adding this fee on to the consumer’s fee schedule on the Good Faith Estimate, calling it a “State Tax.” Guys: I’m pretty sure that you cannot honestly present a fee imposed on you, as a “tax.”
Correspondent lenders are also mad as hell for another reason: They must now swim in the same pool with Consumer Loan Companies…..those who we do not speak of. Those bastards that mortgage brokers look down upon. If there’s a hierarchy, it looks like this:
Banks look down on
Mortgage Banks
Who are seen as “less than” because most don’t carry bank deposits. Mortgage Banks look down on:
Correspondent lenders
Who are seen as baby mortgage banks, not fully grown up and ready to play hardball.
Correspondents are always looking down on:
Mortgage Brokers,
Who sneer in disgust as throw up a little in their mouths when they think of:
Consumer loan lenders
Who are seen as nothing more than pawn shops, payday lenders, and one step above the mafia.
Consumer loan lenders have been originating mortgage loans for quite some time. Ameriquest, Household Finance, Paramount Equity, American Equity, are all names of lenders licensed under the Consumer Loan Act who originate mortgage loans.
Now correspondent lenders and consumer loan lenders are swimming in the same pool. Correspondents must take care not to drink the water the CL lenders have peed in and avoid their floating turds.
And now they BOTH have a new punching bag: Brokers have now been classified as the pond scum, right? Wrong.
Because there’s a problem with this new hierchy.
Instead…….BROKERS actually take a step UP above correspondents, because brokers have stricter licensing requirements under the Mortgage Broker Practices Act.
So the hierarchy now looks like this
Banks
Mortgage Banks (what’s left of them)
BROKERS
Correspondents and consumer loan lenders
This is all about ego and money.
Correspondents: It’s now time to get busy figuring out how to separate yourself from your competition. In today’s meeting, over and over again, correspondents told the mortgage broker commission that they bring a great deal of service enhancements OVER pure brokers to the consumer. If that is so, then correspondents should not have a problem in the free market. If this is not the case, if correspondents do not bring added value, then the state legislature has called your bluff. Personally, I believe correspondents DO bring value to consumers.
I can think of at least five different ways to market this change to consumers in a positive way to gain market share. This is nothing but business at it’s finest. Government intervenes, and businesses must find a way to survive and grow. Correspondents will survive this change.
Most memorable moment:
After testimony from a correspondent who reamed consumer loan companies and called them “loan sharks,” Consumer Services Director Deb Bortner stood up, waved her hands in the air and reminded the audience that there are many, many fine consumer loan lenders licensed in WA state and one of them happens to be sitting right there in the room….on the Mortgage Broker Commission. Don Burton from Evergreen Home Loans smiled. John Porter from Mortgage Masters asked, “So Don, tell us the down sides of being regulated under the Consumer Loan Act.” Don said, ‘Well, I can’t think of any.”
DFI’s goal is to have definitions and a preliminary set of rules out for us to review by May 16th.
Paramount was nothing more than a mass marketing machine. Look at the posted biographies of the principals. They generated volume ...
I am excited that our industry is revolving and major changes are headed our way. When we are all ...
Comment by Curtis Covington on 12 May 2008:
DFI will simply need to see which Mortgage bankers and/or Correspondent lenders “drop” their brokers licenses and opt for the Consumer lender title wholly. Net effect will of course be that those who wouldn’t other wise qualify to obtain a mortgage broker or originator license will simply find a “safe haven” inside of Banks or Consumer lender shops. Good idea; let’s legislate rules which create revenue for the State under the disguise of “Consumer Protection” when the exact opposite effect will occur. Felons will be in positions where the don’t even have to disclose their predatory lending practices. ?????? Is a high school equivalency even required to be a part of the legislature in this State?
Comment by Jillayne Schlicke on 12 May 2008:
Hi Curtis,
I’m not so sure the correspondent lenders will completely drop their broker’s licenses. It’s going to depend on how much the state fees/assessments are. If a company brokers 50% of their business and the other 50% on their warehouse line, it might be less expensive to maintain the broker and LO licenses.
The loophole of “no background checks, no LO licensing, no LO test, no mandatory CE” for consumer loan lenders will eventually be closed at the state level.
The National Mortgage Licensing system that Chuck Cross is working on at the national level will likely license ALL originators if the senators and congressmen in D.C. have their way.
Comment by Roger Ingalls on 13 May 2008:
I believe the correspondent brokers will gravitate towards whichever option entails the lowest costs and liabilities. For the larger ones, that will be CLA regulations. A broker can still broker loans under the CLA licensing
And you are probably right, the state will correct the LO licensing loophole at the next feasible opportunity.
Comment by Rita Green on 10 August 2008:
Correspondent lenders will select the option that results in the least costs to them. If the goal is truly to benefit the consumer, a better solution may have been to limit the rates and fees that a Corrsepondent lender charges.
Comment by Kevin Haynes on 8 September 2008:
In a previous post I mentioned that SB 6471 seemed like a good idea. I wasn’t aware of the assessment being levied. Still, any additioanl “tax” placed on correspondents will be passed on to the consumer. If cost of goods increase for a manufacturing company where is that passed along? To the consumer of course.
Comment by Stephanie Grosely on 10 September 2008:
I find the hierarchy mentioned in the article very interesting. Expecially the revised version place correspondents in the same category as consumer loan lenders. I think the correspondents will still have the upper hand to brokers, in terms of service and time efficiency. Which to me, is often right up there with having the “best deal” out there. Correspondents will find a way to make this work for them, and market themselves accordingly.
Comment by Michael Belisle on 3 November 2008:
The Fact that there is more regulation regarding who you can hire and what rules you now play by is not the limiting factor. Most companies will continue to look at the how to make the most money for there particular niche and loan volume. It is up to the regulations of each company to keep their employees honest. Having a LO’s licensed doesn’t mean they will be not be dishonest to consumers and also running a consumer loan company does not make you a loan shark just because you could be.
Comment by Jeff Rafuse on 4 November 2008:
I agree correspondent lenders will survive, but I see their point that putting them in this category is probably heavily motivated by the fact the state government can now take a larger piece of the pie. And ultimately, whether they can call this a “tax” on the GFE or not, that is exactly what it is. The sad reality though is that government never seems to realize that all of these things are ultimately passed on to consumers. Businesses don’t really pay taxes, but rather ever dollar of tax or fee levied on a business ends up accounted for by a either a stakeholder, employee, or a consumer.
Comment by John Mayfield on 5 November 2008:
I can’t agree more with Jeff! Whenever a business has fees & taxes imposed on them, it is passed on to the consumer. They are the ones who eventually pay more and it hurts them more in the end.
No one wants to be put into the same pool as some of the Consumer Loan Lenders mentioned above, they have had some major lawsuits. The upside to this is consumers really do not know all of this so it won’t affect that part of the business.
Comment by Denise Swafford on 10 November 2008:
Jeff has a direct hit on this one. Every cost that is generated on a state and federal level for brokers is directly charge to the consumer. It will take years to separate the wheat from the chaff in this industry and increasing the knowledge and testing requirements is the only way to truly adavance this quality of the professionals in this industry. If a fee is assessed and can be charged to the client…it will…just the same way it always has been.
Comment by Sandi Paradiso on 11 November 2008:
WOW! it just keeps going on and on. I agree with Jeff and Denise. it is sad that the consumer will be the one who pays. What kind of license does a CLL have to have. Is this still about power and greed?
No matter if you are a broker, LO or CLL there’s always going to be good and bad in the same neighborhood. As brokers and LO, we just have to bring our “A” game and do our best to keep the consumer happy and coming back. I don’t like the fact that there will be no “no background checks, no LO licensing, no LO test, no mandatory CE” did I get the right? We all need to have the same standard, what’s good for one is good for the other.
Comment by Sarah Batson on 12 November 2008:
I am surprised that correspondent lenders or any aspect of our industry that had previously been unsupervised are still able to or expect to conduct business in the same way. In a time when our industry is largely being attacked and blamed for the effect on the national economy I would expect nothing less than to have the expectations and requirements raised for everyone involved in these processes.
Comment by Vic Ball on 12 November 2008:
do7tki8xco60q1u1
Comment by Catherine Rawlins on 17 November 2008:
Any fee, assessment or tax that is based on gross receipts is just plain WRONG. (i.e. the B & O tax). WAMB fell down flat on their faces on this issue. If the state can get the correspondent lenders to pay up, what makes us think that the lower level mortgage brokers won’t be next. This is a law that never should have been passed.
Comment by Nancy Brown on 1 December 2008:
Lot’s of knee-jerk reactions nationally and in our state while we scramble to define what we want to be when we grow up. 1st we enforce “class” separation (in the hierarchy) by only licensing SOME businesses and SOME LOs while exempting others. Then we re-classify (and “demote”)correspondents (correctly or in-correctly), charge new assessments which WILL be passed on as yet another confusing GFE line item and finally top it off by proposing federal licensing of ALL LOs. Makes ya wonder just what we’re trying to accomplish!
Comment by jeremy hickling on 2 December 2008:
Its nice to see Mortgage Brokers taking a step up. Coerrespondent lending can be very convenient but the playing field should be level out there for all players. Like most of the laws that have come about, this one will require adjustments to be more effective and Im all for a little regulation but again the decisions land in our laps. Then its ethics again.
Comment by jenn fick on 4 December 2008:
I have a couple questions: Is this assessment applied to correspondent lenders when brokering as well? And when it is said this fee will just be passed on to the client, is there an actual line of the GFE for this - or is it something you cover in your ysp or mortgage broker fee (for brokering) or origination fee (for correspondent lending)?
Comment by Brad Toft on 4 December 2008:
Some of this is spin. If you are in the mortgage lending environment today and these laws are having a strong adverse affect on your firm, then you likely deserve the trouble. If your firm operates under the principles of customer intimacy, shareholder value and providing stable jobs for your employees, then these changes will have little impact on you. If your are simply focused on what will earn the highest profit, your firm is doomed to fail regardless of the laws.
Comment by beth ward on 7 December 2008:
OK it all goes on the consumer and that isn’t right … tax as a fee my gosh we need to get out of the making more money is better than what’s good for the client. Eventially those that are money motivated will be seen for what they are and fail.
Comment by Deborah Cook on 9 December 2008:
Jeff you hit this one on the mark! We are supposed to protect consumers right? The taxes will be passed on as fees to the consumer one way or another, how is that protecting them?
Comment by Teresa Gallaher on 9 December 2008:
I believe that no matter what you call it. When the cost of doing business goes up then the cost to the consumer goes up. Otherwise, businesses can not stay in business and the jobs we provide in our communities will continue to be lost. The rate charged to the correspondant were just too high, and I agree WAMB dropped the ball on this one.
Comment by Vance Won on 11 December 2008:
Instead of worrying about their reputations correspondent lenders should concerntrate on really adding value to their clients and marketing those values/services to gain additional market share.
Comment by Gail Burgess on 11 December 2008:
I think exemtions(loopholes) for correspondent lenders should definitley all be closed. I don’t think senate bill 6471 was strong enough. I stll know loan officers closing loans without licensing.
It is not just about additional fees that may be passed to clients as
stated above, it is more about unlicensed LOs being alowed to continue practicing without backround checks or continuing education.
Comment by Laura Shields on 12 December 2008:
The reason why is that in correspondant lending, you don’t have to disclose the the rebate on the HUD and the Broker shop/LO can make more money. I do believe the client should see and be explained what the YSP is and where it goes……truthfully!
If the correspondant lender has hidden money, they should pay tax on it!
Too many people are making too much money off the borrowers in a single transaction for not being as professional as they should be.
Comment by Chuck Robillard on 13 December 2008:
I think that anyone who is in this business, regardless of their affiliation, is naive if they think this is an end to the regulation of our industry. This is a good thing and I’m certain the legislative body is not yet finished. we are bound to see additional regulation and we will just have to adjust to the way we have done business in the past. We have a major financial crisis in this country, with perhaps more to come, (think pay-option ARMS), precipitated mostly by greed. So what is the answer? Take a long hard look at your financial picture. If you can still operate at a decent profit while conducting your business in accordance with the latest regulations then you should stay in the game. If not then you have a couple of choices; charge additional fees and hope you can compete, or just close your doors. In either case there will be someone out there with a workable business plan that will take up the slack.
Comment by Branda Luke on 17 December 2008:
What I would’ve paid to see the correspondent’s face after seeing they just reamed someone on the commission. I agree with the statement that correspondents should be able to differentiate themselves from their competitors while adhering to state law. Trying to pass the fee off as some sort of tax however will not help in differentiating yourselves. The unfortunate fact is that that fee will be passed on to the consumers one way or another.
Comment by Grant Bowery on 18 December 2008:
After all the negative media of subprime and lenders
the general public has a low opinion of us !
I fail to see how the average person finds any difference
between Wells Fargo financial ( a consumer loan @ 15% ) Wells Fargo Home mortgages (retail and correspondent ) and Wells Fargo Bank .
If I am at a aparty and say I am amortgage broker people either laugh or saw how bad is it ? So its more fun to tell persons
I work in collections Some actually run away HEHE
Comment by Luis Diaz on 19 December 2008:
Regarding the correspondent lender’s delema, it looks like they do not want to be regualted as intended in the first place with bill SB 6471. They do not want to pay their fair share on taxes (sate assesement) and they want reconginition for theri value but do not want the overhead expenses. Well, if they do not want to be regulated under MBPA they will have to be under CLA; sorry for thire new clasification!. Although, they ahve options to play a fair game in this industry. Yet, I think this should be taken care by the DFI bill in the first place.
Comment by Pedro Riojas on 20 December 2008:
Seem like the SB6471 only affects correspontent lender . Why? Well one reason might be that they are the only ones unsuperviced at the state level! There seems to be a double standard while the rest must be accountable to the state, correspondent are not. SB6471 will level the playing field . SB6471 mandate equal accoutability .That is good ! An other reason may be the fees. Since the rest of lender are paying the proper fees there is no reason why correspondent lenders should not pay their share. In a nut shell SB6471 will foster uniformity and accoutability.
Comment by Toby on 20 December 2008:
Good grief they make this confusing. How high school can we be? Everyone should be held accountable for their actions. Period. If we all have to abide by the same standards then none of this is an issue. Exemptions are bogus. Why should anyone be exempt? Pay your fees, uphold the standards and make wise decisions. It’s the cost of doing business.
Comment by Alice Yu Uy on 20 December 2008:
SB 6471 - If correspondent lenders still keep their fee and rates low and reasonable as usual, then their being a Consumer LOan Lenders will not affect their business with us and the consumer.
Comment by David Nelson on 23 December 2008:
Level the playing field. Everyone at the game has a better time. Ethics is a word that has lost its effect. Now it has to be legislated. Said but true, lets learn the rules and get on with life!!!
Comment by Jim LaLone on 23 December 2008:
SAME OLD THING, IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, THE CONSUMER TAKES IT IN THE SHORTS. “I’M HERE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO HELP YOU….” SINCERELY, BEN DOVER WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT A SIMPLE FORM CONSUMERS CAN UNDERSTAND???
Comment by Maria White on 24 December 2008:
I agree with Toby. No exemptions, no exceptions. We all need to be held to the same standards and ethics. Extra tax, extra consumer cost.
Comment by Mark Middlebrooks on 24 December 2008:
I think that several Correspondent Lenders will settle their way into the Consumer Lender title. The most obvious negative is the .000180271% of their annual volume going to the state, but there are also positives that can offset that negative.
I also agree with Jillayne and Roger that the licensing loophole will be closed.
Comment by David Nelson on 24 December 2008:
Level the playing field, put uniforms on all the players and letn the games begin. The winner helps the most people.
Comment by sam Tabatabai on 24 December 2008:
If all this is to get more money for the state, then the hell with it because it will not do one bit for the ultimate customer. As far as the banks or brokers or the corespodent lenders, well let them pay for the extra fee if it protects the sonsumer. If we think this way it makes it easy to distinguish between all this. I worked for a bank for 10 months and we could not make more than 1.5% total fee on the loan, taht is it. Why is it that in broker shop or correspondet shop people are allowed to make lot more? If you answered that, then the rest is easy.
Comment by Marty Boswell on 28 December 2008:
The cost of business surely will get passed on to the consumer, It’s unfortinate but true. I agree the NO licensing, NO background check, NO testing and continueing education loophole must be closed.
Comment by Scott E on 29 December 2008:
Regardless of the no licensing, background check, continuing education, or testing, loophole being closed, if we are held to a higher standard and the consumer knows you are held at a higher standard, then why would they not do business with a higher standard? If you are loyal to your client, most of the time they are loyal to you. Sometimes you have to let your client work with someone else, but most of them find out that the grass on the other side is not always greener, at least that has been my experience.
Comment by Richard Davis on 29 December 2008:
No exemptions, no exceptions. Everyone should be held to the same standards and the consumer should have that expectation. Definitions should be standard so we are all playing with the same deck of cards.
Comment by Jim Haechler on 29 December 2008:
Regarding SB 6471. This bill just gets everyone in line and on a equal playing field and accountable to the state. I see nothing wrong with that.
Comment by Roger Ingalls on 29 December 2008:
After 6 months of watching this play out, I think you called it for what it is…ego.
BTW, there shouldn’t be a % in your figure above. DFI does not have a % after that number.
$250,000 x 0.000180271=$36.05.
If it was 0.000180271%, then the fee would be $0.36 per $250K loan.
Pass that either amount on to the borrower and look like a cheap fool. It seems paltry compared to other junk fees dumped on borrowers.
Also, it is entirely customary, and justified for governments to tax industries for the cost of that industry’s regulation. Who should we tax for the cost of this industry’s regulation? Hairdressers?
Do any of you believe competent regulation is free?
Wouldn’t you just get what you pay for?
Isn’t that what got us in the jam we are currently in?
Comment by Brian Paine on 29 December 2008:
We’re creating a more even playing field from a professional point of view…as an LO, I like this…I’m also in agreement with Mr. Rafuse from Nov. 4th in that…it is the consumer who will ultimately pay that price…hopefully, they’ll call me or Mr. Rafuse instead.
Comment by Carmen Ziranda on 29 December 2008:
I think that everyone in this industry has the same responsabilities. No one is superior in any way, mistakes happen and that’s when the law and legistlations comes in to make sure that everyone is playing equally and that the ethics and responsabilities are the same for everbody.
Comment by Dennis Tyler on 30 December 2008:
Higher costs always get passed on to the consumer, no matter what business is involved. How else can businesses stay in business? There will always be room for correspondent lenders. I have found that they can be very competitive and are often run very professionally.
Comment by Kent Kiser on 30 December 2008:
I have always been a correspondent as well as broker. The question I ask myself is always what is in the best interest of my client. Sometimes you just have to close a loan “in-house”
Most times I have served a clientele level that deserved the broker pricing and rate structure.
Hopefully what we won’t see is higher costs being passed on to the innocent and unaware client. That too would be unfair.
Comment by John Sarausad on 31 December 2008:
I have always been a broker, but have always dreamed of being a correspondent lender. However, with extra costs to have both licenses and fees that may be excessive, I might have to hold that dream as a long term goal. I feel that correspondent lenders have an edge with tougher loans because of their ability to manual underwrite a loan that may not be able to broker out to an investor. Of course they would also benefit by being highly competitive in interest rates to be able to broker out the golden loans as well. I agree that this is going to depend on how much business each correspondent lender is doing on the in-house or broker side.
Comment by Kelly on 31 December 2008:
Agree! There should be no exception and no exemptions. It’s sad that the attitude is to turn around and charge the cost and hurt the consumer. Every type of lending institution should be held to the same exact standards. It’s always the consumer that gets hurt.
Comment by Rand Wood on 3 January 2009:
Correspondent lending is probably the best of both worlds as far as mortgage loan origination. Benefits of the broker as well as the lender.Often these are a small business not backed by a big bank and working on their own lines of credit.These companies must be very well managed to survive in this industry.They should not be penalized with an additional tax burden, unless they also elect to do the consumer loans too. Only the higher priced comsumer loans should fall under this new tax category.
Comment by Mila Usher on 4 January 2009:
This reminds of the old saying, “… have your cake ad eat it too.”
It seems to me if you wat to act as a lender you pay the price of a lender. Why should they be exempt? I’m not sure if the new law states this but in fairness they should only have to pay fees on money made through the lending side of thier business.
Comment by Vladislav Baydovskiy on 31 January 2009:
I think all the lending institutions should be held to same standard. Extra costs will simply be passed on to consumers, after all that is who we are trying to protect, by passing all these laws.
Comment by Chrissie Durrin-wheatman on 5 February 2009:
Well first off I LOVE the analogy used in this article. And I’m not sure on what to say or if I am not hitting the point. But the unfortunate thing here is we have a major housing crisis and they’re nic picking like high school scrap. Why don’t every one come together!!Get on the same page same fee’s same amounts you can make Period. all be uniform starting from the bottom up.
Comment by Sharon Eva on 9 February 2009:
I do believe that ultimately the consumers pay for it in the end when an increase or adding of taxes are concerned. I hope that the consumer loan lenders are not having to pay an assessment to the state at .000180271% of their annual volume for the same loans that the correspondent lenders are. That would be double taxation. I wish I knew how mortgage lender and brokers are taxed in order to make a clear assessment on this article.
Comment by Robert Paterson on 10 February 2009:
The state should not have exemptions in the first place. SB6471 takes away a loophole that just put some extra cash in the correspondent lenders pocket. They are mad about having to pay a tax. Can they pass along the tax and stay competitive? Probably. The state benefits because they just found additionally revenue. This issue in my mind is not about anything but money.
Comment by Beth Damery on 19 February 2009:
This was a fun read. Thank you for the humor! I agree with everyone else, the tax is another way the state can fund the general funds. Are these fees going to educate and help consumers who have been victims of predatory lending or to the legislature to disburse as they see best??
Comment by Laurie Morgan on 19 February 2009:
Extra costs will only be passed on to the consumer. I find it funny that the legislature seems to ask us to do more and pay more over and over again.
I love the breakdown of the hierarchy and the truth to those statements. Always appreciate your sense of humor.
Working under the CLA actually is easy, and MBPA is very difficult to conduct business under. Everyone should have their own choice for what works best for their own business, not what makes the most money for the state.
Comment by jason brock on 22 February 2009:
Given the current state of our country I am happy to be able to help as a mortgage broker. It has been very tough for me to write all of these loans with programs restricted and stripped from me the mortgage broker. I believe that licensing is necessary for accountability within the industry and those who fund correspondently should also fall under this. If people would just work with Integrity there would be not need.
Comment by William Platts on 27 February 2009:
Got to go way up this page and agree with Curtis. Appears to be a fine pile of manure dished out by Olympia. Government trying to fill its purse while trying to protect the consumer. It just doesn’t usually happen, but this state has no problem reaching in the small/medium business pocket for its allowance. This goes right back to my last response: even playing field! I give on this one. I’m not a correspondent but if I were the borrower would be paying this bill, not me, and I would list it as a tax all the way to the jail house.
Comment by LINDA COFFMAN on 27 February 2009:
I really like Roger’s breakdown, but agree those few cents will be passed on to the consumer. I wonder at what time did it become okay for the business to have non-standard regulations, and why? Maybe the State needs the money to level the playing field and educate the consumers???
Comment by Chris Madden on 28 February 2009:
Extra taxes will be passed down to the consumer when it’s all said and done. The great thing to come out of this, is the licensing loophole will be closed.
Comment by Terry Birkland on 3 April 2009:
I had no idea who had to be licensed and who didn’t. Who is a lender etc etc. Who paid taxes and who didn’t and would these taxes simply be passed on the consumer. Best of all I’m glad I’m not at the bottom of the above pecking order (I hope I read this right.)
Pingback by WA Loan Originator Licensees Drops to 5335 | Rain City Guide on 21 May 2009:
[…] 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 […]
Pingback by WA Loan Originator Licensees Drops to 5335 | Guilda Blog on 23 May 2009:
[…] 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 […]