Comments on: Update on the May 7 Mortgage Broker Commission Meeting and SB 6471

By: WA Loan Originator Licensees Drops to 5335 | Guilda Blog

WA Loan Originator Licensees Drops to 5335 | Guilda Blog — Sat, 23 May 2009 01:24:01 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: WA Loan Originator Licensees Drops to 5335 | Rain City Guide

WA Loan Originator Licensees Drops to 5335 | Rain City Guide — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:45:01 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Terry Birkland

Terry Birkland — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:55:20 +0000

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.)

By: Chris Madden

Chris Madden — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 09:30:40 +0000

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.

By: LINDA COFFMAN

LINDA COFFMAN — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:17:53 +0000

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???

By: William Platts

William Platts — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:43:02 +0000

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.

By: jason brock

jason brock — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:09:05 +0000

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.

By: Laurie Morgan

Laurie Morgan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:22:12 +0000

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.

By: Beth Damery

Beth Damery — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:14:51 +0000

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??

By: Robert Paterson

Robert Paterson — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:11:55 +0000

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.

By: Sharon Eva

Sharon Eva — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:46:47 +0000

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.

By: Chrissie Durrin-wheatman

Chrissie Durrin-wheatman — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:37:09 +0000

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.

By: Vladislav Baydovskiy

Vladislav Baydovskiy — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:23:26 +0000

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.

By: Mila Usher

Mila Usher — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:03:20 +0000

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.

By: Rand Wood

Rand Wood — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:08:13 +0000

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.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:44:18 +0000

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.

By: John Sarausad

John Sarausad — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:19:54 +0000

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.

By: Kent Kiser

Kent Kiser — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:08:34 +0000

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.

By: Dennis Tyler

Dennis Tyler — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:46:01 +0000

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.

By: Carmen Ziranda

Carmen Ziranda — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:27:10 +0000

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.

By: Brian Paine

Brian Paine — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:53:44 +0000

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.

By: Roger Ingalls

Roger Ingalls — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:51:00 +0000

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?

By: Jim Haechler

Jim Haechler — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:07:16 +0000

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.

By: Richard Davis

Richard Davis — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:31:02 +0000

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.

By: Scott E

Scott E — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:09:02 +0000

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.