Comments on: National Loan Originator Licensing

By: Terry Birkland

Terry Birkland — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:21:22 +0000

Having been licensed for many years in the insurance and securities business. I’m not troubled that I need to be licensed to originate mortgage loans. Neither am I troubled that there is testing and background checks. This will probably elevate the quality of people in the business assuming we need elavating.

By: LINDA COFFMAN

LINDA COFFMAN — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:45:35 +0000

I am happy the State instituted the License requirement and testing. I started as a processor and was shocked to find many of the LO’s were unaware of rules and regulations. Every little bit a knowledge will help the industry….

By: Mila Usher

Mila Usher — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:53:04 +0000

I agree that LO’s should be licensed. This will bring order to the confusion and loop holes that are out there. With LO’s being licensed, there will be a set of rules to be followed and leaves no room for question.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:58:28 +0000

I agree. It’s been the best thing to have LO’s licensed. It does show that they are being overseen by some states regulations and not just the individual company. I belive that the banks, credit unions, etc. should also be regulated by these state regulations.

By: John Sarausad

John Sarausad — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:45:47 +0000

Being a licensed LO is a great privilege and shows to our clients that we are holding accountability for our actions. This couldn’t have been done any better.

By: Dennis Tyler

Dennis Tyler — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:07:28 +0000

I have found that many banks do not hold their LO’s to a higher standard, nor do they train them properly. I imagine that it depends on the manager as well, but when the manager is producing and competing with the LO, their is not as much accountability or tracking. I also have found that the lack of requiring a license at banks allows them to be much less professional than brokers and bankers. Without question, they should be held to the same standard.

By: Richard Davis

Richard Davis — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:21:25 +0000

The licensing of LO’s, is one of the best things that has happened in our industry to date. It tells our customers that those of us who are still doing loans are legitimate and have passed all state requirements. Why should a bank LO be held to any less?

By: Marty Boswell

Marty Boswell — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:43:36 +0000

Having a mortgage licesne is necessary, It has eliminated the crud that was out there originating loans. I agree that banks appear to have lower closing costs that I thought I could compete with. I asked did you get a GFE? they said of course the bank has NO Fees, well after reviewing the 1 point originations and the 1000 lock in fee is indeed fees. rate is higher as well. We have to educate the consumer. I understand banks have different regulations, Bottom line is we are both originating a mortgage for the consumer.

By: Navie

Navie — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:33:12 +0000

Without a question- continuing education should be mandatory in order to maintain ones license.

By: Jim LaLone

Jim LaLone — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:18:39 +0000

I HOPE IT WORKS, BUT AREN’T WE BAILING OUT “BANKS” ?? I LIKE SHELBY, MOST OF THE TIME, BUT CHRIS “COUNTRYWIDE” DODD??? THAT IS REALLY PUTTING THE COYOTE IN CHARGE OF CHICKENS. BARNEY FRANK???? AND WE WONDER HOW WE GOT HERE???? THESE OUTLAWS COULDN’T RUN A LATTE STAND IF YOU GAVE THEM FREE COFFEE GROUNDS AND MILK. I AM ALL FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION. HOW ABOUT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE IDIOTS THAT WOULDN’T LET BUSH CLEAN THIS MESS UP 6 YEARS AGO. METHINKS FREDDI AND FANNIE DONATE TOO MUCH!!

By: Toby

Toby — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 04:20:43 +0000

Without a doubt, a loan officer employed by a bank is loan officer and should be held to the same standards as everyone else. If they have even more training and regulation as required by their particular bank…then good for them. Their fees and policies should be explained and outlined just as clearly as ours are required to be.

By: Luis Diaz

Luis Diaz — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:42:13 +0000

More preparation and training will reinforce to all in the industry to deliver better results to our customers.
I consider that is unfair for Broker and LO’s to be overlooked than banks. In despite that a Bank maybe more regulated than a Broker, that does not covers the performance of an individual LO representing the Bank. At the end, there is an LO seatting at the bank’s office and therefore the Bank’s LO’s should also be regulated at the same level as an LO representing a Broker.

By: Branda Luke

Branda Luke — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:43:30 +0000

Although banks may have more stringent supervision (which is debatable in my opinion) and mandatory continuing education, I still believe bank LOs should be subjected to the same rules as brokers. All too often I have to explain and dissect a bank’s advertisement of no cost loans and also explain whether or not it is in their best interest to go with me or with the bank.

By: Gail Burgess

Gail Burgess — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:00:32 +0000

Licensing in the Mortgage industry is absolutely necessary and most welcome in my opinion. I believe continuing education should be mandatory in order to maintain ones license. Realtors have had to do this for years. Our industry is open for fraud as we have seen. Background checks are completed in almost any hiring process. The resposibility we have to our client is tremendous compared to many other fields of employment. I also do not feel bankers should be exempt from licensing requirements. Anyone that took the Mortgage Fraud classes saw large banks guilty of fraud, or simply conducting
themselves unethicaly.

By: Chuck Robillard

Chuck Robillard — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:56:30 +0000

I have been a proponent of LO licensing for many years. Prior to relocating to WA I was licensed in CA. To work as a LO in CA you were required to obtain and maintain a RE salesperson or broker license. CE requirements were 45 hours for renewal every 4 years with specific required courses defined by the CA DRE. I was shocked to see that there were no requirements to operate as a LO in this state. No competency exam, no background check, no pre- licensing or CE requirements. I applaud WA for finally getting it together and the National licensing requirement just takes it to the next level. Hopefully this will allow a Broker to access the system to review past experience, complaints, or disciplinary problems for any prospective hire. If you really want to dedicate yourself to becoming a professional then you shouldn’t have any problem with the reqirements to attain that status. Basically it’s a test of your knowledge, a background check, some pre-licensing education and continuing education to maintain proficiency. Most LO’s I know are well compensated so I don’t foresee the costs and fees becoming an issue

By: Jillayne Schlicke

Jillayne Schlicke — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:08:12 +0000

Hi Jenn,

Bankers do not have the same regulations as brokers because they are two different types of entities.

Banks, especially banks regulated by the FDIC have much stronger guidelines when it comes to hiring practices as well as education and training. The standards at banks are way, way higher than working as a loan originator.

In WA State, for example, there is ZERO pre-licensing education required. The LO must simply pass a competency test. LOs will only take continuing ed that’s mandatory. At a bank, education is mandatory and ongoing. I worked at a mortgage bank.

By: jenn fick

jenn fick — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:04:51 +0000

I agree as well. Why is it that bankers feel they have should not have the same regulations? They say they are under more supervision, but is that true? I am curious, has anyone here worked in a bank – and how does it differ? What a broad definition of a loan originatior. I found it interesting that a person who prepares loan packages is by definition a loan originator. So is this saying that anyone who handles prepping loan files must be licensed?

By: Sarah Batson

Sarah Batson — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:38:55 +0000

I agree that licensing is beneficial to the consumer for a number of reasons. We are, in theory, supposed to be knowledgeable and guide the client through the process, the coursees and testing are ways to encourage us to become sufficient at that.
I absolutely disagree with the idea that the banks should be somehow exempt from fee disclosure and limits. This is isleading to the consumer who is trying to compare and often makes it looks as if we are trying to pull something shady.

By: Stephanie Grosely

Stephanie Grosely — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:59:15 +0000

I agree with Rita. Bankers should also be required to fully disclose their fees. Often, consumers think that the bank is giving them the better deal with a “no cost” loan, not able to compare apples to apples.

By: Rita Green

Rita Green — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:32:09 +0000

Requiring Lo’s to be licensed was good for consumers as I believe there were some unkowledgeable LO’s prior to this requirement. I disagree witht he Mortgage Banking Association’s stance that fee level disclosures and limits need not apply to bankers. The same disclosure requirements should apply so consumers can compare and shop for the best deal. I often find myself reviewing loan where bank rates in my opinion were too high based on the consumers credit rating and DTI.

Affordable housing coalitions are good in some cases and not in others. I think there are too many guidelines and restrictions to make them effective programs.

By: mf

mf — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:42:50 +0000

Hi Brian,

We’ll have to see what they come up with in the rules. Perhaps some people will be grandfathered in and won’t have to take the competency test. If there’s been a recent background check and a set of fingerprints already on file, that they would use them.

But doesn’t this mean data sharing between a huge number of state agencies?

Maybe the NMLS will put the burden back onto the LO to do the legwork in obtaining the grandfathered approval paperwork.

What do you think?

By: Brian Brady

Brian Brady — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:51:17 +0000

Jillayne:

Do you know if the CA DRE salesperson and/or broker’s license will be sufficient for the national LO requirements?