Comments on: National Loan Originator Licensing coming….For ALL LOs

By: Chris Madden

Chris Madden — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:37:46 +0000

Im all for personal developement and National Licensing was the best thing that could’ve happen to this industry. It weeded out a large percentage of unethical LO’s, that were in it for a fast buck. Just think of the confidence and trust this will bring to the industry. Anyone who originates loans should have to meet these requirments, although I hope it doesn’t become to costly. We are in a recession.

By: William Platts

William Platts — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:15:34 +0000

My feelings are the more demanding the requirements to enter into this profession the better off we all are. Wouldn’t bother me if they required a higher education degree(ba/bs) coupled with a way to test around a college degree requirement provided you have four years experience and can pass a very rigorous exam developed by our own industry(one that has practical significance). If we don’t want all the riff/raff jumping on the ship during the boom periods taking $$ from those that are serious LO’s we have to actively engage in bringing up the entrance requirements to board the ship. I worked in the real estate sector 25 years ago, what a free for all it was, 6 cocktail lunches and worse. It appears that industry has made considerable advances in its practices and ethics in Washington. I believe we should have much more stringent requirements than the real estate side, we handle the money side, we should have demanding hoops to get through to do what we do!

By: jason brock

jason brock — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:54:06 +0000

Ha… what a funny topic. I love the new tougher standards being put in place an enforced. Yes, for people like me who have a little thing I like to call Integrity it is a slight inconvenience to have to take these classes but over all it is great! An educated mortgage professional is an even more competitive professional. Why this industry allowed so many scrupulous people into it with so little training I will never know. I have employed many, many people over the life of my career and never one that I did not trust. The way I see it is my competition has been cut my 80% or more. Those scum bags that were taking advantage of people can now go back to what they should have been doing in the first place… FLIP MY BURGER you uneducated succubus…

By: Laurie Morgan

Laurie Morgan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:28:16 +0000

It did seem interesting to me to see all the folks leaving the Broker “industry” to work for banks when we were first required to become licensed.

I think it has made me a more knowledgeable loan officer, and gives a pathway to ensure that all lending is held to the same standard. I have always been concerned when I walk into my bank or credit union to see the mortgage specialist. Not knowing what kind of traning they have received.

Open and level playing field and an opportunity to continually be educated. Seems like a good plan to me.

By: Beth Damery

Beth Damery — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:23:13 +0000

I agree with licensing. It has given me the opportunity to achieve a higher level of professionalism for my clients.

Across the board licensing for all originators of mortgage loans rates a 10 on my scale.

By: Robert Paterson

Robert Paterson — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:01:56 +0000

It’s about time that all LO’s were licensed. I’m glad to here that they also included banks credit unions and consumer loan lenders. LO’s deal with most peoples largest financial asset their house.LO’s also deal with a lot of personal information that can be very sensitive. Hopefully this help keep people out of the industry that are just trying to make a fast buck.As for continuing education you can always learn something to help you be better at what you do although I will admit it can be time consuming. Especially if you are involved in more than one field and more than one state.

By: Sharon Eva

Sharon Eva — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:53:15 +0000

This is great for our industry. Like I said in my previous comment, LO’s should have to go through a bachelor’s degree
program and it should be implemented in our universities. Hopefully
this will prevent a crisis that we are in today and banking will steer away from crooked.

By: Chrissie Durrin-wheatman

Chrissie Durrin-wheatman — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:55:30 +0000

I believe this to be a good thing!!I was starting to wonder why some had to have there license and other didn’t. And if the duties are performed the same they should have to be on the same pages as everyone else of what is ethical and what is required of them.But I like the comment Michael Belisle said “the fee’s and cost do not need to be so high. I feel its a way of (states)to make Money!!and again Greed comes too mind all over again

By: Vladislav Baydovskiy

Vladislav Baydovskiy — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:08:10 +0000

I think natioanl licesing of LO is a good thing. When a licesing started here in WA it washed out lots of people who had no idea what it takes to be a LO. They got in into the business becouse it was “easy” money, fast. Alot of them are out, for the benefit of consumer.

By: FHA Mortgage Insurance Fund Down 40% | Rain City Guide

FHA Mortgage Insurance Fund Down 40% | Rain City Guide — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:30:07 +0000

[...] will gradually change with the implementation of the National SAFE Mortgage Licensing [...]

By: Mila Usher

Mila Usher — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:49:26 +0000

I agree this is good for the idustry. For the companies that train their LO’s well the test won’t be a big deal. It will just add to their integrity. For the less trained it will help with their jobs and ability to do whats right. I think we should all be held accountable.

By: Rand Wood

Rand Wood — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 07:58:54 +0000

Let’s agree to take the necc. steps to become the pro’s our borrowers would like us to be. Bring on testing and licensing, the unfortunate side effect is additional fees. A self regulating industry might help to keep this a little more under control.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:53:49 +0000

I am all for all LO’s being licensed. Anyone who handles other peoples finances should be educated and licensed. It use to be that anyone who who didn’t have a higher education could just step into the mortgage business. I believe that we are now getting in the era of being part of that higher education bracket. I believe that the banks, etc. should also have to abide by the same licensing and education requirements at mortgage lending does.

By: John Sarausad

John Sarausad — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:01:31 +0000

I feel that this will help stop the unethical lending from National Chartered banks and the LOs that have not been careful about what they do because they are used to being licensed under the “bank” and are thrown into the field with not much knowledge and training. This will help the preparation of future loan officers and current loan officers at all parts of retail and wholesale and it will set a high standard for our industry. I believe that this change will highly impact the market and it will help prevent predatory lending.

By: John Sarausad

John Sarausad — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:43:23 +0000

This is a good requirement to help increase the level of service we give to our clients and to weed out the LOs who aren’t willing to go the extra mile for our clients.

By: Kent Kiser

Kent Kiser — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:43:27 +0000

This would be oan outstanding precedent to have everyone involved in the process licensed. The regulatory process would absolutely weed out the types we have been reading about for too long.
Bankers as wwell as brokers have a need for continued education and accountability just as the rest of us.
Hopefully the fees and costs involved in implementing a larger scale licesing arm won’t run the little guys out of business.

By: Dennis Tyler

Dennis Tyler — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:16:00 +0000

Standards are definately needed and welcome. Like others above, all loan originators must be licensed, not just those working for brokers. It is a shame that anybody could become a lender in the past. It has allowed dishonestly and a huge lack of professionalism. The great concern is will the pendelum swing too far, and become unreasonable. In addition, will government hands see licensing as another means of generating revenue instead of creating professionalism and protecting the consumer.

By: Carmen Ziranda

Carmen Ziranda — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:08:11 +0000

I’m really happy that the bankers and everyone else is required to pass this licensing test. This is going to be a good consumer protection. Not everyone should be doing loans, not everyone has the same ethics and moral standars that are needed for this job. I think that this was long overdue. I’m 100% behind it.

By: Brian Paine

Brian Paine — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:27:03 +0000

Accredidation of any sort is no measure of ethics nor is any degree from any accredited institution any badge of honor. Just because someone holds a certificate of accomplishment in the mortgage industry in no way binds them to ethical practices. So how are ethics measured and to what standard are professionals going to be held to protect these consumers? A test is just a test of regurgitated material and is not a reflection of a person’s moral duty or abilities to provide outstanding service in any field.

Furthermore, what are the new requirements by lenders and to their “investors” who created the guidelines who’ve led to this mess?! Are they to be held to new standards of performance? Where are those reforms?

By: Roger Ingalls

Roger Ingalls — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:05:24 +0000

Totally on-board with national licensing.

Our current fix is not entirely the fault of the criminal elements that populated this industry, but it certainly was made MUCH worse by it. National licensing should greatly discourage criminals, and would be criminals from becoming LO’s

Ironically, the first state in the nation to adopt licensing was Florida, and yet, because the state government failed to even vaguely enforce their own rules, thousands of criminals were allowed to originate loans. Nice job you’re doing there, Jebbie…

http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/mortgage/brokers.html

Read it, it is truly frightening.

By: Jim Haechler

Jim Haechler — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:55:55 +0000

National licensing is long overdue. Continuing education and tougher requirements will help clean up the mortgage industry. Consumers need to know where licensed and have had a criminal background check. They need to be able to trust us. And know where out for their best interest. Not ours.

By: Scott E

Scott E — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:14:55 +0000

The licensing requirements should have been put in place for all LO’s, Brokers, etc., rather it has been a reactive move by regulators and government. I think continuing education should be increased and background checks rigorous.

By: David Nelson

David Nelson — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:06:31 +0000

I’m all for tougher requirements. It keeps the lazy fast buck artists out our house!!

By: Sam tabatabai

Sam tabatabai — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:28:00 +0000

excellent Idea. I think we have to do this and the penalties for miscuduct should be more severe so those who want to do one loan a month and take home $10000 think twice. Nowhere in the world could you sell loans without a lisence, working two jobs or three jobs
and and having no continuing education to give you the tools to protect your clients and do what is best for them.

By: Mark Middlebrooks

Mark Middlebrooks — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 03:06:10 +0000

I am completely behind the licensing as well as the continuing education for LOs. Among many other positives of the licensing and training, one is that some people needed that extra little shove out of the industry. I’m sure that there are some LOs out there that will let their licenses lapse going into 09′ who may have otherwise still been soliciting business.