Mortgage Professional America forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Banks enticing originators through fear

Notify me of new replies via email
Mortgage Professional America | 06 Aug 2013, 04:35 AM Agree 0
An industry leader has expressed concern that originators have not been given a level playing field, with rules governing bank mortgage officers differing from those governing non-bank originators
  • Ron Aguilar | | 06 Aug 2013, 09:04 AM Agree 0
    "If you can't beat em, join em" What do you think of that? I will change my life before I do that...
  • Frank Mancino | | 06 Aug 2013, 09:17 AM Agree 0
    Mr Koss hits the nail right on the head. At some point, we all need to play by the same regulations and rules at the very least. Whom can this situation be addressed to to make our point?
  • Jaxin | | 06 Aug 2013, 09:19 AM Agree 0
    Bank LO's are required to do mandatory yearly training for compliance and other relative regulations. Non Bank's dont have the joy of being examined by the FDIC, OCC or other applicable regulator in the past. Our bank gets examined and scruitinized by the FDIC and the State every year. So if we dont have our policies, procedures and training documented and practiced, we as a bank are scolded. I have worked for non bank lenders in my career. Just becuase non bank LO's have to take a simple test (that I have taken and passed) does not create an un level playing field. I am glad to see theh CFPB is starting to clamp down on non bank lenders to make sure they are truly on the same playing field as bank's when it comes to regulation and compliance
  • MAUREEN O'BRIEN | | 06 Aug 2013, 09:28 AM Agree 0
    I absolutely agree with you. I have been tempted myself to work for a bank, just because of the expense and the testing. hope you get some success.
  • Mr. Butts | | 06 Aug 2013, 09:36 AM Agree 0
    Banks are assholes anyways.
  • Ken | | 06 Aug 2013, 09:39 AM Agree 0
    Obama wants to get rid of non-bank originators. That should be clear to even the most casual observer. Banks also have lower disclosure standards than independents.
  • Mike H | | 06 Aug 2013, 09:49 AM Agree 0
    The big banks can hire a criminal too.... but a non-bank is held to a higher standard... doesn't that make you feel good with the power of government and too big to fail coming from the white house and congress. It's time to separate the good old boys from power! Break up the too big to fail, and vote for the conservative party. The Elephants and the Asses don't represent the needs of the people. Vote for the conservative party next election. You'll be glad you did!
  • Jim in Connecticut | | 06 Aug 2013, 09:55 AM Agree 0
    Why should originators who work for certain kinds of banks be held to a lower standard than the rest of the industry? We help people make decisions that have a huge impact on their family's financial health, goals, aspirations, etc. That is a moral, as well as professional, obligation. We absolutely SHOULD be licensed, at an absolute minimum. As stockbrokers, financial advisors and insurance agents have been licensed for many decades no matter what kind of entity they worked for. I just can't see how it's in the public interest for people who can't pass a licensing test or background investigation to be allowed to work with borrowers.
  • Greg Cook | | 06 Aug 2013, 09:55 AM Agree 0
    Double standard in the mortgage business? Never heard that before! (Sorry, didn't know what font to use for sarcasm)
  • Mila | | 06 Aug 2013, 10:02 AM Agree 0
    Many Bank originators are NOT originators. They are app takers at some banks. They have no knowledge of mortgages and how to educate borrowers. If anything they need more testing and education than anyone. It is hurting consumers to not have all originators bank or non bank be educated and tested. Borrowers are being deceived. They do not know that these bank originators have no idea what they are doing.
  • Gordon Schlicke | | 06 Aug 2013, 10:12 AM Agree 0
    I was hoping some lawyer would pick up on this. We have standing in the courts; secondly the exemption was given to an industry that spends millions in Wash. DC. We don't have that kind of money. Third, the government has treated one group more favorably than another. There are plenty of examples of this in case law.
  • VP Compliance Officer | | 06 Aug 2013, 10:30 AM Agree 0
    Bank employees are required to take annual training classes for regulations and specific job training as well. They may not test for this license but are required to have annual training on these topics per a regulatory requirement.
  • H.G. Rudh | | 06 Aug 2013, 10:34 AM Agree 0
    It is also unfair to the consumer.Lis. mortgage officers can provide a wider choice!Admin of banks dont even want theit mortgage officers to know that a Vet can do a streamline on his or her mortgage !! They just say "the bank rate is" and shove them into a conventional! Same with FHA. Bank greed and lies by omission must stop.
  • Ellen | | 06 Aug 2013, 10:46 AM Agree 0
    Having worked for banks as an originator for years, then opening my own mortgage broker co, this is clearing discriminating again brokers and their originators. The rules & regs that brokers have had to follow make for a smarter, more compliant mortgage officers. But the banks hire and segment information thereby having a less educated workforce. That is the way they want it. I closed by office 2 years ago, found it daunting and not profitable anymore to originate mortgages. 2 Many hours dealing with repeatedly doing the same tasks for the lenders, dealing with out-sourced people who didn't have a clue. What used to take me a max of 18-22 hrs to process and close now takes double or even triple time. the business has turned into a nightmare. I has driven a lot of good people out, having difficulty finding another position, especially if you are over 50 yrs old. The govt legislation has changed the face of the business, giving banks all power. Sad commentary.
  • J.D. | | 06 Aug 2013, 10:53 AM Agree 0
    But the reality is no one in the public or government gives a damn about L.O.'s. We're everybody's scapegoat and we are on our own in this thing.
  • J.D. | | 06 Aug 2013, 10:56 AM Agree 0
    Yes but the reality is that no one in government or the public gives a hoot about mortgage officers. We are on our own and are also every politicians favorite fall guy.
  • Jim Barry | | 06 Aug 2013, 11:04 AM Agree 0
    The whole reason banks expempted their LO's from Licensing is so they don't have to pay them competitively. If Chase had a team of 10 LO's that were recruited by HSBC for better pay, Chase would need to recruit 10 new LO's . If these Lo's required a license they would have to entice these licensed professionals with better compensation. In today's rules , they can grab their stack of resumes, hire 10 new people, put the through a 5 day training and have them on the floor selling in no time. It would benefit LO's everywhere if all were required to have a license. Having a license makes you a commodity that banks will need to pay you for.
  • Drue Jordan | | 06 Aug 2013, 12:00 PM Agree 0
    Having been a senior executive in both arenas, I agree that there should be apple-to-apple testing and qualification for mortgage originators.

    Now, someone needs to address the discrepancies that exist in pricing, disclosures and commissions. There's another uneven playing field.
  • Jason Berman | | 06 Aug 2013, 12:47 PM Agree 0
    Why is this a story? It's been this way for years. If you can't turn the fact that your banker colleagues haven't passed a test or taken hours of accredited education into a selling advantage maybe you should be selling 'something else'. Make sure your consumers understand the difference. It matters.
  • Jim in CT | | 06 Aug 2013, 02:58 PM Agree 0
    We are regulated and inspected as much as anyone, Jaxin. Your old non-bank Wild West is dead & buried & good riddance. What we don't have that banks have are paid-for poodles in Washington. (and a track record of being sued by regulators - whoops! another big bank sued again today!) Your LOs need to be tested and licensed like everyone else - period.
  • Jillayne Schlicke | | 06 Aug 2013, 04:24 PM Agree 0
    I am shocked I tell you, shocked! Using fear to motivate people to take action? I'm sure no one in this industry at a mortgage brokerage or non-bank lending institution has ever done that before. (Apply now before rates go up! Rates have never been lower!)

    I guess fear doesn't feel good when it's used against you. Banks, non-bank lenders, and mortgage brokers are all fantastic places to work, all with their pros and cons.

    The Dodd-Frank Act DOES require depository bank LOs to take equivalent education before and after their license. ^Hopefully Koss will learn that this year in his required CE class along with the broker and non-bank lender LOs---unless Executive Vice Presidents aren't required to take a CE class.
  • Mike H | | 06 Aug 2013, 08:15 PM Agree 0
    I have seen "bank" "institutional" training and it is often a room of people which are half asleep, and a party to celebrate afterwards. Supervised testing with positive ID, and a professional proctor would be devastating...

    I had a borrower tell me of a national bank which took $399 from a debit card before providing disclosures ... in fact the disclosures are two weeks late... The application on the daughter is pending. What penalty does a depository have for such violations? Who looks at these practices? and how many people are performing these reviews? I remember when respa enforcement had a team of less than 10 people to supervise the north east under David Williamson... tell me about understaffed... and toothless dogs...
  • Dave -NJ | | 07 Aug 2013, 09:21 AM Agree 0
    I just started working for a large bank in the East, And I must say I thought I was educated in this business. I passed the Natioal NMLS exaim but I still had to take over 100 hours of online bank classes with about 35 courses of which I had to get a 90 or better to pass so I could write mortgages here. I worked alone for almost 3 weeks straight. I think that banks in general take education very seriously.
  • Steve F. | | 07 Aug 2013, 12:58 PM Agree 0
    And which banks are hiring outside LO's and giving the option of originating nationwide without state specific licenses? I'm looking for an opportunity like that for my company. We have 22 mortgage officers all doing commercial mortgages but want to do resi too.
  • Mike H | | 07 Aug 2013, 06:42 PM Agree 0
    I just read the response from Dave in NJ- Your answer doesn't do my case any justice... The big banks hire quality, quality, quality to get quantity, quantity, quantity... Did I spell that right?
  • Bayview Mortgage Inc. | | 09 Aug 2013, 12:41 AM Agree 0
    The next two years are going to be an unloading period for all those Bank originators. Everyone is moving to a totally automated system. One originator will be signing on 10x's the amount of mortgages. They will talk to the borrower a few times lock the mortgage, then hand the mortgage off to the processor and underwriter.
  • S Katz | | 12 Aug 2013, 09:43 AM Agree 0
    Fact is I know 4 LO's that failed the SAFE test, they are all working for big banks now. I do believe that Banks are serious about education, but the system we have causes adverse selection. 100% of the LO's I interview have the ability to pass the licensing test and have done so. I would estimate that only 30% of the LO applicants at a Bank would pass.
  • Mike H | | 12 Aug 2013, 09:05 PM Agree 0
    I had a borrower tell me Chase does not require title insurance on a refinance which paid off a chase 1st and a td bank second.

    Chase also told her there would be no closing costs. This is after she applied with me and then asked chase if they would allow an assignment.

    She then applied with chase, and the disclosures came back reflecting the need for title insurance, and other fees (like recording fees) which were less than the county clerk posted on their website. Why do they have the ability to mislead with impunity?

    They also refused to assign the mortgage to anyone else after they declined the borrower for a modification. They now claim that they will do the refinance with no problem.

    I am confused... Why does this behavior serve the borrowers needs better..., shouldn't they have helped the borrower refinance when they were considering a modification. Initially their rates were higher than I could have ever charged as a broker, but now that they could loose the servicing, they awaken...

    Why are they preferred by Obama and his cohorts, rather than projected as opportunistic pirates.

    Is it because they have a stronger voice at the top? I think a new study needs to be published by one of the newspapers with comparison of actual mortgage cost to the consumer... including the premium pricing, servicing revenue, and securitization revenue
    generated on depository (bank) and non-bank originators. All revenue should be disclosed all of the time... or none at all. At the end of the day ... is it not the total points and fees, not revenue that is important? Why is a non bank's revenue evaluated, and a banks total cost to the consumer regardless of revenue a fair comparison.

    Shouldn't disclosure misrepresentations also have an enforcement consequence?

    Let me know... How does the bank slash prices and costs when they are loosing a mortgage, and gouge and not perform when they feel they have a borrower that is at their mercy.

    As a broker I must pay my originators the same way on every mortgage, and maintain structured pricing.

    I must also give fair disclosures...
Post a reply