As expected a few in our industry got overly excited and gushed with pure glee that the brilliant of the MBA were now on our side. Running to their side, at least one very experienced originator had only the highest praise to "sing" of this "august" group.

It is not that I believe that the group members are not experts in their own fields; they are. Several are even experts in our field but not nearly enough.

Going to the referenced webpage above only reinforces the opinion that the MBA "brilliant" have failed to grasp what reverse mortgages actually are. The page takes some of the worst of the industry's own myths and perpetuates them. Such silly catch phrases as "turning a portion of the equity ... into income" dot the webpage.

Once again it seems seniors must own their home "outright" or have "a low mortgage balance...." I guess being capable of providing proceeds exceeding 80% LTV on a $400,000 appraised value home to a 90 year old senior STILL requires a home with a “low balance mortgage”. What do they mean by owning a home “outright”? Have they never heard of a HECM for a life tenant? All this type of information contributes to are seniors who do not believe we can help.

The webpage reflects information from a bygone era. Does anyone really believe that the thinking on this committee as a whole is much more advanced? Sure it is credible that this group will eventually exceed the level of understanding this webpage reflects -- but WHEN? In between we will have to endure another well meaning but misguided group interfering with the progress we could be otherwise making.

Then there is the nonsensical referral to the AARP website. Has AARP really brought any insight into the reverse mortgage industry or more importantly to seniors in the last decade? Is there presence more of a hurt or a help? When is the last time any experienced originator gave a senior a copy of “Home Made Money” unless it was one in a language that the senior was more familiar with than English.

To say the least, after all the gushing and all of the pitches, I expected far more.

While I will agree that the website isn't flashy at this point in time, I disagree with some other points.

A website is intended to give a high level overview of a topic. What percentage of loans have you seen with a 90 year old borrower? If the focus was on the older borrower and larger loan amount, you would complain that they are out of touch.

I haven't seen the list of names on the committee, yet my assumption is that it would comprise of EXPERIENCED members of the reverse mortgage industry. Let's wait and see the committee list before we jump off the bandwagon.

It is a positive step for the MBA to make an initiative to bring more information and try to help the industry. An effort to help is better than no effort at all.

The reverse mortgage industry has long been in need of adult leadership and, more importantly, a strong voice in Washington. MBA provides both. The reverse mortgage-only organization doesn't seem to be able to influence legislation or its implementation as can the MBA. I support the MBA as a strong advocate for the mortgage industry, including the reverse mortgage segment.

I support the MBA's efforts, as well as those of NRMLA. And although I authored our own consumer guide, I often provide AARP's consumer guide to prospective customers.

“Common sense”,

It is odd you mention “flash”. Apparently you are looking for it but the MBA webpage looks fine to me. What “high level” view is it that the author presented -- that unless you own your property “outright”, get mortgage help from some other sector in the industry?

Let’s focus on the 90 year old. Isn’t that at least factually correct? What percentage of customers do you have that had no existing debt on their home when they got their RM from you? Is the total even 5% of your business? Most of mine have significant debt. The webpage is out of touch because it lacks “common sense”! Are you so afraid of the MBA that you would not criticize the dribble foisted on that webpage?

“Common sense”, I have learned a lot about others’ assumptions. They generally make a donkey of that person and when I swallow that line, a donkey out of me.

Here is a true difference of nothing more than opinion. You call the step of the MBA positive; I call it neutral. Until it is clear what the MBA is promoting, I think we as an industry would be better off withholding any wholehearted support. Although much, no doubt, to your surprise, I plan limited participation in the MBA while contributing much to NRMLA. What is it that you are doing for either one?

“RM since 1990”,

What does that name even mean? It looks like “reverse mortgage since 1990”. I did not write it; I am simply trying to understand it. With all due respect, time in an industry does not make one a leader nor does it, more importantly, make one wise.

To cite the leadership of the RM industry as not reflecting “adult leadership” is not only insulting but is outright silly. When the majority of the membership of the MBA was involved with creating, fostering, promoting, and protecting the subprime, Alt-A, and other precarious products, how was it that its leadership was providing “adult leadership”? Please, please tone it down.

Please describe how the MBA has supported the reverse mortgage industry to date at all? Were they at the HERA hearings supporting us? Did they even raise a little finger to help us with the AARP assault on our origination fees? That was but a few short months ago. Please describe what they have done to date to merit your support or better yet, mine. I am “all ears”.

Mr. Jackson,

As usual it is a pleasure to address you. I do not know what the MBA has done for the RM industry to merit your support but you have every right to support their efforts. I just would like to know what they have done to gain your support.

When you write “our own” to what are you referring?

I have never been a fan of the content of Home Made Money. I became even a lesser fan of the author when he went to Congress this year to convince them that our fees should be 1% of the Principal Limit. The tone of the booklet has always seemed to question the value and integrity of originators, while his disgusting advocacy of minimizing our origination fees so substantially only furthers that impression. I understand that he still wants to find a way to lower our fees.

I will continue to support both the MBA and NRMLA. I look at this as the first step from the MBA in trying to help their "constituents". I hope to see their efforts and resource center progress with time.

As for my efforts, I answer the call each time I am needed. Whether it be from the Associations above or HUD, I am always glad to help. Even though I am a mere donkey.