Comments on: California Introduces Reverse Mortgage Elder Protection Act of 2009

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:43:00 +0000

I was a CA life insurance agent for 18 years, Never mind that I was not the one selling annuities to seniors who were getting reverse mortgages — I have been punished just the same. I am a senior. I thought my income was safe being that I could sell funeral plans and final expense life insurance until the day I die. But No! I get to sit here and starve to death. I had a nice income with the insurance picking up the reverse mortgage shortfalls. When the order came, I gave up my insurance practice in lieu of the Reverse Mortgage. I needed a change but I didn’t need to change from having a modest income to rarely having an income. I think those who did the deeds are the ones who should be punished — not the entire industry. From what I see, the ones who were doing the misdeeds are still doing them and those of us who weren’t and are law abiding are the ones who get to do without.rnrnIt is getting more and more difficult to find seniors to serve in CA unless you’re able to drop 5,000 or so lead pieces every month. It is difficult to compete with those Big Boys who have “deep” pockets. I choose not to go that route. By the time they get through cutting my commission because of the leads they are paying for, there’s nothing left for me anyway.rnrnI’m left to figure out another retirement plan. I never thought the government would step in and cancel out my income. rnrnIn my opinion, with this Bill, the reverse mortgage will be over-regulated. Legislators seem to forget, if any of us originators were in it for the money, we would be doing other types of loans. From what I can see, most of us are not getting rich doing the reverse mortgage. I believe most of us are in this business because we love helping.rnrnLooks like I’m going to have to jump out of the reverse mortgage business and back into the insurance business if I expect to keep eating. Not to mention that everytime the government changes their rules, business slows down for a while. rnrnI wish someone would legislate to protect originators for a change, making it easier for us to bring actions against those who harm us. I also wish the government would find another way of punishing violators rather than cancelling out those of us who are honorable.rnrn

By: disgustedincalifornia

disgustedincalifornia — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:43:03 +0000

I was a CA life insurance agent for 18 years, Never mind that I was not the one selling annuities to seniors who were getting reverse mortgages -- I have been punished just the same. I am a senior. I thought my income was safe being that I could sell funeral plans and final expense life insurance until the day I die. But No! I get to sit here and starve to death. I had a nice income with the insurance picking up the reverse mortgage shortfalls. When the order came, I gave up my insurance practice in lieu of the Reverse Mortgage. I needed a change but I didn't need to change from having a modest income to rarely having an income. I think those who did the deeds are the ones who should be punished -- not the entire industry. From what I see, the ones who were doing the misdeeds are still doing them and those of us who weren't and are law abiding are the ones who get to do without.

It is getting more and more difficult to find seniors to serve in CA unless you're able to drop 5,000 or so lead pieces every month. It is difficult to compete with those Big Boys who have "deep" pockets. I choose not to go that route. By the time they get through cutting my commission because of the leads they are paying for, there's nothing left for me anyway.

I'm left to figure out another retirement plan. I never thought the government would step in and cancel out my income.

In my opinion, with this Bill, the reverse mortgage will be over-regulated. Legislators seem to forget, if any of us originators were in it for the money, we would be doing other types of loans. From what I can see, most of us are not getting rich doing the reverse mortgage. I believe most of us are in this business because we love helping.

Looks like I'm going to have to jump out of the reverse mortgage business and back into the insurance business if I expect to keep eating. Not to mention that everytime the government changes their rules, business slows down for a while.

I wish someone would legislate to protect originators for a change, making it easier for us to bring actions against those who harm us. I also wish the government would find another way of punishing violators rather than cancelling out those of us who are honorable.

By: California Reverse Mortgage Bill Amended, New Hearing Scheduled | Reverse Mortgage Information

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:05:27 +0000

[...] bill was introduced by California Assembly member Mike Feuer earlier this year and according to latest assembly committee analysis AB 329 [...]

By: John Brodey

John Brodey — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:36:41 +0000

Obviously, if there had been reasonable oversight and regulation on the traditional mortgage side, Rep. Feuer and his co-sponsors would never have had the bully pulpit from which to propose such absurdly detailed reforms.
No question seniors need to be protected, they aren’t all at the same level of sophistication when it comes to complex transactions. But steps to prohibit originators from marketing/selling any other financial products or receiving compensation from such sales by third parties should cover most of the abuse.
I applaud Jim Veale for his actions in having real conversations with staffmembers. We should all be watching for the results of today’s hearing. If the Bill remains in tact, it is then up to us to lobby for its defeat. A professional approach and a well thought out message are key.

By: New State Bills Surrounding Proprietary Reverse Mortgages | Reverse Mortgage Observer

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:47:14 +0000

[...] The California bill aims to protect seniors from being lied to and/or misinformed, including a lot of regulations surrounding impartial HUD counseling. Some highlights of the California Reverse Mortgage Elder Protection Act of 2009 include requiring lenders to provide prospective borrowers with a list of all approved HUD counselors in the state, requiring lenders to disclose any business relationships or potential conflicts of interest with the counseling agency to the prospective borrower, and allowing the borrower to cancel the reverse mortgage for any reason within the first 30 days. This bill apparently addresses the needs of the state, where seniors have been found to be misinformed or misled regarding reverse mortgages more often than in some of their neighbors. [...]

By: ScaredOfPoliticians

ScaredOfPoliticians — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:17:14 +0000

Our lawmaker’s are up to it again.

In the effort to “protect seniors” many state lawmakers are drafting state legislation further regulating the sale of reverse mortgages. Well, it seems there is a domino effect here. One state drafts a bill and another copies it and brands it as their own. Lawmaker’s want their constituents to see them as advocates for the consumer and are eager to draft legislation in their name.

Don’t get me wrong. We need to protect the senior but are lawmaker’s going to improve the situation or make things worse? In many cases I’ve found lawmakers (politicians) are the masters of the law of “unintended consequences”. Remember last summer when a new law in Washington State shut down the sale of reverse mortgages by most brokers? Oops! Sorry.

My question is, what banks would want to fund loans under these conditions when the money could be lost to a borrower if they cancel and then the bank must collect from the borrower? And is it fair to impose subjective standards of fiduciary responsibility opening up originators to unmerited lawsuits? The bill exposes the originator if “other options” were available besides the reverse mortgage.

If passed in it’s current form this bill could very well eliminate reverse mortgages in California for seniors who need them the most.

By: Linda Lewis

Linda Lewis — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 06:16:31 +0000

Why not protect seniors against predatory home loans and HELOCs that have left seniors upside down and with insufficient equity to get a Reverse Mortgage?

By: mrreverse

mrreverse — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:25:07 +0000

To Critic:

I know we have reverse mortgage foreclosuer my point was how many was for turning over properties in liu,of foreclosure because they have borrowed cash and can not sell the home and receive enough to pay back the money. The are moving some where else. but keep the excess momey My questioing is also how many properties were foreclosed be cause they could not make payments or used up the income coming to them.