Comments on: Vermont Governor Signs Bill, Bans Proprietary Reverse Mortgage Products

By: MBA Proposes Model Legislation For Proprietary Reverse Mortgage Products | Reverse Mortgage Information

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:21:15 +0000

[...] like Washington and Vermont felt the same way and each passed its own bill addressing proprietary reverse mortgages, but both [...]

By: US Regulator’s Speech About Reverse Mortgages Brings Up Legitimate Concerns | Reverse Mortgage Information

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:06:09 +0000

[...] As more and more states propose reverse mortgage legislation, I’d rather be ready with a set of guidelines ready to go, instead of letting them draft their own protections which end up banning proprietary products like the legislators in Vermont. [...]

By: Donald

Donald — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:56:04 +0000

Geniuses?…I don’t believe in them anymore.

Unintended consequences…blocking or inhibiting our senior population from obtaining a reverse mortgage to meet their cash-flow needs…will only increase the senior homeowner’s foreclosure rate and thus increase the financial burden to the state.

Noble gesture, but this action will only increase the pain for the seniors and the state will be on the hook financially for many years…another example of winning the battle but losing the war.

Just my two cents…
Non-Genius

By: Interested

Interested — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:24:27 +0000

Wow…all I have to say is wow!

Who’s the short sightest genius in the Vermont legislature that said “Those proprietary reverse mortgages are the scourge of our great State. They must be banished immediately.”

Never mind the fact that a proprietary reverse probably hasn’t been originated there for a year (or more).

What happens to a Vermont senior when the reverse industry takes off and HUD takes on a much smaller role, as they have mentioned this as their long-term goal at past conferences? They would be forced to take a HECM when a proprietary may fit their personal situation much better.

Political grandstanding at its worst.

By: dduck

dduck — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:00:41 +0000

OK, all lot.

By: Angella Conrard

Angella Conrard — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:44:17 +0000

a little?

By: dduck

dduck — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:49:53 +0000

Compared to the proposed MN bill, this seems very liberal (to me) regarding cross selling. I hope the abusive pushers of annuities aren’t waiting for the day after the check arrives. At least they could have asked for warning stickers on the package and said that a consideration of tenure would be prudent for borrower and annuity seller.

No proprietary products allowed sounds a little bit like restraint of trade.

By: Angella Conrard

Angella Conrard — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:14:19 +0000

you have got to be kidding.