This scrutiny will actually be good for our industry, as long as those doing the scrutiny make the effort to actually learn about and understand Reverse Mortgages before blasting away with ill conceived and politically motivated regulations.

Good day,

As far as what the Federal Trade Commission article goes, it is just another form of bashing the Reverse Mortgage industry into the ground. The publicity we have been getting is so unjustifiable. A good share of it are by the people who do not understand what a Reverse Mortgage is all about.

No one will deny the need for scrutiny and controls over our industry. As one person said, it is needed. My complaint all along has been, why do we have to have so many new agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, all the various states and you name it getting involved. Why are new regulations and guide lines needed? Why can't HUD enforce the laws, guidelines and regulations governing Reverse Mortgages. If people within HUD are not qualified, then get rid of them and get qualified people to take their place.

A Reverse Mortgage was always presented as a highly regulated program by HUD. I was always proud to say that, I was proud to be in the Reverse Mortgage industry helping seniors. I am now starting to feel like this evil person lurking in the alley way. This is unfair, I know like many of you reading my comment, that I have done a very good job for my clients. Each person in the Reverse Mortgage Division that I head up for AAXA lives by this code. What about us, what about all the good originators and companies in our industry that puts our seniors before anything else. Why don't we hear about us that are the good guy's. Their are many more of us than the bad guy's.

I don't see the news media or any of the congressional committees calling on us, the professionals, to present the facts. They don't call on us to present to the legislators and the Federal Trade Commission what is really needed to solve the problems.

The Reverse Mortgage industry as we once new it is deteriorating. It is deteriorating because to many people and agencies are changing it from what it was. Live pricing by FNMA was a mistake, their were other ways to accomplish solving the market problems. The move by FNMA put the Reverse Mortgage industry close to what the forward industry is. Add that to all the panic by the agencies, the states and those committee chairman that don't know a hill of beans about Reverse Mortgages, you wind up with? One of the best programs that seniors have to help them live a better life during retirement being destroyed!

I am very saddened by all that I have seen take place, especially over the past year. It is hard enough to do the right thing for our seniors with all the bad publicity against us. It is starting to be very difficult to make a fair income any more. Do they want to drive the good guy's out of the Reverse Mortgage industry and leave it to the bad guy's? I said my piece, I now say, Have a very safe and Happy Fourth of July weekend..

Best regards,

John A. Smaldone

Let’s not drive reason from this thread. If we are to play on a level playing field, a referee like the FTC is needed. It was good to see that the FTC has started cleaning its own website. That is a great first step. “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”

In another article the FTC was promoting the idea of using counselors to monitor advertising. While the idea may seem like a good idea, is it really? Don’t counselors have enough to do already? It seems counselors should not be distracted from doing their principal duty per the recent statements of GAO. Even though some have disagreed with this viewpoint, why should counselors be the point man for bad advertising? If the prospect were in a face-to-face counseling meeting where the advertising was requested in advance, perhaps that idea might work. But with over-the-phone counseling, does anyone really have much confidence in this kind of reporting mechanism? Who will be providing the misleading advertising training for counselors? Then we will need someone to monitor the effectiveness of counselors in this role and on and on it will go.

I am for at least a modicum of first hand advertising review by the FTC over having counselors assigned this new duty. The FTC reviews do not need to be extensive; they just need to exist. If the FTC were really serious about this matter they would be doing the work first hand not delegating it to those who have absolutely no accountability to them, like counselors.

While I support FTC oversight on RM advertising, it is hard to support their idea of using counselors.

An RM is just a way for money lenders to ripoff home owners. It will never be a good idea to give your house away for half the market price. Only in ameriKa!