The fees seem steep. Are there discounts for NRMLA members versus nonmembers? With SAFE licensing what is the need of a background for such licensees? What about renewal fees?

What a bunch of Peter (…)(……)Bell CRAP. The first person to pay the FINE FOR WORKING should be Peter (…)(……)Bell himself. These guys have NO clue! Quit hiring young people who have no real interest in Seniors other than
their money might be a better start.

This in addition to the SAFE Act licensing? Really?

The CRMP would have some value if it was adopted by several states as a model of educational requirements for originating HECMs. That never did or would happen. The government wants their money.

At a time when originators are struggling to stay afloat financially and already have to pay out to meet SAFE act requirements the CRMP will remain alphabet soup behind someone's name.

Make the fee resonable & I might be interested! How many times do we need a background check–already been checked & fingerprinted for a mere $300 for NMLS! Another way to get “fees” out of us.
If you need to flash a designation in front of a senior in order for them to do business with you–you have other major creditability issues!

What’s next?

One of the longer-winded posters on this blog, who is also very active with NRMLA and has a CPA designation after his name, has been pushing for this. I never saw the purpose of it. I think it would be more useful if handled through NMLS as a license.

I just had a thought: This sounds like pretty easy money. Maybe I'll start my own certification program; I'll call it CRUM–Certified Reverse Ultimate Mortgage designation. $5.00 Application Fee; Client Testimonial Letters in place of a Background Check: $2.00 readership Fee; 10 Question Exam (Sample question–Do you have the wherewithall to point out to a Senior where to sign on a “highlited” line on the Application?) $18.00 There should be no failures since all questions require a yes or no answer. Let's see now: $25.00 times 1,000 lucky sales people equals $25,000; why that's
about 10% of what some of these Company Bigwigs make while never having to dirty their fingernails actually meeting Seniors in their homes. Probably
10% or or less what Peter (…)(……)Bell makes every year off the backs of Seniors via Loan Originators. Such a deal!

There are a lot of P.O. people on this blog. I personally think the issue it the fee. $1000 seems excessive to say the least especially at a time when people are broke. I would have guessed maybe $199 and the ability to pass the test. I personally would like to have the designation, but it is just too expensive so I will do without.

My feeling is the same as comment #1. There will be few people who have the knowledge to pass the exam and the desire to hand NRMLA $1,000

Again, I'm reserving judgement until I see the quality of their curriculum and materials. I would gladly pay $1000 for outstanding and current materials, not available elsewhere, that would truly enhance my ability to serve my senior clients as well as better educate my reluctant referral partners in financial services. Witness the College for Financial Planning and their CFP designation. If it turns out to be 'pay for the paper,' then shame on NRMLA.

Wow, this subject raised some attention. What surprises me more is the semi-consensus that P.Bell and NRMLA are pretty self-serving. I guess Mr.Bell has learned from his buddy Barney Frank and expects us to just bend over and take it. The bottom line is we can just get on with life and business and vote with our wallets.

It is your comment that dashes the hopes of those who want to find better materials and more education through the program. BUT you are exactly right.

I have heard from members of the original groups which considered this designation that there were serious discussions about lots of education requirements outside the meetings for NRMLA conventions and regional meetings. It really sounded interesting in those days. Then along came the ICC and the education requirements flew right out ye olde window.

I wonder if the larger lenders thought that they would have to pay for some or all of the CRMP and overruled the original groups including Peter Bell. The way I heard it, Peter Bell wanted a high quality designation. Well, members of the ICC — this AIN'T it.

mama1945,

I am active in NRMLA, have pushed for the designation for several years, and by many accounts am “longer-winded.”

One reason for promoting the NRMLA credential went away earlier this year with the implementation of the SAFE licensing rules. Since early 2006 It was my hope that the exam developed by NRMLA for its designation program, would be adopted by the states as the exam for licensing reverse mortgage originators. If you are advocating that the NMLS provide a separate license for reverse mortgage origination using the NRMLA exam, I agree.

There were two other significant reasons for supporting the designation. In the middle part of this decade, I met a few convicted felons who were originating reverse mortgages; some were very, very successful. The felonies were old and had to do with drinking and drugs, not financial crimes; however, that caused some concern about other originators who might have been convicted of financial felonies against seniors. At the time there were many new originators in the industry and the quality of information provided by originators varied greatly. The designation would at least provide limited assurance that the holder was not a felon and actually had attained a qualifying level of tested knowledge.

Unfortunately because it could not be acted upon quickly enough, the NRMLA CRMP does not seem as necessary or as valuable. It still has meaning and could yet have considerable value but only if it is highly promoted by NRMLA.

To avoid receiving the title “longest winded,” I will stop here.

This blog generally recognizes that the proposed NRMLA CRMP fees are excessive and the designation may be of dubious benefit. Much of NRMLA’s offering falls into this category. In June 2008 my company dropped its NRMLA membership after a 7-year association. In seven years, with over 200 HECMs closed, we never identified a single applicant that came to us as a result of being listed on the NRMLA site. And we do ask our customers how they find us.

During those seven years, it seemed that NRMLA pursued goals more in tune with big lenders… not small independents. Example: 1) Elimination of the requirement for the borrower to sit face-to-face with either the counselor or the loan officer. This opened the floodgates for mail order, out-of-area lenders who could not provide the handholding, personal attention so many seniors require. 2) The HECM Advisor Program – with all the problems that surfaced later. 3) NRMLA’s position on cross selling, for years, seemed to support not limiting such matters by Congress. NRMLA represents only the reverse mortgage industry. I could never understand why NRMLA had any concern for the financial planning or insurance industries.

Add to the above the fact that NRMLA’s dues are extraordinarily regressive. Lenders doing less than 50 loans per year incur higher cost per closed loan than lenders closing more than 50 loans. For small lenders this cost can run between $35 and $70 per loan – depending on your volume. That is expensive for small businesses. It does not seem right that membership should be based on your business volume. NRMLA’s dues are structured now just as they were ten years ago (unless there has been a change since 2008). Perhaps at that time, with start up membership, the higher dues might have been necessary. Industry growth now, however, should make room for change.

It seems that NRMLA could better serve the reverse mortgage industry by making available quality training and reasonably priced membership to all those seeking to improve their knowledge. Dues should be more in line with other trade organizations and not be so high as to dissuade the average originator. Bring in four or five times as many members as present and, perhaps, fees would not need to be so high.

I wish NRMLA well with their CRMP program. But as for me, if I must pay $1750 dues, +/- $1000 CRMP certification, and attend expensive NRMLA conferences – I will pass on this designation.

This blog generally recognizes that the proposed NRMLA CRMP fees are excessive and the designation may be of dubious benefit. Much of NRMLAu2019s offering falls into this category. In June 2008 my company dropped its NRMLA membership after a 7-year association. In seven years, with over 200 HECMs closed, we never identified a single applicant that came to us as a result of being listed on the NRMLA site. And we do ask our customers how they find us.rnrnDuring those seven years, it seemed that NRMLA pursued goals more in tune with big lendersu2026 not small independents. Example: 1) Elimination of the requirement for the borrower to sit face-to-face with either the counselor or the loan officer. This opened the floodgates for mail order, out-of-area lenders who could not provide the handholding, personal attention so many seniors require. 2) The HECM Advisor Program u2013 with all the problems that surfaced later. 3) NRMLAu2019s position on cross selling, for years, seemed to support not limiting such matters by Congress. NRMLA represents only the reverse mortgage industry. I could never understand why NRMLA had any concern for the financial planning or insurance industries.rnrnAdd to the above the fact that NRMLAu2019s dues are extraordinarily regressive. Lenders doing less than 50 loans per year incur higher cost per closed loan than lenders closing more than 50 loans. For small lenders this cost can run between $35 and $70 per loan u2013 depending on your volume. That is expensive for small businesses. It does not seem right that membership should be based on your business volume. NRMLAu2019s dues are structured now just as they were ten years ago (unless there has been a change since 2008). Perhaps at that time, with start up membership, the higher dues might have been necessary. Industry growth now, however, should make room for change. rnrnIt seems that NRMLA could better serve the reverse mortgage industry by making available quality training and reasonably priced membership to all those seeking to improve their knowledge. Dues should be more in line with other trade organizations and not be so high as to dissuade the average originator. Bring in four or five times as many members as present and, perhaps, fees would not need to be so high.rnrnI wish NRMLA well with their CRMP program. But as for me, if I must pay $1750 dues, +/- $1000 CRMP certification, and attend expensive NRMLA conferences u2013 I will pass on this designation.rnrnrn