Comments on: FHA Takes Action Against Reverse Mortgage Lender for Advertising Practices

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:45:00 +0000

“It is difficult to imagine how one piece of a 100 mailing piece distribution would end up in the hands of HUD. From a probability standpoint, this seems like a virtual impossibility.” You state in your critique how it is a virtual impossibility that one would wind up in the hands of HUD. If one of the 100 had any sense he would mail it to HUD just as I am about to do since I received a similar invitation for all the “benefits” that come with this great program from another group. The words reverse mortgage are nowhere to be found on the paper but all I have to worry about for the rest of my life is the taxes on my home and the usual living expenses. I thought automobile salesmen were the worst leaches till now for this group has replaced them in my estimation and should be strung up.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:36:00 +0000

Typical Management practice: BLAME THE POOR UNINFORMED LOAN ORIGINATOR..

By: jamesanelson

jamesanelson — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:36:39 +0000

Typical Management practice: BLAME THE POOR UNINFORMED LOAN ORIGINATOR..

By: The_Critic

The_Critic — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:12:56 +0000

It is hard to believe the facts were strictly as management presents them. The punishment does not fit the violation. It is very doubtful if the full story is contained in the article above although there is little doubt of the accuracy of the reporter or that any significant information that was available as of release was left out.

If management did not require a review of all marketing pieces before distribution, the penalty and suspension were earned whether this was the first detected violation or not. If the company was the least bit vigilant in enforcing an “all marketing must be reviewed” policy and could have shown rejected marketing as evidence, when looking at the fact pattern in other cases and the related punishment, again this verdict seems harsh.

It is difficult to imagine how one piece of a 100 mailing piece distribution would end up in the hands of HUD. From a probability standpoint, this seems like a virtual impossibility.

Why the promoter of this kind of marketing cannot be punished is ridiculous. If they guaranteed compliance with HUD, it seems the originator and the company would be suing for the amount of dollars lost including lost profits. If the marketing firm is not made to pay for its warranties then we as an industry are the losers.

Even if the originator were performing a test of the claims of a marketing firm, how would a mailing of 100 pieces provide any proof of the product? We would all jump for joy if our close rates on such marketing even approximated 1% of the mailers sent. There is far too much information missing from this story.

No doubt some of the missing information has to do with the concerns of legal counsel.