Wow! Just took the AZ coursework as a back-up plan. I guess I am all backed up all right! Do any of the AZ regulators see light at the end of the tunnel?

Wow! Just took the AZ coursework as a back-up plan. I guess I am all backed up all right! Do any of the AZ regulators see light at the end of the tunnel?

It was commented in a previous article that it would be beneficial to the reverse industry to require a special license to offer reverse mortgage products. I strongly agree with this prospect, especially if bank employees were also required to obtain this license.

Here we go unsubstantiated accusations and questionable replies. (I guess the McLaughlin Group is a fairly accurate picture of society as a whole.)rnrnIt is only natural that the exempted employers would want their employees exempted from examination. It makes their employment more valuable to originators in particular.rnrnMy problem is not with the exempted employers but with Congress. How could Congress allow this?rnrnIf a nurse is employed by Kaiser, he/she is not exempt from licensing laws. If an attorney is part of a national firm, she/he is not exempt from being licensed somewhere. CPAs in national firms must have at least one license to perform certain functions. All of them must have passed at least one licensing exam somewhere in their career.rnrnAll those who originate mortgages should be required to take the applicable federal NMLS exam, be licensed in at least one state and meet education and continuing education licensing requirements, period. If they are employed by an exempted employer then other than original licensing examinations, some exemption rules could apply but I am not advocating they should.rnrnBUT what I do not understand is why there is absolutely no NMLS examination requirement for employees of certain employers unless the only mortgage work they do is related to mortgages which result in liens against that company and that company alone. All mortgage originators who compete for the same type of mortgage business (residential, commercial, etc.) should be required to pass the same examinations at least at the federal level and should meet the licensing requirements of the state where the business office which is responsible for their employment activities is located.

It was commented in a previous article that it would be beneficial to the reverse industry to require a special license to offer reverse mortgage products. I strongly agree with this prospect, especially if bank employees were also required to obtain this license.

After our first few encounters, I am laughing at how often we say the same things. Yours are always more concise. Well said.

After our first few encounters, I am laughing at how often we say the same things. Yours are always more concise. Well said.

Ediey1,rnrnPlease indicate what part of the article is bogus. Is the reporting on the situation in Arizona bogus? Or is that RMD is misquoting Mike? What is bogus about the reporting????rnrnYou are smearing RMD’s integrity and reputation by making such groundless charges. I can’t find the “bogus reporting” but then I am not you. If you disagree with Mike’s statements and question his perception, statements, and accusations, I have no problem with that. If you are saying RMD should give voice to the opposite position, I agree with that — and it did by printing your comment.rnrnBUT I find absolutely nothing wrong with the reporting itself.rnrnPLEASE say what you MEAN and don’t expect us to read between the lines or understand what you meant to say.

Here we go unsubstantiated accusations and questionable replies. (I guess the McLaughlin Group is a fairly accurate picture of society as a whole.)rnrnIt is only natural that the exempted employers would want their employees exempted from examination. It makes their employment more valuable to originators in particular.rnrnMy problem is not with the exempted employers but with Congress. How could Congress allow this?rnrnIf a nurse is employed by Kaiser, he/she is not exempt from licensing laws. If an attorney is part of a national firm, she/he is not exempt from being licensed somewhere. CPAs in national firms must have at least one license to perform certain functions. All of them must have passed at least one licensing exam somewhere in their career.rnrnAll those who originate mortgages should be required to take the applicable federal NMLS exam, be licensed in at least one state and meet education and continuing education licensing requirements, period. If they are employed by an exempted employer then other than original licensing examinations, some exemption rules could apply but I am not advocating they should.rnrnBUT what I do not understand is why there is absolutely no NMLS examination requirement for employees of certain employers unless the only mortgage work they do is related to mortgages which result in liens against that company and that company alone. All mortgage originators who compete for the same type of mortgage business (residential, commercial, etc.) should be required to pass the same examinations at least at the federal level and should meet the licensing requirements of the state where the business office which is responsible for their employment activities is located.

This is just bogus reporting. Banks must take responsibility for everything the loan officer does and in the hiring process does a thorough job of checking out the applicant including a background check. I have been told by a thirty year Bank of America employee that the biggest problem they are having in the hiring process is the applicants getting through the background check. They are only hiring experienced loan officers. Come on RMD get the facts straight.

While Mike may be expressing the views of many in the industry, to extrapolate one incidence as being true of all banks is highly suspect. Ediey1 on the other hand does the same to make it appear like all is well within the banking industry because of what one alleged B of A employee who is not responsible for all hiring practices at B of A said. Both are uncorroborated; however, condemning an entire industry for the alleged statements of an alleged employee of one company in that industry is ridiculous.rnrnIf James is right, in a few years, the playing field could be leveled based on the contents of the financial stability act and a few changes to state licensing law, although I would think the SAFE Act would need some changes as well. Mike should be reporting his experience to NRMLA, the bank regulators in his state, national bank regulators, and the lawmakers both at the state and federal level who represent his district and state. rnrnMany of us who are not employed by banks suspect that among the SAFE Act licensing exempted employers, the situation described by Mike might, in fact, be happening. We do not believe that all exempted employers necessarily have the same hiring standards, the same ethical standards, or the same levels of supervision. We do not agree that their employees should be exempted from licensing and only be required to register under the SAFE Act. We believe the act is unnecessarily discriminatory and unfairly favors one employer over another just because the employer is nationally chartered or meets some other exemption requirements.rnrnLetu2019s have one field where all of the players have to meet exactly the same qualifications under the SAFE Act. Anything short of that will lead to more charges and counter charges of misbehavior. rnrnAs to licensing, the SAFE Act is unquestionably (unless your employer is exempted) and unnecessarily discriminatory and unfair. Why have this difference? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If licensing is required for one it should be required for all.

Section 4404 and other sections of H.R. 4173, the new “Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010″, could very well level the playing field in several mortgage lending areas. One of them could be state mortgage licensing requirements; however, these state laws may have to be amended if state lawmakers want them to apply to nationally chartered financial institutions at least to the extent that state law exempts them. It is far too early to be speculating how its provisions will specifically impact our industry.

Since I am not legal counsel and the President may not have yet signed the passed bill into law, I will stop my speculation here.

Ediey1,rnrnPlease indicate what part of the article is bogus. Is the reporting on the situation in Arizona bogus? Or is that RMD is misquoting Mike? What is bogus about the reporting????rnrnYou are smearing RMD’s integrity and reputation by making such groundless charges. I can’t find the “bogus reporting” but then I am not you. If you disagree with Mike’s statements and question his perception, statements, and accusations, I have no problem with that. If you are saying RMD should give voice to the opposite position, I agree with that — and it did by printing your comment.rnrnBUT I find absolutely nothing wrong with the reporting itself.rnrnPLEASE say what you MEAN and don’t expect us to read between the lines or understand what you meant to say.

How can it be “bogus reporting” when someone is quoted? Yes, the person being quoted can lie, but how is that RMD’s fault?

Ediey1,rnrnPlease indicate what part of the article is bogus. Is the reporting on the situation in Arizona bogus? Or is that RMD is misquoting Mike? What is bogus about the reporting????rnrnYou are smearing RMD’s integrity and reputation by making such groundless charges. I can’t find the “bogus reporting” but then I am not you. If you disagree with Mike’s statements and question his perception, statements, and accusations, I have no problem with that. If you are saying RMD should give voice to the opposite position, I agree with that — and it did by printing your comment.rnrnBUT I find absolutely nothing wrong with the reporting itself.rnrnPLEASE say what you MEAN and don’t expect us to read between the lines or understand what you meant to say.

This is just bogus reporting. Banks must take responsibility for everything the loan officer does and in the hiring process does a thorough job of checking out the applicant including a background check. I have been told by a thirty year Bank of America employee that the biggest problem they are having in the hiring process is the applicants getting through the background check. They are only hiring experienced loan officers. Come on RMD get the facts straight.

How can it be “bogus reporting” when someone is quoted? Yes, the person being quoted can lie, but how is that RMD’s fault?

This is just bogus reporting. Banks must take responsibility for everything the loan officer does and in the hiring process does a thorough job of checking out the applicant including a background check. I have been told by a thirty year Bank of America employee that the biggest problem they are having in the hiring process is the applicants getting through the background check. They are only hiring experienced loan officers. Come on RMD get the facts straight.

Section 4404 and other sections of H.R. 4173, the new “Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010″, could very well level the playing field in several mortgage lending areas. One of them could be state mortgage licensing requirements; however, these state laws may have to be amended if state lawmakers want them to apply to nationally chartered financial institutions at least to the extent that state law exempts them. It is far too early to be speculating how its provisions will specifically impact our industry.

Since I am not legal counsel and the President may not have yet signed the passed bill into law, so I will stop my speculation here.

Ediey1,

Please indicate what part of the article is bogus. Is the reporting on the situation in Arizona bogus? Or is that RMD is misquoting Mike? What is bogus about the reporting????

You are smearing RMD's integrity and reputation by making such groundless charges. I can't find the “bogus reporting” but then I am not you. If you disagree with Mike's statements and question his perception, statements, and accusations, I have no problem with that. If you are saying RMD should give voice to the opposite position, I agree with that — and it did by printing your comment.

BUT I find absolutely nothing wrong with the reporting itself.

PLEASE say what you MEAN and don't expect us to read between the lines or understand what you meant to say.

While Mike may be expressing the views of many in the industry, to extrapolate one incidence as being true of all banks is highly suspect. Ediey1 on the other hand does the same to make it appear like all is well within the banking industry because of what one alleged B of A employee who is not responsible for all hiring practices at B of A said. Both are uncorroborated; however, condemning an entire industry for the alleged statements of an alleged employee of one company in that industry is ridiculous.

If James is right, in a few years, the playing field could be leveled based on the contents of the financial stability act and a few changes to state licensing law, although I would think the SAFE Act would need some changes as well. Mike should be reporting his experience to NRMLA, the bank regulators in his state, national bank regulators, and the lawmakers both at the state and federal level who represent his district and state.

Many of us who are not employed by banks suspect that among the SAFE Act licensing exempted employers, the situation described by Mike might, in fact, be happening. We do not believe that all exempted employers necessarily have the same hiring standards, the same ethical standards, or the same levels of supervision. We do not agree that their employees should be exempted from licensing and only be required to register under the SAFE Act. We believe the act is unnecessarily discriminatory and unfairly favors one employer over another just because the employer is nationally chartered or meets some other exemption requirements.

Let’s have one field where all of the players have to meet exactly the same qualifications under the SAFE Act. Anything short of that will lead to more charges and counter charges of misbehavior.

As to licensing, the SAFE Act is unquestionably (unless your employer is exempted) and unnecessarily discriminatory and unfair. Why have this difference? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If licensing is required for one it should be required for all.

Here we go unsubstantiated accusations and questionable replies. (I guess the McLaughlin Group is a fairly accurate picture of society as a whole.)

It is only natural that the exempted employers would want their employees exempted from examination. It makes their employment more valuable to originators in particular.

My problem is not with the exempted employers but with Congress. How could Congress allow this?

If a nurse is employed by Kaiser, he/she is not exempt from licensing laws. If an attorney is part of a national firm, she/he is not exempt from being licensed somewhere. CPAs in national firms must have at least one license to perform certain functions. All of them must have passed at least one licensing exam somewhere in their career.

All those who originate mortgages should be required to take the applicable federal NMLS exam, be licensed in at least one state and meet education and continuing education licensing requirements, period. If they are employed by an exempted employer then other than original licensing examinations, some exemption rules could apply but I am not advocating they should.

BUT what I do not understand is why there is absolutely no NMLS examination requirement for employees of certain employers unless the only mortgage work they do is related to mortgages which result in liens against that company and that company alone. All mortgage originators who compete for the same type of mortgage business (residential, commercial, etc.) should be required to pass the same examinations at least at the federal level and should meet the licensing requirements of the state where the business office which is responsible for their employment activities is located.

While Mike may be expressing the views of many in the industry, to extrapolate one incidence as being true of all banks is highly suspect. Ediey1 on the other hand does the same to make it appear like all is well within the banking industry because of what one alleged B of A employee who is not responsible for all hiring practices at B of A said. Both are uncorroborated; however, condemning an entire industry for the alleged statements of an alleged employee of one company in that industry is ridiculous.rnrnIf James is right, in a few years, the playing field could be leveled based on the contents of the financial stability act and a few changes to state licensing law, although I would think the SAFE Act would need some changes as well. Mike should be reporting his experience to NRMLA, the bank regulators in his state, national bank regulators, and the lawmakers both at the state and federal level who represent his district and state. rnrnMany of us who are not employed by banks suspect that among the SAFE Act licensing exempted employers, the situation described by Mike might, in fact, be happening. We do not believe that all exempted employers necessarily have the same hiring standards, the same ethical standards, or the same levels of supervision. We do not agree that their employees should be exempted from licensing and only be required to register under the SAFE Act. We believe the act is unnecessarily discriminatory and unfairly favors one employer over another just because the employer is nationally chartered or meets some other exemption requirements.rnrnLetu2019s have one field where all of the players have to meet exactly the same qualifications under the SAFE Act. Anything short of that will lead to more charges and counter charges of misbehavior. rnrnAs to licensing, the SAFE Act is unquestionably (unless your employer is exempted) and unnecessarily discriminatory and unfair. Why have this difference? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If licensing is required for one it should be required for all.

After our first few encounters, I am laughing at how often we say the same things. Yours are always more concise. Well said.

Wow! Just took the AZ coursework as a back-up plan. I guess I am all backed up all right! Do any of the AZ regulators see light at the end of the tunnel?