NRMLA West Conference Report

More than 200 reverse mortgage professionals attended the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association West conference March 15-16 in Newport Beach, Calif., where speakers and panelists addressed industry issues from loan officer compensation to the lawsuit filed by AARP against HUD.

“Loan officer compensation was definitely the elephant in the room,” said Peter Bell, NRMLA president, who told RMD that the two-day conference drew 50% more attendees than NRMLA had anticipated. He attributed the uptick to the current and ongoing issues relating to the industry, loan officer compensation being the main story.

“Everybody is curious about it and hoping it’s going to get delayed,” he said. During the conference, however, NRMLA legal counsel Jim Milano told attendees the potential timeframe for a hearing regarding lawsuits against the Fed could be as late as March 28, just a few days before the rule is slated to go into effect.


“Don’t wait,” he advised attendees on implementing the rule in their compensation structures.

Attendees also heard from the coordinator of NRMLA’s Soft Landing pilot program, which works one-on-one with reverse mortgage borrowers who are facing tax and insurance default on their loans. Legal advisers discussed regulatory change, and industry executives shared early findings on the performance of the HECM saver.

NRMLA’s upcoming Washington Policy Conference will take place May 10-11 in Washington, D.C. NRMLA encourages members to set up meetings with state representatives and visit representatives in their districts prior to the conference, which plans to include members of HUD, bank regulators, members from Capitol Hill and CFPB, among others.

Written by Elizabeth Ecker



Join the Conversation (2)

see all

This is a professional community. Please use discretion when posting a comment.

  • Anybody who tuned into the Fed’s webinar yesterday about broker’s compensation had to be frustrated when the speakers said over and over again that they would not be responsible for implementing or overseeing the new law, but in their opinion, . . . They opined for close to 2 hours about the noose around our necks. Now Congress wants the whole overseeing agency ruled by committee. We will never know what to expect will we?

  • Perhaps the most informative meeting of the Conference from the eyes of a CPA with a career emphasizing tax matters was the session on Saver vs. Standard. While all did a great job at discussing the product and the demographics it best fits, there was a hole so large in the discussion one could drive a truck through it.

    Watching the clock, it took 20 minutes to get to a meaningful discussion of the advisor community. In the hour session less than 5 minutes was spent on that topic. It was clear either everyone was playing their cards close to the vest or they simply lacked any significant strategy on how to address that community.

    When discussing marketing aspects, it was all senior demographic driven which those from the advising community laid out at the outset of the program. The principal points about the advising community were that advisors seemed to be more receptive to the Saver but anything else about them was little more than groping in the dark.

    It seems no one is looking at any marketing strategy which ignores the senior and concentrates on the advisor other than through one-on-one meetings (which MetLife graciously presented last year in the NRMLA western convention BUT that was before there was a Saver). It seems there is no proactive marketing strategy to reach out to the advisors while the iron is hot. While this may not be paradise lost, it very well could have already become the lost opportunity of a decade. NRMLA should once again have a similar discussion of these subject matters but broken down into an array of topics at its next national convention.

    While other matters were presented, they seemed more conjecture than summation based on fact. This was nowhere more apparent than when one well known speaker interjected that no less than 90% of all adjustables should be Savers and as to fixed rate, no less than 90% should be Standards. This statement was neither substantiated nor rationalized. It was more proclamation and conclusion than evidentiary finding.

string(73) ""

Share your opinion