Video Marketing and Mortgage News Designed for Mortgage and Real Estate Sales

ThePhoenix: (February 01, 2010 10:35am)

I am opposed to short sales that have not been properly evaluated or disclosed to a client wherein the seller is not making a fully informed decision. The one criteria you stated is too simplistic to base a decision. For one, it overlooks FHA guidelines that allow a consumer to buy a home after 3 years, for a foreclosure, bankruptcy and short sale. I could be wrong but I believe the FNMA guideline has changed and a short sale is not 2 years. In the end, the entire impact must be disclosed. This includes, financial situation of seller (may have other credit/employment problems), civil/criminal liability of seller for fraud (false loan application on stated income), how much underwater, insolvency issues and the list goes on and on. When we advise consumers on strategic restructuring we have a 12 page checklist we follow to ensure the broader picture is reviewed. Then, the decision is theirs, not ours nor their agent.

bay area short seller: (February 01, 2010 9:13am)

Phoenix, you are absolutely correct in that our fiduciary responsibilty is to the seller and not the banks. We need to do what is in the best interest of the seller while NOT engaging in mortgage fraud. That is the balance we need to maintain. However, you also seem to be opposed to short sales. Just because the other parties are getting satisfied does not mean it is not in the seller's best intertest. If we can help the seller avoid foreclosure and be considered for a fannie loan in 2 years instead of 5 years, how is that a bad thing?

ameriworks: (January 31, 2010 9:47pm)

What's up with the SAFE Act requiring that LOs must pass a credit report litmus test to remain LOs? Besides having to take national & state tests, if LOs have outstanding judgments, except because of medical expenses, foreclosures in the past 3 years, or a pattern of seriouly delinquent accounts in the past 3 years, the "Commissioner" very well may not issue a license and their mortgage loan careers are over. After having gotten beaten up by the banks for umpteen years, many of us are currently suffering credit issues that could preclude the possibility of us being able to continue as LOs because of our credit histories. WOW!!! Oh, I almost forgot, LOs working in commercial banks are exempt from taking the SAFE Act tests, and I assume are probably also exempt from needing good credit histories. Is it just me, or do others believe that the U. S. government is complicit with the banking industry in an insidious effort to eliminate independent mortgage brokers and their LOs?

5pence: (January 31, 2010 6:27pm)

I was thinking this mugging for more money right before closing, if recorded in any way, could keep the 2nd open (You made a payment outside the agreement so you know that it's still open!) so they can come after you even if you and all parties agreed to the short sale and dismissal of debt. Hmmm

ThePhoenix: (January 31, 2010 6:23pm)

Therein lies the risk of the short sale. The agent MUST be representing the seller only. While they need to secure the approval of the others, at each move, they must be representing that seller and doing what is best for them. Stooping to extortion in the transaction may not be in the best interest of that seller. It is never about getting the sale to close at all cost but to protect the seller at all cost. These lender games are getting agents to breach their fiduciary duty to the seller for the benefit of the lenders. Don't do it. You could find yourself at the other end of a lawsuit of which the lender will be out because they owe no duty to anyone!

5pence: (January 31, 2010 5:46pm)

bay area, are you a realtor specializing in short sales or just taking the short sellers side? From what I've read all parties holding a piece of the property have to be consulted and agree to the terms of the short sale, 2nd and PMI insurer also. So them hitting you up for money outside the agreement and the HUD-1 is extortion imo. They ALL, 1st, 2nd and 3rd appear to have to agree to the terms of the short sale before it can happen. At least that's my take from what I've read...... Additional parties Multiple levels of approvals and conditions are very common with short sales. Junior lien-holders - such as second mortgages, HELOC lenders, and HOA (special assessment liens) - may need to approve the short sale.

5pence: (January 31, 2010 5:24pm)

SoCal: We need a weaker dollar to create jobs. That's why the Fed isn't going to raise rates anytime soon. I don't think they're going to do principle reductions to any great extent. They don't want to reward those that are deliquent and screw those that are making their payments on time. It's not a balanced approach and I don't think anybody would like it. My idea is have a period of 2-5 years where interest rates are at 2-3% so we can get out of this hole. After that raise them back up to 5%. Mortgages cannot be the money maker for the banks like they were. They've abused that privilege and honor. I mean, come on, a $200k home @6% for 30 years takes $432,000 to pay off. Any wonder why the banks are in the mortgage business. BTW, leverage works (because of the Fed) at 9 to 1 traditionally. That means for every $1,000 on hand at the bank they can loan $9,000. They have trillions in reserve. Believe me, they have liquidity but they're too greedy to use it to benefit us-only themselves.

bay area short seller: (January 31, 2010 5:12pm)

I call working a short sale like working on a rubic's cube. There are at least 6 sides to the puzzle. Every side's needs and request must be met. If even one little square is off, it will not close.

5pence: (January 31, 2010 5:10pm)

Phoenix: What I'm saying is true, buyers look at the monthly payment and not what the total price is when they make their decision to buy. It's a proven fact. But, what you say makes some sense. So in 5 yrs they still owe more than it's worth, at least they were able to stay there & get the tax credits & didn't have to go bankrupt or foreclose. Since the payment is so low they can speed up the payments and pay it off early with payments to principle. During the life of the loan that is worth $100k's. I mean a $100k loan is $500k paid during the life of that 30 yr loan. If they sell for $100k less than it's worth in 5 years, they could do a 1031 exchange in that new city, like for like. Could be cash involved in the exchange too & it has tax benefits. 25%+/- of all homes are underwater & that's expected to grow unless things stabilize. This propping up the system is not good for anybody but the banks. SoCal: We need lower interest rates to create jobs and increase industry & exports.

bay area short seller: (January 31, 2010 5:06pm)

Back to the 2nd lender shakedown. Frank, I am not saying that doing anything outside HUD1 is legal or that HUD is fine with the 2nd getting anymore money. But please step back for a moment before we get legal and righteous. If you, as the borrower, owe a 1st and a 2nd, don't you have a right and obligation to pay both lenders? If you don't have enough to pay both lenders, don't you have a choice to pay either the 1st or the 2nd? Or neither? How is it illegal for a 2nd to receive any money PRIOR to closing? Whether it is 1 week before or 1 day before closing. It is just a mortgage payment with some principal. It just cannot be at closing which would violate the terms of the 1st lender approval. Yes, there is a very fine line here. Of course, most agents will screw this up and do something illegal but the mere fact that the 2nd wants more money is perfectly reasonable and legal to me. You just need to find a way to satisfy the 1st, 2nd, buyer, seller, 2 agents, title company, RESPA, etc.

SoCalApprs2: (January 31, 2010 3:27pm)

ThePhoenix- You are absolutely correct. We all have to remember, the banks were paid when they sold the homes at their inflated values and are now paid again with tarp money. Also, lowering interest rates will kill the dollar!! The principles have to come down? Why? because the principle owed on loans now will take 7 to 10 years to get to. This is because of jobs have to come back and the gross national product has to flourish. If values go up at sooner than 5 years, watch out!! The banks know this and are simply being cautious. I don't like the situation anymore than most of us here, but its going to take the next 3 years just to weed through every toxic loan, and at least 6 years beyond that for the economy to stabilize. Remember, Jobs plus a growing GNP equal equity. Equity means the banks have liquidity, and banks with liquidity can loan even more.

ThePhoenix: (January 31, 2010 2:46pm)

5pence... you are sounding like a car dealer... how much can they afford in a payment???? Your proposal on lowering rate is exactly what the financial industry has been trying to sell. Its bs. It only works if a homeowner goes for 30 years. If a home is still underwater by 100k in 5 years when that homeowner gets that job transfer, they still owe more than the house is worth. They would be better to walk away, rent, and when they get that job transfer in 5 years, their credit will have repaired and they can buy a home at the lower price in the area they transferred to. That is way less risky.

5pence: (January 31, 2010 2:43pm)

One more post. If they did that (lowered rates to 2-3%) the costs of EVERYTHING would come down accordingly to a more reasonable level. This propping up of the banking system is just keeping prices higher than they should be. Banksters haven't even considered doing right, they're fighting tooth and nail to keep their risk and profits/bonuses for taking risk. We need to force them to do right - yes, I said it. Legislate morality. I don't like what I'm seeing, for instance - instead of raising the price of toilet paper they've cut down the size of the rolls from 4.5 inches to 4 inches and they're selling at the same price. I miss that 1/2 inch! This is happening with many goods. Are they trying to hide inflation? Why? Collusion to mask it? The price of precious metals is also being manipulated heavily by the banksters especially JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley to keep them down. The Fed is a total failure at managing money. In less than 100 years $1 is now worth 4 cents. Total failure.

5pence: (January 31, 2010 2:30pm)

Considering the facts, that buyers of homes buy not by sales price but by what they can afford in monthly payments, I'd love to ask the banking commissions "At what mortgage interest rate will these toxic loans no longer be toxic?" A 3% reduction in interest rate would equate to a $150k reduction in principle, not on paper but what the consumer relates to. The full amount would still be paid to the bank, just not at the grossly elevated mortgage rate levels they're used to. At what mortgage interest rate would the now toxic assets turn non-toxic? How come no ones ever brought this up?!!

5pence: (January 31, 2010 2:20pm)

Instead of lowering principle, lower interest rates so that people are making monthly payments equivalent to paying for a $300k house even though the mortgage is for a $400k house. Win/Win. The banks still make money, can unload their toxic assets, people don't just walk away from being upside down in their mortgage and the foreclosure rate is cut to nearly zero. Money is loosened up for business and the economy flourishes. We need to cut the banks back from the Fed's, treasuries and the GSE's teet, cut off the greed and force them to make good on what they've done. To me, it's only right. Win/win for all IMHO

5pence: (January 31, 2010 2:11pm)

People buy more on what it's going to cost them per month than the total cost of the mortgage. So, you know what? If they made loans at 2-3% they could have unloaded ALL their "toxic" assets at market value so they wouldn't have a loss. They're only toxic as long as rates stay this high. Damn, when I'm talking to myself I sound like a genius! LOL!! JMHO

5pence: (January 31, 2010 12:36pm)

Can someone tell me why that when the banks were getting bailouts of taxpayers money at what truly amounts to less than 0 interest, why didn't they turn around and reward the taxpayers that bailed them out with 2-3% mortgage loans? They'd still make money and the economy would have been much better off. So, because the banks have to make as much profit as possible for reserves and lobbying and bonuses, with our funds and at our expense, we ALL have to suffer. Mortgage rates are still TOO HIGH!! Extreme circustances call for extreme measures. Lower rates would lift the economy so get rid of the banks self-serving ingratitude of receiving our funds and get the economy back on track with lower rates for all. They think they have the upper hand because if they fail they know we'd bail them out - they're stystemic to the global financial system and they would have to be bailed out again. Force them to lower rates to 2-3%. If they can't show gratitude, force them to.

5pence: (January 31, 2010 11:04am)

OHHH NOOOO!!! Did I miss the live HVCC discussion??!! I was working. I'm hoping there's a copy of it I can watch? Thanks

JK: (January 31, 2010 4:03am)

Sommers - I'm dealing with the same thing. I have a Realtor I work with that had an approval, then Indymac (One West now) countered above any reasonable appraised value. Got that resolved, now they are cutting commission and not agreeing to pay for items necesasry for U&O. Trying to find some resources for the agent to use to counter again but not finding much. Anyone with ideas?

5pence: (January 30, 2010 1:13pm)

Phoenix: I've heard a lot of homeowners are taking advantage by staying in the home for free since the Banks aren't foreclosing for at least a year. ....Ron Paul said after his run, that a 3rd party, Libertarian, wouldn’t work as this is a 2 party system. We have to find the candidates that are in agreement and support Mr Paul and vote all the others out – no matter if they’re Rep or Dem. Thing I want to know is, why isn’t there a movement? Why aren’t we marching in the streets? I hope you all realize that votes, while democratic, don’t evoke change like protests. I hate this Kleptocracy but no seems to be able to get off their fat arses to state their position publicly- in protest if necessary. You don’t get anywhere without some personal sacrifice. Remember civil rights? The end of the war in Vietnam? Womens rights? None of those would have happened without very public protests. They certainly wouldn’t have happened with just votes alone.

brian tbws: (January 30, 2010 11:07am)

hey mod girl. give me a call 707 330 1272

ThePhoenix: (January 30, 2010 10:18am)

One final point on walking away. Few have figured out a way for real estate folks to make money doing it which is why it has not taken much favor. The few are not talking but people are making money doing what is best for their client.

ThePhoenix: (January 30, 2010 10:16am)

Sommers... those programs are voluntary programs that give them compensation on a loan by loan basis if they meet the criteria. It is not a law they must follow for every loan. Contract law is the "holy grail" of protection. The lender being asked to take less the contract amount they entered into with the borrower can say no quite easily and they are not accountable to anyone for saying no. They can easily say to the real estate agent, "we will not agree to any short sale unless you give up your entire commission." No one to complain to. Strategic restructuring (which includes a form of strategic default) is way more beneficial to consumers than a short sale. If more people walked from their homes, it would bring the lenders to their knees in a very short time and then they would cooperate on loan modifications and short sales at a level never seen before. They are arrogant. They are like a fat pig at the trough pushing everyone out of the way. Take the food away. Walk.

Modgirl: (January 30, 2010 10:16am)

Hey guys I needs some help I have yet another client denied for mod because they are current I know you recently had a HAMP notification in your links and docs, in regards to a change in HAMP regarding this issue, but it is not there now. Can someone tell me the directive number. I have looked and can't find it. I did see their was a new directive out on Jan 28 trying to streamline the docs needed to apply for HAMP but it doesn't go into effect til June. Just FYI. Thanks for your help

Modgirl: (January 30, 2010 10:12am)

Sorry Sommers HAFA doesn't go into effet unitl April so Lenders don't have to abide til then , then remember only if they are participating in HAMP.

Sommers : (January 30, 2010 9:39am)

If a mortgage bank belongs to the HAMP and HAFA programs how are they being allowed to get away with reducing realtor compensation at the last minute? Where do you go to insure getting paid for doing your work and the work for the banks? Does anyone have an answer for that? If not where do you lodge a complaint other than Fannnie Mae?

joecolorado: (January 30, 2010 8:14am)

Godlike-until you wrote that entry,we were just like you we didnt know about it, but thanks for mentioning it as now we know where to go also. So dont be ashamed of wes unedumacated,we just needed to be edumacated too.

GODLIKE: (January 29, 2010 7:46pm)

A couple of days ago I posted and asked if there was a blog like this one except for Lenders, not appraisers and no one said a thing, now today I discover Ratealert.com has a lender forum. I'm ashamed of you guys for not mentioning it

5pence: (January 29, 2010 6:26pm)

I need to qualify that, I never hated the too big to fails as much as I do now. Local banks are cool. Moved everything I've got into a credit union from BofA and happy I did! They're too big to fail so they have their legal teams (highest paid in the nation probably) figuring out ways they can skirt the law, make mo money and put the blame on someone else for their manipulative actions. Does anybody feel like we are the enemy?

5pence: (January 29, 2010 6:20pm)

So your take is the lender isn't violating any laws but they expect you to. How sneaky is that! It's like the AMC's pushing you to violate USPAP as there's no skin off of their nose. The front men for these banks might seem respectable but behind the scenes it's the bankster mafia working their "proprietary trading" magic which is more sleight of hand than patentable secrets IMHO. Gawd these banks are freaking monsters! They draw a fine line between themselves and the law and put you on the other side. Gluttonous pigs. I never hated banks as much as I do now.

ThePhoenix: (January 29, 2010 6:05pm)

This is interesting related to the HUD. If you step back, logically, the lender is not violating RESPA by not caring that it is not on the HUD because the lender is a lender being paid off in the transaction is not a covered party under RESPA. A lender being paid off has no duty under RESPA. So... instead, they are getting the real estate agent and their clients to violate RESPA. The lender being paid off gets to say... we wanted x amount of dollars in order to take a less amount on our payoff, pay it or the answer is no. In effect they are telling the 1st lender to screw off and telling the agents and escrow that the HUD-1 is your problem. So the question is... is it legal to demand an amount that is more than what the 1st lender wants them to accept but less than the amount owed? You bet! Its a violation of RESPA the way this is being handled, but the 2nd holder is not the violator! ;-)

Frank@TBWS: (January 29, 2010 5:23pm)

bay area short seller: Are you certain HUD is okay with this on an FHA purchase?

Da Broker NM: (January 29, 2010 5:12pm)

Wow that phone call was shocking. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. What do we do to report this sort of proposals. Cuase I will not put my license in jepordy but still would like to take action.

5pence: (January 29, 2010 4:50pm)

bay area: yeah, that's what's going on. They're telling them to not put it on the HUD-1. And yes, VQ it is the big banks. CNBC said they asked one of them and they said their legal team said there was nothing illegal and that's why they were doing it, but off the HUD-1?!!. I forget which one it was they talked to. Could have been B of A.

bay area short seller: (January 29, 2010 4:39pm)

Unfortunately, most of you out there, Frank and Brian included, have no idea how to negotiate a short sale. If you read the transcripts, it's clear the 2nd wants a certain amount. That amount happens to be more than whatever the first is willing to pay. That part is not illegal. They don't seem to be changing figures at the last moment and holding them ransome. The 2nd is merely showing the inept Realtor how to make it work. Otherwise, everyone loses. If you lent someone $100,000 and then you are offered $3000 as full satisfaction, wouldn't you be a little ticked? Wouldn't you try to get more? Your risk, of course, is getting nothing. But it's your right to choose. Any funds going to a 2nd prior to closing is a legal transaction. Any funds going to a 2nd at closing outside the HUD is illegal.

Valuequestor: (January 29, 2010 4:32pm)

5Pence...I understand where you are coming from.... Just don't do it. The most outrageous stuff right now is the rampant thievery, skulduggery and general bad boy bullying behavior from the big banks. Is it the Big 5 Banksters that are going after foreclosed "former" borrowers for the coup-de-gras? Does anyone know if Chase is doing this?

TBWS Support: (January 29, 2010 4:24pm)

5pence - it's because you used apostrophes and other "special" characters which get converted to ASCII symbols to protect the database. The character limit is a guide, if you get cut off, post again.

5pence: (January 29, 2010 4:17pm)

Frank or Brian : I had my last message down to 1,000 characters and it still took off the last sentence. I'll finish it here but you should know somethings up with the formatting or something. "They are just ignorant of their rights and the banks certainly won't tell them - they want to keep them stupid so they can take advantage of them." You know it's true.

5pence: (January 29, 2010 4:13pm)

Carlos-that's what I'm getting. Agreement has been made & they're making their demands for more funds right before the table, when the short seller & the realtor have no choice. I'm getting fraud from what I know, which isn't much about the broker & realtor side of things. Valuequestor. I don't care what it says, it's wrong. It was wrong when it was first conceptualized and put on paper and it's wrong now. Have you ever run across an inane law? I have and that is one. It's not even a law, it's so wrong lol. The homeowner has the most at stake in the transaction, to leave them out as client is a gross ommission & should never have happened. I see things as they are and question them. It doesn't make sense to me and it doesn't to a lot of logical, practical thinkers. Time for a change & restore the homeowner to their rightful place as client. They are just ignorant of their rights and the banks certainly won't te

Tim Galligan: (January 29, 2010 4:10pm)

Hey Guys, great stuff as always. You know what we need now??? A GFE2010 Petition. Please start it now! It's not only a joke that a single page document has been "simplified" to 3 pages, but it's completely impossible to use when communicating with customers. "Trust us, the loan really doesn't cost you that much"

Carlos Sutter: (January 29, 2010 3:52pm)

It seems, from what I can tell, that both 1st and 2nd had already agreed on the amounts each would get. So, the 2nd asking for extra "out of Escrow" monies is fraud. Similarly, it seems fraud to me when Wells Fargo or any bank-owned lender/seller demands to "pre-approve" potential buyers first. They want to make money on the sale and the loan as well. They may be confused, being accostumed to selling loans, and being now in the position of having to wear a seller's hat as well. It's clearly a conflict of interest if they decide to be in both positions at the same time on the same deal.

Valuequestor: (January 29, 2010 3:45pm)

5Pence.....Careful there buddy. You could get some less knowlegable appraisers in trouble and load-up others in the related real estate fields with "bad" ammo. USPAP is very clear on this issue. Whomever ORDERS the appraisal is the client. The FNMA/FHLMC forms say"LENDER/CLIENT" so for your typical order these days that may include an AMC acting as an agent for the primary user (LENDER). The borrower is at best an INTENDED USER if so named. (They could have a right to rely on the appraisal). You are arguing from a MORAL point of view. The legal and USPAP compliant answer is at odds with your opinion at this time.

Carlos Sutter: (January 29, 2010 3:30pm)

Coester Appraisal still is guilty after their explanation; they have no business steering business towards anyone. They are suppose to be independent.

Frank: (January 29, 2010 3:02pm)

joecolorado: I have no idea how someone would be able to do that, we'll check it out, but I can tell you this.. there's no reason to do it because nobody reads it. it's best to keep the posts short and sweet IMHO.

Phoenix realtor: (January 29, 2010 2:14pm)

It is frustrating working short sales, losing a half a point on commission, and then being asked to give up even more commission. I recently had a short sale fall out after 8 1/2 months because the 2nd found out about the seller's 401K. 2nd offered to receive 10% up front ($3600) and then after 6 months decided they wanted $15,000 from their $36,000 loan. Everyone contributed but we were still shy $10,000. My buyer thought about contributing more, but why pay $11,000 more than a home is worth. The deal fell apart and now I'm starting all over again!

BIG AL: (January 29, 2010 1:43pm)

I beleive the home owner should be able to order the appraisal since they pay for it. And be able to use it where ever they want to for a certain period of time. The Lender can either accept it, review it, and deny it if its proven bad. Put the power in the peoples hands to find the best appraiser. The value is what it is, it shouldn't matter who orders the appraisal if you follow USPAP. Appraisals I'm talking about are naturaly for loan purposes. They can ask there Agent/Broker or look us up in the yellow pages. Let freedom rain. I just wrote to my Congressman Ken Calvert. Keep emailing or writing you reps. I know he's against HR 4173. I just want the HVCC to "SUNSET". as per HR4173.

bay area short seller: (January 29, 2010 1:42pm)

Why would it be illegal for the 2nd to get as much as they can? Any funds going to the 2nd prior to closing is a separate transcation. Maybe that's why nobody is doing anything about it. Even though the first has priority in a foreclosure, the seller has equal rights and obligation to pay both lenders, or 3rd or 4th lenders on the property. The first can only state their requirements to accept a short payoff at closing. If the seller, or any other party, chooses to pay the another lien holder prior to closing, even one day before, that is their right.

5pence: (January 29, 2010 1:23pm)

Is anybody going to answer Mortgage Mike? I'm curious how this happens and if a W-2 is issued, how do they get away with it? we know they do, but how

5pence: (January 29, 2010 12:47pm)

A copy of the appraisal can "belong" to anyone. It certainly doesn't belong to the appraiser as it gets sliced and diced for the next avm. The CLIENT however should have been the homeowner all along as they have more at stake in the loan transaction than the bank! This is just another bank scam because they feel the homeowner is too ignorant and it gives them control and power. Like they need more. I read about that a few days ago Leslie, and I'm glad you brought it to this board. Everyone should follow Big Al's lead and send it to their state AG's and legislatures.

Mortgage Mike: (January 29, 2010 12:40pm)

How can a lender come back at a short sale client if they issue him a W-2 showing the shortage as income to the Client?

BIG AL: (January 29, 2010 12:39pm)

Good Digging Leslie in Denver. I not surprised any more and its just another thorn in the side of homeowners trying to make it. I'm copying it and will email to my legislators.

Leslie in Denver: (January 29, 2010 12:27pm)

The appraisal belongs to the lender. PERIOD! Why can't we know who that second mortgage lender is? And why is nothing being done about such an obviously illegal transaction? These people (lenders) are out of control. They institute foreclosure proceedings when they don't even have the Note. They lie in court and present fraudulent and altered documents. How long is this crap going to continue unabated? When will the Federal government (i.e. Holder) step up to the plate? Have you heard the one about the short sale/loan modification abuses being perpetrated on the American people? Read below. A Short Sale Story You Wont Believe! Does our Government really want to clean up this mess? This just in Basically, IndyMac Bank (now OneWest Bank), is holding clients hostage, demanding a promissory notes, or they will proceed to foreclosure. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out why they were doing this. What advantage could there possibly be for them to proceed to foreclosure? Yesterday, I figured it out. You see, IndyMac was taken over by the FDIC and sold to OneWest Bank in March/2009. Guess who the investors are behind OneWest? George Soros, Michael Dell, Steve Munchin (former Goldman Sachs executive), and John Paulson (hedge-fund billionaire). Now, listen to the deal they got from the FDIC.. Basically, they purchased all current residential mortgages at 70% of par value (70% of the outstanding loan amounts). They purchased all current HELOCS at 58% of Par Value!!! Next, in order to "sweeten the pot", the FDIC stepped in and guaranteed the following: For any residential mortgages where OneWest experiences a loss, the FDIC will step in and cover anywhere from 80%-95% of the loss. The loss is calculated using the ORIGINAL LOAN BALANCE, not the amount that OneWest paid for the loan. Let's use my clients situation as an example: If the Loan Amount is $478,000, plus 6 months of missed payments, for a grand total of $485,200. OneWest pays $334,600 for the loan. We have an all cash offer of $241,000, net to OneWest. So, let's do the math, shall we? The net loss, according to the FDIC formula is the ORIGINAL LOAN AMOUNT minus the amount of the offer. In this case, $485,200-$241,000, or $244,200. Next, the FDIC, according to their Loss Share Agreement, writes a check to OneWest for 80% of the so-called "net loss". So, in this case, OneWest gets a check from Uncle Sam for $195,360 (.80 X $244,200). Add the $195,360 to the sales price of $241,000, and you get a grand total of $436,360. Remember, OneWest paid $334,600 for the loan. So, OneWest puts $101,760 in their pocket, thanks to the FDIC. Folks, that is over $100k of our hard-earned tax dollars! So, you ask. Why does this program hurt short sales? Because, our brilliant government offers this SAME PROGRAM FOR FORECLOSURES! The only difference is, the government picks up 80% of the tab on all of the extra costs associated with a foreclosure (BPO's, upkeep, utilities/maintenance, legal fees, etc.) So, if I'm OneWest, why would I want to waste my time negotiating through a Short Sale, when I can make the same amount of money (if not more) by just letting it go to foreclosure? And we wonder why nobody can get a Loan Modification? Why would OneWest approve a loan modification for this guy, when they can foreclose and make over $100k? And, to add injury to insult, they have held this loan for 6 months! Not a bad ROI, huh? What infuriates me the most is that in my particular case mentioned above, they have the guts to hold my client hostage for a $75k promissory note, after they are already making more than $100k on the sale!!! This is his primary residence, 1st Position loan, and OneWest has NO RECOURSE! Imagine if they could make $100k, then get a deficiency judgment! Talk about making some big bucks! Can you say "GREED"? The scary thing is that over 50 banks have Shared Loss Agreements in place with the FDIC. Some of them include: Bank of America (go figure), CitiMortgage, Wells Fargo, etc. This entire agreement between the FDIC and OneWest can be found on the FDIC website. It's all there, for the world to see! They have it all laid out. All of the formulas, worksheets, etc. Now, it's up to us to bring it to the attention of our elected officials and the media. Enough is Enough! Wait, it gets better. The FDIC just announced that it needs to start borrowing money from the U.S. Treasury in order to replenish it's deposit insurance fund (the same fund being used to pay all of these banks in the Loss Share Agreements). Go Figure! –

5pence: (January 29, 2010 12:23pm)

If it comes down to value who has more at stake in the transaction of a loan. The bank that loans 80% of it's value or the homeowner that has 100% of it's value? The homeowner is in deeper and has more at stake than the bank and they should be the client.

ThePhoenix: (January 29, 2010 12:23pm)

CCP 580b is no deficiency on 1-4 units, primary residence, purchase money. The most important one is CCP 580d is no deficiency anytime a lender forecloses on his security using the power of sale (non-judicial foreclosure)in California.

5pence: (January 29, 2010 12:20pm)

All I'm saying is it's wrong and the reason we think it's right is because it's been drilled in. Read intended users. Is the homeowner a user? No. The bank is. The homwoner is the client because they're not an intended user. It's wrong. It's the homeowners collateral that the bank wants to buy an option on to purchase at a later date at 80% ltv this colateral. The bank needs this collateral to leverage 9 to 1 so they can take more risks. The conception of the whole thing from the beginning is wrong, the homeowner is the client. The reason it was misconstrued that the bank should be the client is that the bank is doing the loaning of the money. Just because they're loaning money does not make them the client. They're loaning money to their client who in essence is our client also as they are not an intended user. It doesn't happen without the homeowners permission and they pay for it. I think that qualifies as client. The bank as client is wrong.

So Cal Broker: (January 29, 2010 12:18pm)

Actually, in California, if your primary residence is lost to foreclosure and your mortgage/s are purchase money, then lender has no recourse and can NOT collect from you later.

BIG AL: (January 29, 2010 12:06pm)

5Pence is wrong, Sorry, but appraiser's are drilled in this kinda stuff.

BIG AL: (January 29, 2010 12:04pm)

When an appraisl is preformed for a lender, the borrower / homeowner is NOT entitled to a copy of the appraisal from the appraiser. This is because the appraiser's client is the lender, not the borrower, even though the borrower pays for the appraisal fee. A client is defined as the party who direcly engages the appraiser to perform the assignment. Although the borrower may have paid for the appraisal, the law prohibits the appraiser from providing you with a copy of the appraisal report without the consent of the lender. Although the appraiser cannot provide the borrower with a copy of the appraisal without clients permission, the borrower has every right to receive a copy of the appraisal from the lender. According to Cal Business and Professional Code Section 11423 a borrower has up to 90 days to submit written request for a copy of the appraisal.

Rob in AZ: (January 29, 2010 11:56am)

5pence--with respect, I think you are wrong on this. The "Client" is the bank or lending institution who orders the appraisal. If you look at page one it says "Client", and in this place is the Lender. "Borrower" is a separate field. The borrower has a right to a copy of the appraisal, but the actual use of the thing is limited to the Lender/Broker who orders it. As an example, it is the Broker or Lender who gets turned into collections in case of non-payment to an Appraiser, not the Borrower (except if the Borrower provided a hot check, which is a separate issue).

5pence: (January 29, 2010 11:54am)

"The report belongs to the homeowner and they are free to lend it out to whoever they wish." But the banks, because they for some reason are named the client, screw everything up because through misconception they think they are in control. The homeowner is in control but no can seem to admit it. It's the homeowners collateral and they pay for the appraisal. It's theirs and they, after all the rigamorole, are the client. Our client and the banks client. Empower the homeowner! Educate them on their rights and the rights of their estate. LOL, it seems to be quite normal in political areans to misconstrue meanings - it keeps them in control. Take for instance the HVCC. Home valuation code of conduct. WTF??!! Sounds proper but it's implementation belies it's title with sinister intentions.

5pence: (January 29, 2010 11:45am)

The bank doesn't own the appraisal, the homeowner does. The have the homeowners permission to use it as an intended user of the report. It's really disturbing how many terms are being inappropriately applied with whole industries based on these misconceptions. Take the AMC for example, a lot of people want to name them as the client in the report because they pay them. That's wrong. The report belongs to the homeowner and they are free to lend it out to whoever they wish.

Nor Cal Mortgage Broker: (January 29, 2010 11:41am)

Frank & Brian: I hope you will ask Coester Appraisals/Jaymes Financial the follow up question: Do they receive a fee for the "warm introduction to our client and counterpart?" If they do, then they are an interested party. After all, how many clients are going to pay for the "warm introductions" if the appraisals ordered don't pan out??

5pence: (January 29, 2010 11:41am)

Sorry Toby but the bank is not the client, they are only an intended user. The homeowner that pays for the appraisal is in reality the client. The bank might pay for the appraisal upfront for their client but they are only an agent of the client (the homeowner) until the homeowner/client pays them for the appraisal. We need to go back over terms as they are being used inappropriately imo and that leads to a lot of misconceptions that can be taken advantage of, and they are. A lot

Toby: (January 29, 2010 11:26am)

joecolorado, HUD is an "intended user" of the FHA appraisal report which you agree to when you get on their list and accept an appraisal with a case number. The bank is the client (also an intended user). Your instructor was an idiot.

Anonymous: (January 29, 2010 11:09am)

Lowly Processor - buyers are liers then we bail them out with free govt money.

Lowly Processor: (January 29, 2010 11:05am)

Talk about a blunder... one of my LO's had been working with a client for over a year, writing countless PQs. After writing yet another, the borrower stopped returning the LO's calls. When she eventually got through to the borrower he said that they weren't able to buy the house but they were able to rent it. Too bad, or so we thought, until the borrower's wife posted on Facebook "You can write this address in ink - we're here to stay" and continued to rant about their dream house and how this was "the one" even posting links to a website they had designed to praise this home. Some people have no idea who's reading their stuff...

joecolorado: (January 29, 2010 11:02am)

Brian and Frank, whats the deal? some bloggers are definitly over the 1000 mark, I try to get my info within your prescribed limits, and being verbose THAT IS DIFFICULT!!! but twice today there have been blogs which are well in excess of that, what gives?or is that a government counted 1000?

MortgageBlues: (January 29, 2010 10:52am)

Hey Scratchingmyhead- A second mortgage lender cannot ask for additional kick back funds outside of escrow because it is illegal. The first mortgage lender who would normally foreclose has FIRST POSITION. When a first mortgage lender agrees to a short sale they are agreeing to take less than the total amount they are actually owed. Further, if there is a second mortgage involved in a Short Sale the first mortgage lender is generously agreeing to allow some money to go to the second mortgage lender simply to make the deal work. Again, the first mortgage lender is generously agreeing to allow the second mortgage lender to receive some money too. However, if the first lender were to foreclose rather than do a Short Sale, then the second mortgage lender would only receive reimbursement if there was a buyer at the trustee’s sale who paid more for the property than the actual amount owing on the first mortgage including all back payments and fees. Then and only then would there be an overage of funds available for the second lien holder to receive anything through a foreclosure. In order for the second mortgage lender to protect their interest, they would need to be the one foreclosing. If the second mortgage lender foreclosed they would still be subject to paying the current first mortgage balance including all associated costs and fees. For this reason, most second lien holders do not foreclose. Most often, during a foreclosure sale either the property sells for a low price affording little, if any, overage of funds for the second lien holder. Even more likely, no one purchases the property at the foreclosure sale and ownership then transfers to the first mortgage lender. When ownership of the property transfers to the first mortgage lender the second mortgage lender receives nothing at all. A second mortgage lender who has worked out a settlement amount with the first lien holder would obviously be committing a crime if they ask a real estate agent for additional kick back money outside of escrow. The first mortgage lender has already allowed the second lien holder to receive some funds which they likely would not have received if the first lender had simply foreclosed instead of agreeing to a Short Sale.

Mtg 1: (January 29, 2010 10:52am)

David - now you have it. Smells like goverment doesn't it!

David: (January 29, 2010 10:47am)

I should have added Block A - Forget everthing above this line. Pick the lender with the lowest number in this box using the same interest rates. If you want a lower rate, make everyone you talk to do this form over with the lower rate then compare again. Repeat until the rates change because it will take a long time, then make them do it again.

Mtg 1: (January 29, 2010 10:42am)

DAvid - it should be burned as it is the biggest farce every conceived. What should be done is that the BNAKS should have to disclose their srp so that the consumer can see how much they are gouging them for. I'm a Mtg Broker and I do not see where I'm gouging anybody when I make 2 points on a loan. If one is from them and one from the lender that's fair. I'm not here to do it for free.

ThePhoenix: (January 29, 2010 10:40am)

I listened to recording. Its offensive. While I understand that their cooperation is voluntary related to the short sale, it is extortion. Putting that aside for a minute, I have two comments. What do agents do in these situations? The agent themselves nor can they have their client bow to this and must walk away and not break the law. The risk to the agent is the loss of their license and possibly civil liability to the parties to that escrow. Our law practice has been cautioning real estate agents that short sale in general have huge risks to them for failing to disclose material facts, which is constructive fraud. However,participating in a short sale where an agent participates in a direct fraud is well... just as bad as that lender. No client can ask their agent to do anything illegal. I know everyone is hurting for money but this is going to cost a whole lot more than that one commission. The lender should be turned into the local DA and the state Attorney General.

Rhino: (January 29, 2010 10:40am)

Trapper: It's only illegal for gov't agencies to record secretly. And even they can do it if they have a court order. This was apparently a private recording. Not illegal. (Also not admissable, I believe).

David: (January 29, 2010 10:38am)

Htg 1 - I believe they should revise the GFE to say this...Block 1, this is how much your bleeping loan officer is ripping you off to do this loan. It also includes the amount the lender is gouging to look at your papers. Block 2 - This is money you are getting back because YOU chose a rate higher then necessary to oblation this loan (YSP) or extra money you have to pay because YOU chose a rate lower then necessary to oblation this loan. This Block does not affect the amount of money your bleeping loan officer is making.

Trapper: (January 29, 2010 10:37am)

Wow! do you think an agency will go after this lender...did the agent record this without telling the lender? I think that is illegal too, but I am glad to see this is getting out. It makes me mad that the Lender is scamming the Realtor. Something needs to be done about it, like a public hanging, haha

Anonymous: (January 29, 2010 10:28am)

Read the Rate Alert on GFE and broker. They say in Para 3 and 3a - you still want to make 2750 and $2000 of that is from YSP and the borrower is paying 750. the 2000 in ysp is in box 1 for your total compensation of 2750 and the adjusted origination of 750 is what comes from the borrower. you still get the 2000. All it does is state where your comp is coming from box is total comp, box 2 is assistance via ysp and adjusted is what comes from the borrower.

Rhino: (January 29, 2010 10:22am)

Brian and Frank, Taylor Bean goes under, the new servicer is overwhelmed, and it's Barny Frank's fault?

Anonymous: (January 29, 2010 10:18am)

Tim - thanks again, went to ratealert.com and there is a list of lenders. Funny thing is even though Wells is on the list, the local office MADE ME PUT YSP in block 1 and it was either do that or not go to underwriting.

Mtg 1: (January 29, 2010 10:18am)

DAvid - that is what we have been saying. I may not have been clear. box 1 will contain your origination fee, uw fee, tax service, processing, doc prep and the YSP. Lets say that is 3500. The YSP then goes in box 2 selecting the second box and then giving them credit of the YSP - say 1000. The adjusted origination fee is then 2500 - which is the portion of your income that the client pays. At closing you still get the 3500 - 2500 from the buyer and the 1000 in ysp. Make sure that when you enter the YSP in box 1 that you do not include it in as an APR fee(i keep all fees broken out)

David: (January 29, 2010 10:11am)

Tim-that helps and thank you...but I think I understand it. What wholesalers understand it and are doing it correctly? That is my real question. I have yet to talk to any wholesalers that don't make you overstate Block 1 by putting YSP on top of what you want to earn and therefore Adjusted Origination is overstated

Mark: (January 29, 2010 10:10am)

Happy Days - yes but I always argue and provide the FHA guidelines and I normally can at least get them to do their own review appraisal at their cost. On the flip side - Met Life is a PITA anyways.

David: (January 29, 2010 10:08am)

Mtg 1- this is right off of an example from Flagstar "The total of all fees paid to BOTH the lender & broker,including YSP,but excluding discount points used to buy down the rate." Seems to me that is wrong and in conflict with HUD.

Tim Kearns: (January 29, 2010 10:04am)

If you want a better understanding of GFE 2010 and Box 1, I suggest you go to www.ratealert.com go to forums tab and you will find tons of info in the GFE 22010 forum (it's in the dropdown). Don't need to be a paying member to participate. Hope this helps...

HAPPY DAYS: (January 29, 2010 10:03am)

MARK: Not to keep it going. But, if the investor calls for it then YES, it will have to be done. You know that. The Lender just calls it an overlay. The have the money and the make the rules. Yes, you can complain but we both know how long that will take.

Mtg 1: (January 29, 2010 9:52am)

David - I don't have issues with Flagstar but Sierra Pacific, Fifth Third(local bank) are ones that also come to mind.

sus socal appraiser: (January 29, 2010 9:47am)

Coester Appraisal Co....WOW....good business practices.....where is the independence in this business model....oh ...just like the big guys... And not to mention the 2nd attempting to get more out of the buyer or seller.....the system is a mess & not set up for such high 1st & 2nd as the 2nd has no voice...but this should not be the norm...as it does not report the true sales price, which causes more problems with market values.....

5pence: (January 29, 2010 9:45am)

Coester pays $125+/- for a 1004 is what I hear. 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2. They hire appraisers that don't know that the term for this profession is "independent" appraiser. Those that just don't have the skills or acumen to make it on their own. Why do these types even become appraisers? They just screw it up for everybody else that is independent. Coester wants to expand so they want a list of your clients to do that-ie... steal your clients. The gall, the nerve! They get no respect from me. Ezra: Cuomo has a 5-1 advantage over his opponent for his run for Gov. I hope he does run as a great way to educate the public about the illegal HVCC & the consumer crimes it enables. Protest!! All those funds he received will mean nothing. Don't we owe it to him to ruin his career & chances like he ruined ours? Short sale is to help the borrower the lenders (1 & 2)are supposed to agree-yes?. This kickback scheme is illegal imo. Why realtors get 3%? Don't worry, the banks are all over that, making plans.

Mark: (January 29, 2010 9:39am)

Understand all of that but a Bank cannot, at this time, require any additions or changes to a report done in Aug and they have to accept the appraisal under current FHA guides based on the case number assignment date. If the bank has issues, then they should pay for their own review report and not charge the new borrower. She has 3 choices, pay for the other report and move on, complain to hud and get it transferred or wait 6 months from the date of assignment and then have hud cancel the current case number and then move forward.

Jazzboy: (January 29, 2010 9:39am)

Re short sale: I was in the middle of a short sale; it was a second home in Florida, the lenders were both Wells Fargo. The first finally agreed to terms but the second shook us down for more money; $3000 and they didn't care where it came from; my realtor and I split the difference to get it sold. The second was actually converted into a regular debt ($34000)and then that debt was sold to a collection bureau.The second holder said that if I didn't agree to the terms the deal was dead! To this day, I don't know if the two "Wells" had some kind of "secret" agreement or collusion, but that's how it shook out.

Down but not Out Appraiser: (January 29, 2010 9:32am)

Not sure what is happening. Did alot of work for Servicelink last month, but no orders this month. They won't even reply a simple email. Its as if they just vanished! I don't know if I will get paid. Could it be they now have to register in California to do business. HVCC made me independent from my hard earned. Coumo is a complete idiot and I will contribute to defeating him to save the right to a free market and fair payment for our profession and business to make it. Every appraiser is a small business. If Obama wants small business to survive, then we need HCCC to "SUNSET". As HR 4173 puts it.

NorCal: (January 29, 2010 9:22am)

Seriously, I hope you guys get your own television show, get an agent and go for it.

HAPPY DAYS: (January 29, 2010 9:21am)

Mark, FHA will accept an apprisal that is 5-6 months old but most banks will not. Yes, if she did jump the gun then she would be wrong. But, more then likely she would had to have a new appraisal or at least a recert. But, again most banks will want a new inspection with that much time gone. BUT I really do not think that is the bigger issue.

Mark: (January 29, 2010 9:17am)

The appraisal was don in Aug. Aug to sept is month 1, Sept to Oct is 2, oct to nov is 3, nov to dec is 4 and december to jan is 5. I know how to count and you are at month 5. Why did you complete a new appraisal without getting the case number first? Appraisals are good for 6 months. You wasted your clients money getting an appraisal without getting a case number first. When you found out that the appraisal was in existence, they would have paid for the one in Aug. Did the one in Aug support your current sales price?

HAPPY DAYS: (January 29, 2010 9:11am)

MARK, I did not think she wants to get the apprasial for free. In was done in AUG. it is to old and if the appraiser did not get paid then the appraiser who would transfer it (if it was not old) would ask to be paid. The case # can be transfered without the appraisal being transfered.

themortgagelady: (January 29, 2010 9:10am)

Mark, Apparently you can't count months - IT HAS been 6 months and we have a new appraisal. My client is having to paying for 2 APPRAISALS thank you very much

Gilbert: (January 29, 2010 9:10am)

Brian & Frank, You're always mentioning the Democrats who are the "impediment" to progress in fixing our industry, yet you never mention Republicans who may be a helpful alternative. Is that because there are none? Who should we be lobbying for action?

David: (January 29, 2010 9:08am)

What you want to earn plus processing, underwriting plus a few things go in Block 1. Whatever the rebate is goes in Block 2 and has NOTHING to do with Block 1. I know we are saying the same thing Mtg 1, but what wholesalers are doing it correctly?

HAPPY DAYS: (January 29, 2010 9:07am)

They teach it that way because that is how we have thought about it for years. They are changing they way they teach it now that more LO understand it. THANK YOU FIRST PRIORUTY and TBWS.It all works out the same but that is not the way the GOV. wants it to be thought of anymore. ysp is the clients not the LOs. that is what they want to get across.

David: (January 29, 2010 9:06am)

mtg 1- I know they are wrong, but if you want to get the loan into underwriting you have to do it the wrong way. I just got an email from Flagstar and the attached file says YSP goes in Block 1. So what wholesalers are doing it correctly?

Mark: (January 29, 2010 9:04am)

Themortgagelady - yes HUD can release it if you complain but why do you think that your client should get an appraisal for free? If they are going to use it they should pay for it - or wait your 6 months and get a new appraisal.

Mtg 1: (January 29, 2010 9:01am)

Happy Days - The way i described it is how it is being taught by every lender I deal with. I did test it wil a title company just to make sure that the funding and what I got in compensation worked out. You can offer a par rate and just charge the client 2000 but that is direct money from them, thought is will be a lower rate than the bank. David - they are wrong. If you want to make 1000 and you are getting it in ysp, then 1000 goes in the top and you check the second box and add your 1000 and the adjusted would be zero. Remember, you also have to add all of the investor fees in box 1 or you write a check for that.

michelll: (January 29, 2010 9:00am)

I recently closed an open relief refi with the same scenario TBW/CENLAR ... about a zillion phone calls to all paries involved. FLMC & CENLAR, they finally fixed the problem and I got it done.

Happy Days: (January 29, 2010 8:58am)

DId you complain to HUD (FHA CONNECTION) I have gotten a lot of those done. If the Bank is holding the Case # Hostage then they can release it. Just because they did not charge the borrower up front and cover themselves does not mean that your borrower should be damaged.

michelll: (January 29, 2010 8:56am)

I had a refi for a client, EXACT same scenario with Freddie/Cenlar/TBW. After 60 days of daily phone calls to Freddie Mack AND CENLAR -- It got fixed... not sure exactly what they did but I guess I made so much noise they finally figured it out. So don't give up, it can be done.

themortgagelady: (January 29, 2010 8:53am)

OK, I have a new one to throw into the fire. Need some help and feedback from you guys. Went to get a case number for a purchase and the number was on hold. Come to find out there had been a contract on the house in August & appraisal was done but deal fell thru. Metlife will not release the number until they get paid $425 for the appraisal they shelled money out for. They are holding my client's purchase hostage(who by the way is not the same purchaser as in August) because THEY didn't collect the appraisal fee from THEIR borrower. This is Illegal but my client has to cough up the money to get the number. Who can I call to report Metlife's practices? Case Number BUSTERS?

G-Appraiser: (January 29, 2010 8:50am)

Love the Coester rebuttal letter. More "word salad". How much are they paying their appraisers anyway? 1/2 of a 1/2 of a 1/2 of non market fees on substandard drive bys or a restricted use products on million+ properties? Whats the real skinny on this oh so reputable AMC? Also, must be nice to have the "old fashioned ability" to procure and maintain strong vender/ client relationships by hard work and ethics. THATS WHAT I USE TO BE ABLE TO DO! That statement makes me want to vomit. Recently, I have never heard so many appraisers talking Union. I know we are waiting on some outcome with HR4173,etc.. but how long are we going to wait to make a move? Aren't we in an "appraisers state of emergency".Where are our local/ state agencies in all this? I can scrape up $100, but where and with whom is it best spent? Love the idea of contributing to Cuomo's opponent in the upcoming election for Attorney General. That is definately one good idea for starters.

Happy Appraiser: (January 29, 2010 8:49am)

With tb&w,,,have they filed for bankruptcy, if not then why cant they be sued for bad checks, (this is a felony in Florida) and for not paying their over due invoices. I wished we could find out about this. All of this money should have been allocated in some type of escrow. The appraisal fees should have already been accepted from the borrower, which means that they received money for a service that the didnt deliver, nor did they pay for the services they ordered. So it would appear that they have committed fraud on so many levels. If FDIC has shut them down you usually get a notice from them to file a claim. But I havent seen one of those, so obviously that is not the case. They have got to be sitting on a big pile of $$ somewhere, and what ever entity shut them down should have used some forethought and take the responsibility of paying their bills.

Happy DAYS: (January 29, 2010 8:48am)

MTG 1: That is bassically correct but OLD THINKING. The LO charges what the want and the ysp is credited to the boroower. You need to change your thinking. But I do understand what yo are saying and I think thatis what happened to the Banks and why ta lot of them got it so screwed up.

The Dude: (January 29, 2010 8:48am)

Thank you Mark and Bono Vox. I'm all over it.

David: (January 29, 2010 8:48am)

mtg 1- not quite. Lets say you only want to make $1000 on a 100,000 loan and the pricing is currently 1% YSP. They are saying you HAVE to put the 1 pont you are making AND the 1 point YSP in Block 1, so 2 points go in Block 1 with 1 point in Block 2. Without other fees that would make the Adjusted Origination $1000 and the Adjusted should be 0

Mark: (January 29, 2010 8:46am)

Dude - BRAVO!!

joecolorado: (January 29, 2010 8:46am)

As for sending your fee invoice to HUD-forget it. I complained to HUD about a broker that didnt pay me on TWO FHA appraisals,I was constantly informed by the HUD personnel in their classes that the appraisal is done for HUD not for the bank,any problems contact HUD.WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH.I contacted my local HUD office and complained,they asked me"what do you want us to do about your delinquent fees"?I told them of their class instruction and they told me "The instructor should not have said that".BRILLIANT!Now I am out a shed load of money,the borrower has paid the broker,HUD has its appraisal,I can be reviewed and audited and I never got a plug nickel.So dont expect any help from your local HUD offices,instead just file in small claims court and hope for the best.

HAPPYDAYS: (January 29, 2010 8:45am)

THE DUDE: Good for you. I try to educate my realtors. I make what I make and you make what you make. If you think you charge a responsible fee and so do I and the client is Happy. Whats the problem. I will not ask you to reduce your fees so please do not ask me to reduce mine. I state it differently but bassically thats it.

Mark: (January 29, 2010 8:44am)

NE Appraiser - I have been sayig for months that the Bank are creating a monopoly adn we should stop it. Keeps falling on deaf ears.

mtg 1: (January 29, 2010 8:42am)

David - yes the YSP goes in box 1. If you want to make $2000 and you are getting 1000 from your client and 1000 in ysp, the first box has 2000 and then you check the second box and show the 1000 credit making the adjusted origination 1000. the adjusted is what is paid directly by the client and you still receive the 1000 ysp

The Dude: (January 29, 2010 8:39am)

WDRD 3%. I had a realtor call me out at the closing table saying that my 1% origination was too much. I quietly grab the HUD, leaned over to my borrower and pointed out the 3% commision the realtor was making. I then explained that the seller has to pay that fee, and that if they didn't, or if that fee was reduced, they could have most certantly bought the house for cheaper. Then I pointed out what I was making and what the realtor was making (3% vs. 1%) then I told them that nobody in this room gets paid or gets keys unless the money shows up. Then I asked the borrower (who found the home online) if she felt like the realtor was 3 times more critical to this transaction. Needless to say, the realtor got up and left the room.

Pissed Off!: (January 29, 2010 8:37am)

Hey, Happy Days - I think you are right. Those TBW impound funds have to exist somewhere. They were not the lender's funds, they belong to the borrowers.

joecolorado: (January 29, 2010 8:36am)

Shawno-where the payer has knowingly or unknowingly paid with a bad check may constitute a fraud.I would send the details of the transactions and a copy of the check plus a list of your incurred charges to the AG of your State with a letter of complaint,let the AG work out the idiosyncrasies,that's why you are paying federal taxes,so get THEM to protect YOU.

Common Sense: (January 29, 2010 8:35am)

Why do Realtors.....Good Question and it deserves an answer. As a former Realtor, I know that this is often discussed. the problem as I see it is loose licensing creiteria. How many people do you know who used to be Realtors? there are so many Realtors, that it is hard for the public to differentiate between good, experienced professionals and the guy who just got laid off at the local factory and got his license as a temp job, or the school teacher who needs something to keep her busy during the summer. the result is that Realtors end up spending most of their commissions on advertising and trying to differentiate themselves instead of on normal overhead. Realistically, if we could get rid of the 90% of Realtors who are sub-par at best, the other 10% of consumate professionals could staff-up and handle more transactions for much less money per transaction. The clients would get better service and the true professionals would earn a great living.

NEAppraiser: (January 29, 2010 8:35am)

Are you finding out that there has been no work from Rels/WellsFargo and Quantrix/Chase Bank. No it's not just slow, I'll bet they are beefing up their in house Appraiser Staff/Staff Appraiser, paying them nothing and controlling the complete loan process all the way to the bank!, To THEM!. Now how can a staff appraiser be unbiased when their job relys on the wants of their employer? All appraisers need to organize in ea. state & then nationally now!. What is to stop a bank from having/owning the whole RE industry. Answer? nothing.

Rob in AZ: (January 29, 2010 8:34am)

@Frank & Brian--Suggestion: wouldn't a "Rapid Re-score" work to solve your TB&W problem? I think, because the point is to get new scores from the bureaus, the re-score process would cause the mortgage to report to the bureaus even if Cenlar isn't normally doing so. Wait to get the new scores and BINGO run LP. Maybe I'm missing something... No disrespect intended.

Mark: (January 29, 2010 8:34am)

address and contact for respa violations:If I suspect someone is violating RESPA, is there a phone number I can call to make a complaint to HUD? A: We encourage anyone that suspects someone is potentially violating RESPA to contact us. You may either call 1-202-708-0502 or you may send your complaint to: Director, Office of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales US Department of Housing and Urban Development Room 9154 451 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20410 For more information, please visit our website at www.hud.gov/respa or email our office at hsg-respa@hud.gov.

Bono Vox: (January 29, 2010 8:33am)

Du-u-ude - Call the FBI. The Fibbies #1 target now is terrorists. #2 is mortgage fraud. If they give you the run around, take the agent's name. That usually motivates them.

CHARLIE: (January 29, 2010 8:33am)

TO EVERYBODY....INSTEAD OF COMPLAINING TO EACH OTHER ON THIS BLOG DOCUMENT EVERYTHING AND FOREWARD TO YOUR STATES DRE. ALSO TO YOUR POLITICIANS AND DEMAND CHANGES. GO TO YOUR LOCAL REAL ESTATE BOARD AND SEE IF THEY WILL PUT YOUR STORY IN THEIR WEEKLY BULLITIN SO ALL THE MEMBERS CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING AND GIVE THEM A HEAD'S UP ON THE SITUATION....STOP THE COMPLAINING AND DO SOMETHING....

ScratchingMyHead: (January 29, 2010 8:32am)

I listened to the recording. I don't see a smoking gun here. The question here is a shortsale. I believe a creditor should be allowed to collect the amounts owed to them. The people that took out the loan agreed to pay them their money. They are doing the people a favor by taking it in the shorts anyway. If the people have access to the money, why are they in this position anyway? Why wouldn't they just pay the additional amount the 2nd is requiring prior to closing? Would that be an ethics violation?

HAPPY DAYS: (January 29, 2010 8:31am)

I AGREE WITH YOU. BUt the deserve it because that is what was agreed to. Buyers and Sellers can agreed to pay the Realtor any amount the wish. It is a free market. Now, with us. it is different the GOV. blieves that people can not shop around. The do believe that people can shop around for almost anything else but Mortgages. We desrve to be able to charge what we want as well. But, that horse has left the barn.

Bono Vox: (January 29, 2010 8:31am)

Cool, there is some lending stuff out there today! Worried Broker and Mark - don't get too worried about big bank compensation, there isn't much to hide. BofA pulled YSP on the retail side and Wells is likely to follow suit soon. Those LOs will be making 30 - 80 bps per deal. THAT'S when Congress will get involved. Mr. Frank will want to know why it is that a Wells LO makes $600 per $100k but a broker gets paid $2000? Barney likes what he can control. He now controls Fannie, Freddie, VA, FHA, BofA, Wells, Chase and Citi. He want you in his fold. He loves you. He'll be nice.

Happy Appraiser: (January 29, 2010 8:30am)

Ph Appraiser, Yea I got stuck with one unpaid appraisal from tb&w, from their amc "Un"Security One Valuation Services. (Big name little service) But anyways I did get up with someone there and they gave me a number to fax invoices to. I have not been paid yet still so who knows. The fax # is: 352-291-5763 wish you the best. If you find anything out please post. Thanks

David: (January 29, 2010 8:25am)

Are any lenders accepting the GFE without YSP going in Block 1? Flagstar and Wells Fargo both say YSP has to go there. I just don't get it?

COA: (January 29, 2010 8:25am)

Brian & Frank, after listening to the tape it sounds like the lender is saying the homeowner needs to pay down their mortgage before they will approve the short sale. If that is the case, are they doing something illegal or being diligent?

WHY DO REALTORS DESERVE 3%..PLEASE CONVINCE ME?: (January 29, 2010 8:25am)

I want to start a discussion on here about realtor commissions! Please convince me why agents are picking up 3% on all transactions yet we get to fight over a point, and agents still questions our fees. I am a loan broker and i cancelled a transaction myself yesterday because i was sick of the bickering from all parties including the borrower. Yes i gave up my stinking commissions and i have no remorse for the borrower either because he did not deserve to be taken care of either..the email from the agent was priceless. I responded with "don't be so greedy next time, and why do you deserve 3%". By the way i slept like a champ last night too. Sometimes you just have to take the cookie away from the child!

The Dude: (January 29, 2010 8:23am)

Get this! I just spent the better part of three days trying to report the illegal activities of a lender. It seems as though "unmentioned large national bank" is still using the old GFE as one of my perspective clients sent them to me asking if I could compete. After contacting HUD and FHA multiple times no one there knows how are who to report illegal activity too. I then called my Congressman and they are researching the situation for me. Does anyone know how to report illegal mortgage activity?

Common Sense: (January 29, 2010 8:19am)

You guys are doing a great service to the industry. That said,I think it's astounding that you guys think there is something wrong with banks going after borrowers who do not pay back the money they owe. Living in Texas, I have not been involved in a lot of short sales, but my understanding was that the lender would release the collateral and reduce the debt from the proceeds, not forgive the debt. That sounds like Obama-talk. Talk about shutting down the market. Do you really think the banks are going to start making "no recourse" mortgages?

HAPPY DAYS: (January 29, 2010 8:17am)

TBWS impound account. Those funds should be in a trust account right. So shouldnt the be protected some how? just a thought.

Mark: (January 29, 2010 8:17am)

I would send your invoices to HUD for payment. They did a witch hund and closed TBW. What they cited for TBW was the saeme issues with Freddie and Fannie. Since the Govt ownes Fannie and Freddie, then they should foot the bill for your losses.

Vonsky Appraiser in MA: (January 29, 2010 8:14am)

I did 7 Appraisals for TB&W got paid on two. Then after everything was over I got five checks for the outstanding invoices. Deposited those checks and waited a week. then I moved the funds to my Wife's account to pay bills. following week I got notice that all five checks had been returned for lack of funds. bank was closed. So not only did I nnot get paid, but then I was charged a return check fee. and all the checks and debits that I did got bounced so I lost $1,875 dollars on the appraisals Plus $50.00 for the ceck return fees and then I got nine bounces on my checking accoutn for debits and check I wrote against what I hadn't moved to my wife's account and that was another $351.00 dollars. I wich they had never sent the bad checks in the first place. Same thing here called talked to someone and then I could bever again get through to them. Now I am awaiting to see if they send the 1099 for the whole amount for the seven appraisals or for just the two I actually got paid for

HUH?: (January 29, 2010 8:13am)

MIM: They get the GFEs through us doing loans, We have to fill them at and they have them in the file. Not to difficult.

BAD 1st BAD 1st: (January 29, 2010 8:11am)

Regfarding the SHORT SALE TAPES. Does the 1st have the right to dictate what the second will take or should receive? The seconds are trying to recover some of the money they are going to lose. The only way they can if the 1st is going to tell them what they will allow them to take is by having someone make a contribution to them. Yes that is a side deal but if they are willing to do it and the 1st is will to accept what they have agreed to. Then what the Hell, it should not be ilegal. The 1st should allow it to be disclosed. Sounds like they are the ones that are really causing the problem. not the seconds. They know the will be wiped out in a foreclosure, so their only hope to recover anyting is to see if anyone will pay to close.

MIMortgageDude: (January 29, 2010 8:09am)

Worried broker, how are they getting the new HUDs?

Mark: (January 29, 2010 8:08am)

Happy Days and Worried Broker - Brokers can still make YSP. WE are the only ones that have to disclose our income. The freaking banks still make YSP (although they call it SRP)but they do not have to disclose it. I ask why?? The gfe should be disclosed the same across the board - brokers show ysp and banks show srp. Treat it the same. Everyone shows income including the freaking banks, car dealers, grocery stores, gas stations.

HAPPYDAYS: (January 29, 2010 8:01am)

WORRIED BROKER> HOw are we going to get screwed. The only way is by the uneducated polis. WHat we are screwed. With the new GFE yes it appears that we charge more but the bottom lines is we do not. The Banks are able to hide their true comp. Baks pay out rebates to us there for they Know how much they are making they should have to show it as well. it is about full disclosure right.

worried broker: (January 29, 2010 7:55am)

utah mortgage, i agree however the banks are currently gathering 2010 huds getting ready for congress hearings we are about to get screwed by banks again

MOMOguy: (January 29, 2010 7:48am)

Shawno... think about this.. the company is no longer in existance...! the $$ is Gono!

Shawno: (January 29, 2010 7:45am)

I have a prblem with TB&W / Cenlar that I hope someone out there can help me with. I have a client that I refinanced out of a TB&W loan right as they were being shut down. TB&W sent a refund check to them for their escrows, but then put a stop payment on the check so it was not able to be cashed. He has been chasing his tail to get this money back. Anybody have any ideas how to go about this? Thanks

Utah Mortgage & Real Estate Guy: (January 29, 2010 7:44am)

Worried Broker: Nothing to worry about on that front. RUMOR, RUMOR, RUMOR. Total Closing costs are not the issue. Loan officer compensation is the issue. The current thought process is: a BROKER loan officer makes $4000 on a closed loan with a 5% rate and $5000 in net closing costs to the borrower. A BANK loan officer makes $1000 on a closed loan with a 5.5% rate and $6000 in net closing costs to the borrower. The current thought process is that the BROKER took advantage of the client. Even though the bank loan is higher in rate, higher in feees,- the employee did make too much in their minds. The biggest issue: we have to get Washington to understand is that EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION SHOULD NOT THE DETERMINING FACTOR if customer was taken care of or taken advantage of. TOTAL COMPENSATION to the LENDING INSTITUTION (broker or bank) for the life of the loan SHOULD be the determining factor.

Utah Mortgage & Real Estate Guy: (January 29, 2010 7:35am)

The new GFE, along with the change in Yield compensation, or should I say 'credit', single handedly saved BROKERS from extinction. This allows all brokers to profit, what they want on every deal, WITHOUT being compensated for the rate the borrower chooses. ALL LOAN OFFICERS SHOULD BE GIVING A POTENTIAL CLIENT- 3 to 5 different interest rate/cost scenarios for every loan. Realistically, you should have been doing it before the new GFE, but that is a different discussion. For those different scenarios, YOUR BOX 1 ORIGINATION SHOULD NOT CHANGE. THE BOX 2 CREDIT FOR THE BORROWER CHANGES AND makes the credit bigger or smaller depending on the rate the CLIENT wants.Here is a POSITIVE selling point for the new GFE. All broker/lender charges now show as ORIGINATION. This makes all those fees TAX DEDUCTABLE. Underwriting, application, processing, etc were not tax deductable as they were charged on the traditional GFE. Because only Origination Points or Discount points are tax deductabl

worried broker: (January 29, 2010 7:34am)

has any one heard the rumer about banks collecting all new huds to take to congress showing brokers charging way more then banks on orgination due to new gfe 2010 to eliminate brokers

Tiredofitbutwhatthehell: (January 29, 2010 7:33am)

Is anyone having problems getting the 2nd to resubordinate? WHY, what are telling you why the will not?

MIMortgageDude: (January 29, 2010 7:24am)

It sucks, when you are lowering a client's payment on the first making it easier to met the rest of their obligation but the sencond will not subordinate. Unfortunately it is up to the lender/servicer to decide if they are willing to subordinate. There is no guideline that they have to do it.

JayBird: (January 29, 2010 7:23am)

oops "Throw us off"

JayBird: (January 29, 2010 7:21am)

Have you guys ever thought about switching spots? Just to through us off. Frank step left and Brian step right.

Utah Mortgage & Real Estate Guy: (January 29, 2010 7:18am)

Brokers: YIELD IS NOT COMPENSATION. The traditional (or OLD) GFE was easy for loan officers, originators, etc to calculate the profits on each loan. The 2010 GFE is not made for the loan officer/originator to be able to calculate profits. To calculate profit from the 2010 GFE. Take box 1, subtract lender administrative costs, subtract processing, subtract any other administrative costs, etc. What ever is left over, is the profits on the loan. YIELD SPREAD IS NOT COMPENSATION. The simplest concept ever. Brokers; you can still 'beat the pants off' of bank rates, closing costs etc. Just have to change your mindset, upfront points are your only compensation. YIELD IS A CREDIT TO THE BORROWER.

oh really: (January 29, 2010 7:15am)

how much is coester appraisal paying their appraisers?

David Hochberg: (January 29, 2010 7:13am)

Joey - That is what is wrong with the system and the exact point of my post. Harris Bank just subordinated a second behind a new FHA first I did with a ltv/cltv of 97.5%/107. Why will Harris do it and West Suburban won't. As if West Suburban doesn't know property in their portfolio hasn't decreased. The system is a joke and variances need to be in place for banks to offset deals and situations like this. This is not the only time a bank has refused to subordinate and it is just wrong. The US economy is losing billions of dollars because of stupid, moronic rules that prohibit people from securing lower rates and reducing their monthly payments. If the government wants to fix something, fix this.

LivingInDC: (January 29, 2010 7:09am)

Crystal... I don't work for a Broker so I may be wrong.. but didn't YSP go the way of the Doo Doo Bird as of January 1st? I don't think you are allowed to show/charge/keep it... just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Utah Mortgage & Real Estate Guy: (January 29, 2010 7:08am)

CRYSTAL: You have to change your thought process. YIELD SPREAD IS NO COMPENSATION FOR YOU, IT IS A CREDIT TO THE BORROWER. THE ONLY COMPENSATION YOU GET IS WHAT IS CHARGED IN ORIGINATION POINTS and/or ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (inlcuded in origination on 2010 GFE). You should not be manually entering the box 1 and box 2 figures. They should be calculated from your traditional GFE. AGAIN I WILL SAY. YIELD SPREAD IS NOT COMPENSATION TO THE LOAN OFFICER (BROKER). THE ONLY COMPENSATION YOU GET IS WHAT IS CHARGED IN ORIGINATION. Example: ABC broker wants to make 2.75% on a $100,000, 60% LTV, 800 Credit score, refinance. The traditional GFE Origination is $2750. Whatever rate is sold, or chosen by the borrower, would determine if the borrower gets a credit for some or all of the fees, or if the borrower is going to pay more points buydown the rate. YIELD IS NOT COMPENSATION.

Frank@TBWS: (January 29, 2010 7:06am)

Crystal... you are not keeping any YSP. It all goes to the borrower.

Joey Community Banker: (January 29, 2010 7:02am)

Hochberg - Banks can't subordinate the seconds to have you help the borrower because with the new information they receive (new appraisal) they have to classify the loan differently and put more funds into their loan loss reserve, thus making it more difficult to lend to other borrowers. I agree that this is unfair to the customer because we know the truth that our loans are in the same position regardless. Community banks are having a tough time too & adding capital to the loan loss reserve is tough...especially when we have to deal with the ICBA backed TBW crap. At least I can blame Cenlar for not letting them refinance vs saying I can't do the loan because we won't subordinate

crystal: (January 29, 2010 6:45am)

From: Crystal Keefer [Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:10 PM To: HSG-RESPA Subject: Yield Spread & the new GFE 2010 Please clarify for me this scenario: If we are only making yield spread premium of $3000, (no origination fee or processing fee) and lender is charging a Underwriting fee of $675 then on the page 2 box 1 do we enter $3675 then credit $3000 in box 2 (we are a broker) Or $675 in box 1 and $3000 in box 2? In other words if we are keeping all of our yield spread does it belong in box 1? RESPONSE: CCE RESPA Staff $3675 in Block 1 and -$3000 in block 2 (and check the second box).

Rondon: (January 29, 2010 6:37am)

"BRIAN Garay"? Frank, did you change your name?

joecolorado: (January 29, 2010 6:37am)

just listened to the recording...shameful..the authorities should be informed about this blatant fraud.The agent involved did the correct thing by making this available, but needs to get the respective authorities involved to remove this lenders rep from business and castigate the lender for promoting fraud.

Pacos Tacos: (January 29, 2010 6:31am)

I work for a major lender that has received some of the TWB loans and had this exact thing happen yesterday. A lady called and wanted to see if she qualified for MHA and when looking up her info, found out that she had 4x30x12. She was irate because she had never been late and had the canceled checks to prove it. I don't know why she was complaining or even calling since she owes $35K and has payments of $225/month. Even if I could refi her, she would save $10/month? Just another example of how people get blinded by rate and think it's the end-all, be-all. Paco http://bit.ly/57OBqe

GODLIKE: (January 29, 2010 6:30am)

Good Luck with the Grocery store offices ReMax. That worked so well for Coldwell Banker and Sears.

GODLIKE: (January 29, 2010 6:29am)

CHASING A NUMBER? Do you mean trying to get an appraisal that mimics value? If he paid $300,000 and had an appraisal then, in my area of the world that number or one higher would be the number I'd be chasing. Unfortunately I've had HVCC appraisals that have had $75,000 differences on a $200,000 house.

brian tbws: (January 29, 2010 6:29am)

hey nuke em. I get your point and i would not have used those guys face or name but they wanted us too. they are the client of a tbws viewer, not ours. they found us. i think using real names and faces gives it a little more cred. as a rule though id keep it john and jane doe

joecolorado: (January 29, 2010 6:25am)

links and docks-IMHO does the action described by Coester seem to be a little like advocacy for a company?correct me if I am wrong,the explanation seems worse than the original impression we were given.Having a connection as described appears to take them from the independent status required of the appraiser/appraisal company by steering a borrower.As a referrer to a financial avenue for a borrower could there be a fee/retainer/finders fee involved?Or are they doing it out of the goodness of their heart?(god bless their little cotton socks).Independence is the issue here unless of course they dont do appraisals on borrowers' properties they have steered,but even so there is a suggestion of offering that investors name over any other investor.just a thought as I dont know anything about the companies mentioned but an observation on the email response,In the past I have been asked for similar information but have never singled out one company over another,to me that may be advocacy.

NE Georgia broker: (January 29, 2010 6:15am)

What about bank owned foreclosures where the bank won't accept an offer unless the buyer is approved by them (Wells Fargo does this all on all their foreclosed properties) That's the biggest crock and just a way of them trying to suck up more money out of the deal.

MLS Ken: (January 29, 2010 6:14am)

I had a deal close where the second asked for an additional 1500 from the homeowner to sign a document stating they would not pursue the homeowner for the remaining balance and the 1500 was on the hud. I don't see why that couldn't happen in this case. The first didn't have a problem with the second getting extra money as long as it didn't come out of their pocket.

MIMortgageDude: (January 29, 2010 6:09am)

I am actually trying to do a relief refi for a client that is being "serviced" by CELNAR from TB&W. I am sure that is CENLAR had the loan on a file that was not a TB&W loan there wouldn't be any issues. But the problem is that TB&W hasn't released the payments the clients made to CENLAR so that they can give a current rating (at least this is what CENLAR is telling us).

Mortgage Banker: (January 29, 2010 6:08am)

This industry is TOO Wacked out and f***** up for me. I'm out.

joecolorado: (January 29, 2010 6:02am)

PH- IMHO any loan officer,broker or person ordering the appraisal that tells you "I always pay my appraiser"has had issues in the past with non payment of fees, I avoid them like the plague.I haver been stung by a broker telling me exactly that,but I only got stung once,now everyone that makes that comment gets a wide berth.Sad that i has come to that,but there are no friends where money is concerned.

OcwenMisery: (January 29, 2010 6:01am)

I work for a loan servicing company and we service the property tax portion of the loans that were sold by TBW to Cenlar, and then to Ocwen. This makes the situation even worse than you guys were talking about. Hundreds of people are calling daily about loan mods that have not only fallen through the cracks but have out right disappeared. Ocwen's Mortgage Customer Service (an oxymoron in itself) is in India. They read auto-generated scripts to home owners, mostly in very poor English. Their Loan Mod people don't answer the phone, they only have voicemail. They never call people back. People magically are changed from non-escrowed loans to escrowed or vice versa. It's a FRIGGIN FARCE. I feel sorry for anyone who was with TBW and ended up at Ocwen... more misery is to come.

bongosdad: (January 29, 2010 5:56am)

what about the listing agents for foreclosures who demand that the buyer be preapporved through their lender--clearly illegal

Kris A: (January 29, 2010 5:43am)

I suggest forwarding the recorded conversation to every congress person. They are mad as hell with the arrogance of the banks already. They need to know this is happening

PH Appraiser: (January 29, 2010 5:36am)

I wonder if there are any other appraisers out there that did appraisals for TB&W and did not get paid for them? I know I did two before sh_t hit the fan and before i knew it I wasn't able to get a hold of anyone and I have never received payment for either appraisal. And the ordering company that ordered it, which I think was actually owned by TB&W promised me when I was doing the work that I would get paid. WTF!

Ancient Appraiser: (January 29, 2010 5:36am)

Ezradams - You will note; but of course it wasn't mentioned in the article - the contributors were all New York based or located. He probably is the best Governor money can buy (wink, wink) as far as they're concerned. On a national level I doubt you would find to many campaign contributors. Not that is any concilation. Vote the Bum out !!

David Hochberg: (January 29, 2010 5:35am)

How about looking into banks not subordinating. We have a borrower that qualified under Fannie DU refi plus. Current ltv/cltv is 92/114, FICO is 761. We are taking the borrower out of a 5/1 5.625% ARM and placing him into a 5.375% 30 yr fxd. The current holder of the heloc, West Suburban Bank in Illnois is refusing to subordinate anything over a 80% cltv. They are prohibiting a great customer from refinancing into a lower rate, lower payment and are in no worse position today then then were yesterday. Does this make any sense? Why isn't Congress doing something about this? So much for taking all your money out of Big Bad Banks and putting in a local community bank. They are all the same and full of crap.

Frank@TBWS: (January 29, 2010 5:28am)

FL Appraiser.. it wasn't that at all. Brian spoke to the loan officer on the deal AND to the clients directly. I'm sure Brian will provide some details on the blog later today. But it wasn't a loan officer reaching for a value, it was HVCC and Cenlar that pretty much hosed the clients I believe.

Nuke 'em 'til they Glow: (January 29, 2010 5:26am)

@Brian&Frank If you're going to B&M about a transaction just do it anonymously. I do the name change to protect confidentiality of the client but I use sites that get Indexed by Google. I have realtors show up in the top 10 on Google and stay there showing all of their bad deeds. All you have to do is google there name and bingo there they are. What do I tell my clients to do? Google ALL Professionals in the transactions and companies. Guess what... they drop the bad realtors like hot potatoes. If they don't then I say I've found some disturbing information about one of the service providers in the transaction and I want to keep my license. I ask did you research everyone that you've selected? If they say know I basically tell them that I'm firing them as clients. I have an investor that if you google his name #2 & #3 positions in google show how much of a crook he is! Get this the results have been there for THREE years. The moral is do it right and you CAN get the bad guys!

Joe: (January 29, 2010 5:25am)

@ Ezradams - I guess they feel that if he becomes Governor he will no longer be Attorney General! The same thing happened with Spitzer and Wall Street.

FL APPRAISER: (January 29, 2010 5:22am)

The bit about TBWS client's Terri & Tom spending $1,200 on 3 appraisals sounds to me like SOMEONE (a loan originator) was CHASING a number. This is one of the problems in that industry. They keep lsearching untile they get a number that will work for the particular loan they are working on. I would be interested in knowing how close in value the 3 appraisals were that the loan originator did not want.

I've Converted: (January 29, 2010 5:18am)

I don't know how you two do it. Boring stuff made interesting somehow. At first I thought you two were idiots and couldn't understand why anyone would watch you. Well I still think you're idiots, but for some damn reason "I cannot look away". I've converted and I love you and I hate you for it! Keep it up guys.

Nuke 'em 'til they Glow: (January 29, 2010 5:12am)

@brokersue I see two Points here, Yes it's illegal and starving agents. The lender in the recording basically says we have lots of agents that will do this all of the time. BECAUSE the HUGE amount of the Fraud committed by the agents in the industry the honest agents are starving. Quite simply the industry needs to police itself and clean this up this mess or all of the ethical industry professionals will leave and the only ones left will be the crooks. My experience is that 80% if all agents routinely commit fraud or violate RESPA. The vast majority it is deliberate.

Nuke 'em 'til they Glow: (January 29, 2010 4:57am)

@Ezradams Either the Industry is terrified of what he'll do next or they are smoking Crack. Really only two options. Face it Cumo is the Enemy of the RE Industry and as any politician will do anything to get Elected. I mean look at Hussein Obama and the SOU joke. You'd think all of these politicians are in a room sharing the Crack Pipe!

Frank@TBWS: (January 29, 2010 4:49am)

Ezradams - All I can hear is that song "Mad World" ringing through my head... pass the whiskey!

brokersue: (January 29, 2010 4:22am)

The short sale tape makes my blood boil!! If hundreds of starving realtors are breaking the law with this major lender we have a real problem!!!!!! I would never take a chance with this doodoo in a million years. Why is this not on the major news channels?

Ezradams: (January 29, 2010 3:55am)

WTF? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/nyregion/29donations.html?hp

boosh: (January 29, 2010 3:15am)

I just closed a loan that had a cenlar payoff and had ZERO problems. it closed in 3 weeks and the attorneys ahd no problem getting a payoff. Cenlar was not reporting on the credit report but we got it updated without problems