Posted by DianeCipa on 12/4/07 6:13pm
Msg #224295

Fitch report - This one is long but a really important read.

http://www.alta.org/govt/reports/07/Fitch_mtrge_mkt_1128.pdf

Read this then it will be easier to understand why the mortgage lending community is likely to embrace those Uniform Closing Instructions.

Reply by Linda Spanski on 12/4/07 7:21pm
Msg #224312

Page won't display

Does it require signing in?

Reply by Linda Juenger on 12/4/07 7:25pm
Msg #224313

Worked just fine for me. Opened up right away. n/m

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/4/07 7:26pm
Msg #224314

It's a pdf. Do you have Adobe Reader installed?

If not, it's free on the web.

Reply by Linda Spanski on 12/4/07 7:31pm
Msg #224316

got it n/m

Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/4/07 8:32pm
Msg #224330

Why can't these guys use simple English?

I love the lead:

" Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued in 2006 and
2007, backed by pools of subprime mortgages, are substantially
underperforming initial performance expectations, resulting in ratings
downgrades and heightened risk of principal loss."

Translation: There are a lot of loans that will be defaulting soon.

"As anticipated in Fitch’s rating criteria, falling home prices are a fundamental source of
poor performance. However, the 2006 subprime vintage performance is
remarkable for the magnitude of early mortgage defaults. Fitch attributes
a significant portion of this early default performance to the rapid growth
in high-risk “affordability” features in subprime mortgages.

Translation: It was a mistake to issue mortgages to people who couldn't afford to make payments. Duh.

"The interaction of home price declines and high risk products in 2006 vintage
subprime performance is analyzed in Fitch’s special report “Drivers of
2006 Subprime Vintage Performance,” dated Nov. 13, 2007. "

Question: When did mortgage loans become like wine and acquire a "vintage"??? Do you go to a bank and ask them to show you a selection of loans from 2003?

"In addition to the inherent risk of these products, evidence is mounting that in many
instances these risks were not controlled through sound underwriting
practices. Moreover, in the absence of effective underwriting, products
such as “no money down” and “stated income” mortgages appear to have
become vehicles for misrepresentation or fraud by participants
throughout the origination process."

Translation: It was a mistake to issue mortgages to people who couldn't afford to make payments. Duh, again.

There's no point to reading the rest of it; it's all bullsh*t anyway, just restating the obvious with fancy words, more sentences than necessary, and no substance....

And talking about "2006 vintage mortgages" - geez, what a pretentious bunch of morons.

Reply by JK/TX on 12/4/07 8:50pm
Msg #224332

Re: Why can't these guys use simple English? LOL

That was funny..... reminded me of those Geico commercials that aired awhile back!

Reply by pan/nd on 12/4/07 9:35pm
Msg #224339

Re: Why can't these guys use simple English?

Thanks for reading some of it, Mike.

I tried but after the 1st page I got distracted and then got that "whatever" attitude.

I knew a translator would come along and make a long story short.

I don't know how many pages there are...but really there doesn't need to be more than one.

Talk about filling a balloon with hot air.....

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/4/07 10:39pm
Msg #224346

Re: Why can't these guys use simple English?

I should've suggested skipping the first three pages or so then it does get very interesting.

Anyone listening to the MBA meeting could hear the difference in the voices when they started talking about fraud detection and prevention. Mortgage lenders and the title industry have done a collective crap job of it and now they've got to show Fitch and all of the other rating services and investment bankers that they have what it takes to clean up the product and make it work again. The uniform closing instructions look like a centerpiece of that plan and YOU are key to it working properly so I think it would be a pretty good idea to help structure that role, the price, AND the method of compensation.

The Settlement Agent can hire a Signing Agent. The Settlement Agent is responsible for the Signing Agent yet the Signing Agent is not an employee of the Settlement Agent.

The "closing employee" must be capable of performing to a level of adequacy that would satisfy the concerns of the Settlement Agent who now formally has liability.

Just as I pay abtractors when a transaction does not close, if I hired a Signing Agent, I would have to pay that person if the deal does not close. I could not under these circumstances allow the potential conflict to impair the ability of the closer at the table. Presuming for the sake of argument that I am on the hook for $150 for the abstract and $150 for a closer even if a deal falls thru, I'd surely expect a deposit up front to process a title order.

If there are any title people out there reading this string of thoughts .....speak!

Reply by jba/fl on 12/4/07 10:56pm
Msg #224348

Re: Why can't these guys use simple English?

My biggest gripe was/is that LO's are supposed to have identity all figured out, but when I get there and find expired DL's, State ID's, etc., and the LO argues w/me that this has been accepted already...then yells at me and about me to whoever hired me (SS, TC) saying I don't know my job, that I have f***** his loan
AND/OR
LO tells me that I need to make sure they sign, that I need to explain that this is 'soft', etc., and then proceeds to yell at me and about me to whoever hired me (SS, TC) saying I don't know my job,
And/OR
LO calls me in advance of signing, giving me contact number, then doesn't answer, and then proceeds to yell about me to whoever hired me (and so on, ad nauseam)

So Diane - keep pushing for separation of LO and signing person, (whatever new name we take on). I like that idea very much. With reporting to Settlement agent rather than a slew of others, who in the long run find their bread buttered by someone they appease at all costs, rather than integrity and ethics.

Sorry - had more to state, but too tired. Will try tomorrow, but I will get on this bandwagon. Nice having dialogue w/you Diane.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 7:27am
Msg #224370

Re: Why can't these guys use simple English?

Thanks, JBA. I really think that's a big part of these new instructions. They lay it all out there and give everyone "cover" to do what they are supposed to do. Thank heavens for that and that the instructions are so specific on at least some issues, like ID.

That's one big hurdle and a good excuse to get out there in front of some groups and talk. If we can get Realtors and mortgage lenders to working on ID from day one, the signing will be a breeze.

Reply by Terri_CA on 12/5/07 12:07pm
Msg #224405

Proper Identification!!!!

Just last night this happens. My confirmation shows John A. Smith. Set appointment with borrower. Get to my office after work to print docs. As I'm printing docs, I see his name is printed, John A. Smith, Jr.

In the package is a Customer Identification Verification and request to send back copy of ID. I call the borrower, nope no ID with Jr. on it that is acceptable for notarizations. Borrower calls LO, LO calls me. LO says, isn't there a AKA Affidavit in the documents. Sure is, I say. BUT! that's only good for lender's purposes, I cannot use it to tie it into the ID. Why, he asks. I calmly advise him that CA notary law is very specific about how I am to ID the signer. ID MUST have as much as or more than what they are going to sign. Borrower's ID doesn't have enough. I also advise him, I know this not only because I've been an notary for over 7 years, but that I have been teaching notary exam classes for the last 2.5 years.

FYI - no friends or relatives within 100 miles. And oh, the borrower gave me the, "I didn't have this problem 2 years ago when I refinanced, the notary took this ID." I told them if that was the case, they did so illegally and would be in big trouble if caught.

I sit here now waiting to hear what they are going to do. I gave them some possible solutions. Will be interesting to see what they use.

What is difficult is that when property changes title, it's the grantor who signs the Grant Deed, not the person getting the title. Thus, they don't know how they hold title. So the docs are drawn as per title according to county records. But I don't understand why his ID wasn't faxed or sent another way to the lender and/or title/escrow prior to the docs getting drawn. No one to check that there would be an ID issue.

Terri
Lancaster, CA

Reply by Cassandra Andrews on 12/6/07 12:46pm
Msg #224671

Re: Proper Identification!!!!

I hear ya - Just last month I was verbally abused over the'Jr.' issue. I put the LO on speakerphone - the results - borrowers were very happy w/me and I was asked to rtn but refused - same LO - not worth it. I do still have my day job (smiles).