Posted by NH on 1/21/05 1:55pm
Msg #17622

question

What is the NASA? I've seen it but can't find it.

Reply by Roger/OH on 1/21/05 2:02pm
Msg #17625

It no longer exists. It was sold to NNA a few years back, which has contributed to the detriment of our field ever since.

Reply by NH on 1/21/05 2:13pm
Msg #17626

Thank you. I do agree about the NNA.

Reply by Deborah in CA on 1/21/05 4:12pm
Msg #17642

Me, too, which is why I jumped for JOY when the Signing Registry finally was a reality. I canceled my membership with NASA soon after the NNA took over (I gave them some time as I had high hopes - soon dashed to smitherines).

Reply by Paul-CA on 1/21/05 2:33pm
Msg #17628

To bad about NASA selling [out]. There's a huge need for such an association, don't you think? Without it, there's little hope of getting some laws changed, especially in regards to signing services. I'd like to see federal laws along the lines of:

i. A Notary Public is to be paid for services rendered. Agreed upon fees can not be withheld or refused because of a rescinded loan.

ii. When a Signing Service changes its name or the principal(s) of a Signing Service start a new Signing Service, any solicitation for the services of a signing agent must include the previous business name(s) for a period of one year from the date of change or the start of the new business. [This handles the SS that gains a bad reputation and tries to dodge it by changing their name.]

iii. A Signing Service may not contract with a signing agent if they are unable to pay for the services of that agent within the terms of the contract (e.g., Net 30 following close of loan or Net 60 should the loan not close).

iv. If requested, a Signing Service must disclose (in writing if requested) what their EXPECTED payment schedule is for a particular job AND the number of contracts which have currently not been paid for within the contractually agreed upon timeframe.

v. A Signing Service may not discriminate against a Signing Agent who requests that a reasonable payment schedule be included in the contract.

vi. A Signing Agent may include in a contract reasonable late fees and a stipulation that the Signing Service will pay all applicable attorney fees should the agent retain an attorney in order to collect a late payment (assuming the agent is awarded the late payment).

vii. A Signing Service must pay an agreed upon fee (e.g., a flat fee or percentage of the total fee) to an agent it has contracted with for a signing if the agent is unable to complete the signing due, through no fault of the agent, to missing or incorrect documents (including documents not available at the time scheduled by the Signing Service).

...

I know ..., dream on.

Reply by Lori/CA on 1/21/05 3:00pm
Msg #17631

Right on, I'd vote for you!

Have a great day dream, Lori

Reply by HisHughness on 1/21/05 3:01pm
Msg #17632

So, Paul, would you think it would be appropriate for the federal government to provide the same relief to the local dry cleaners? The Five & Dime? The Mexican food restaurant? The paperboy? The apartment complex where I live? the tenants in that apartment complex? The local car dealer? The local car dealer's customers?

This is commerce. Even as a liberal Democrat, I think there should be limits to governmental oversight. Until such time as malefactions reach the level of a criminal act, I don't want any level of government involved in my business.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 1/21/05 3:20pm
Msg #17634

It's The Big One...I'm Coming, Elizabeth!

For Hugh to admit "I think there should be limits to governmental oversight"...the end must be near! Sell your belongings! Move to the mountaintops! Bush was inaugurated President for four more years! (Oh, I'm sorry...that's the standard liberal lament after yesterday! How did that slip in here?)

BTW, the phrase "It's the Big One" I lifted from the Sanford & Son TV series & was uttered by Fred Sanford (Red Foxx) whenever he was confronted with something so astonishing he feigned a heart attack & called out to his wife he was going home to be with her in heaven.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/21/05 6:09pm
Msg #17656

Re: It's The Big One...I'm Coming, Elizabeth!

Dennis exults:

***For Hugh to admit "I think there should be limits to governmental oversight"...the end must be near! Sell your belongings! Move to the mountaintops!***

About the only time when I agree with the far right's antipathy toward freedom of speech is after I read one of Dennis's posts.

Incidentally, Don King was on a local radio program yesterday, noting that he is a confidant of George Bush. That explains a lot.

Reply by Julie-MI on 1/21/05 7:54pm
Msg #17673

Re: It's The Big One...I'm Coming, Elizabeth!

Yep, I thought I would have the big one at the last President Bush rally in Michigan before the election. I had my rope line tickets and my sons wanted to know who the man with the big hair was.

My husband and I looked, and sure enough Don King was on stage--we were most definately suprised at his appearance.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/21/05 8:54pm
Msg #17682

Re: It's The Big One...I'm Coming, Elizabeth!

Whaddya get when you shampoo with Viagra?

Don King.

Reply by maureen/nh on 1/22/05 6:17pm
Msg #17740

Re: It's The Big One...I'm Coming, Elizabeth!

Isn't it wonderful, we are going to have a hereditary theocracy.

Reply by Paul-CA on 1/21/05 3:28pm
Msg #17636

Hugh, federal only because these SS's are conducting interstate business transactions. I'm not fond of government involvement in business, per se, but would suggest the wait for "such time as malefactions reach the level of a criminal act" is over. Contracting for work with no capacity or intent to pay for it is criminal. Doing so across state lines makes it a federal crime.

Reply by Roger/OH on 1/21/05 4:03pm
Msg #17640

Unlike private mom and pop businesses, notaries are officers of the state, appointed by state authority and beholden to their statutes. We are already part of the government, so I'd say let's use that to our advantage.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/21/05 6:00pm
Msg #17653

By the same token, so are attorneys. Should the government help them in the same fashion? So are various other types of service providers, such as administrators of estates, mental health professionals when appointed by a court, and many contractors when acting on behalf of the state. How about automobile inspections? Those are all appointed by the state. And everyone is "beholden" to state statutes, not just notaries public, in pursuit of his or her occupation, including the kid who sacks and carriers out your groceries.

Further, the suggestion was for federal legislation, not state.

Lastly, we are not engaging in a state function in acting as signing agents, so the bulk of our income would be unaffected even if the proposed Big Brother collection scheme was in place.

Reply by Roger/OH on 1/21/05 6:59pm
Msg #17664

Show me any of those examples who, when acting on behalf of the state as notaries do, risk getting stiffed on their fees? Not too many I know attorneys do either. And you know I meant state notarial statutes, which don't apply to grocery baggers. State assistance through each legislature is likely the only help to occur, and that's a big if depending upon each state's legislators and how much they care about it.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/21/05 7:22pm
Msg #17668

Roger, you have a strange view of the universe. If you want state assistance in collecting state-mandated minimum fees, then restrict your practice to only notarial functions and don't rely upon third parties for payment. YOU make the choice to contract with a third party rather than the beneficiary of the service because YOU derive greater benefit that way than the mini-fees you would get for simply notarizing documents.

You should not, though, because YOU elect to maximize your income through looking to third parties for payment, expect the government -- federal, state or local -- to intervene as your private collection agency in a private transaction. About the only manner in which government currently does that is in prosecuting ISF checks as criminal offenses, and the only reason that is done is that without that safeguard, which impacts virtually every business of every nature and of every size, commerce would almost grind to a halt. And even that practice, which can actually be justified as striking at actions grounded in criminal intent, is severely circumscribed.

One other thing: As a profession, my guess is that attorneys suffer greater losses through non-payment of earned fees than any other certified or licensed professionals. Everybody -- absolutely everybody -- knows that they are right when a legal dispute arises; otherwise, there would be very few disputes. Ipso facto, when a party doesn't prevail, it absolutely must be because the lawyer didn't do his job, and if he didn't do his job, then why the hell should he be paid?

Reply by HisHughness on 1/21/05 6:04pm
Msg #17655

Intent to defraud is normally a crime. In the two and a half years I have been doing this and reading the boards, I have encountered only one or two instances which I think would meet the intent test.

Being a signing agent is a business. Business has risks. The nanny state has no business in my business.

Where are all you George Bush conservatives when such a major expansion of governmental intrusion is contemplated?

Reply by Paul-CA on 1/21/05 7:53pm
Msg #17672

Hugh, about those GW Bush-cons, Shhhhhh! Don't write so loudly! They're all nursing hangovers after the big swearing in shindig ...

Let's forget about the legal approach and just look at the intent of the "laws" I posted. It's to put the rip-off SS's out of business. There are only three ways to do that that I can think of: 1) pass laws that prohibit or increase the riskiness of doing what they're doing to an unacceptable level, 2) initiate a class action suit against the worst of them which should, one would hope, scare the rest of them out of business, or 3) get signing agents organized to the extent that they can collectively put them out of business by a) refusing to work for them and b) informing anyone who has attempted to acquire the services of an agent through them that they are on the "NO NO" list and that no knowledgeable agent will work for them.

Realistically, in my opinion, the only one of these that has a chance of working is number three but I wouldn't even call that a good chance, let alone a very good one. It's the nature of the business that signing agents, the majority of which work for themselves, aren't terribly motivated to pursue common causes. Having no way to stand together, they endure private little pains and failures, complain a bit and get back to whatever's next on the agenda. When reading through all of the posts on this forum (well okay..., MOST of those that looked like they might have something useful to say) I thought it quite sad to see how many people were resigned to accept that "well, I guess I'm never going to see that money" and pretty disheartened when I came across people actually suggesting to someone who was actively trying to get their money that they "just write it off as a loss and move on."

In looking at the industry itself, it seems that signing agents have always lacked enough organization to protect themselves. Groups like the NNA and NASA (consumed and spat out by the NNA) were never strong enough to prevent the power/money grab pulled off by the "signing service industry" in the past few years. With the cooperation (intended or not) of the NNA they now have a steady supply of inexperienced new notaries to feed the money making machine. Experienced agents keep claiming that the newbies' lack of experience will eventually put a stop to all this nonsense, but I don't think that this concerns them at all.

As you say, business has its risks. It also has its return on investment (ROI). Signing Services are sitting right in the sweet spot. Sure, they have to "babysit" the really new ones, but who's liable if the newbie does something wrong? Not the signing service. And who's got the best ROI in this setup? Not the signing agent, that's for sure. You think they give a rat's fanny that signing agents aren't able to make the same fees they used to (at least on average)? You think they have a clue that you can't just milk a cash cow; you have to feed it, too? You know what happens to cash cows that can't be miked anymore? The answer's as close as your local McDonalds (just order a plain burger and then toss your buns away).

What do you think is going to happen if they finish turning the signing agent job into "cheap labor?" A few years down the road the real estate industry is going to wake up and decide that this "notary stuff" just isn't working anymore. And then what? Government. That's what. New laws, new ways to do things so all the big money makers keep making all the big money.

So, anyway, what do you suggest, Hugh?

Reply by HisHughness on 1/21/05 10:46pm
Msg #17690

Paul-CA said...well, whatever it was that he said, he said it most articulately and at great length. So beware, folks: the Brenda gene seems to be catching. Anyway:

I question the validity of your underlying premise that the signing services are major revenue centers in this industry. My perception is that running a signing service is about as risky as being a signing agent. And to some extent it doesn't seem to matter whether the SS is on the up-and-up and a quality, class outfit -- witness the now bankrupt Bridgespan -- or of the ilk of Thomas Sirianni (sp) or 24/7. Somewhere today I read on one board, which I don't remember, that fully one-third of the SS listed on the NNA web site are now defunct.

Market factors can sometimes coalesce into major negative trends that undermine the revenue potential of an industry -- high tech and savings and loans come to mind. That's happening to signing agents currently. Refis are down, and the number of signing agents is up. The result has been some SS that are having difficulty paying their bills, and some signing agents who are having difficulty getting work.

My perception is that in neither of those problems would an aggressive collection strategy have much positive impact. Veteran signing agents know which deadbeat SS to avoid. So those SS hire newcomers, who screw up the signing, and the end result is that the SA doesn't get paid by the SS and he goes to work at Wal-Mart, and the SS doesn't get paid by the title company and the owner goes to work in telephone solicitations.

By far the biggest problem for the signing agent today is not non-collectables, but downward pressure on fees, which is felt by everybody from Lenders to neophyte signing agents. Lenders want to churn the same number of loans they once did, so they offer lower costs to borrowers. One of the ways they achieve lower costs is to cut payments to title companies. Title companies are receiving less, so they negotiate lower fees with SS or directly with SAs. SS are hurting for business, so they bid lower to title companies and thus have a smaller margin from which to pay SAs. And with everybody hip deep in bright-eyed, naive and rapacious new signing agents, SS can generally get by with paying less.

I think the loan signing business has been operating for several years in an artificially pumped up environment which is now making a necessary correction. It will be painful for a while, and we may lose some signing agents, including one or two aging, surly lawyers. But it will ultimately adjust, and those who have solid business sense will be around when the adjustment has been made.

And, at that point, the problem of non-collectables will be viewed in much more rational perspective as one of the costs of doing business, just as the plumber and neurosurgeon and custodial service operator view it.

Where the hell is Brenda when a really long answer is needed?

Reply by sue on 1/22/05 9:52am
Msg #17702

I've been around since basically the 'beginning' of this signing business and I agree with Hugh. Many of us have good customer bases and don't have to deal with the $50 and lower signing services. The point of this comment is there are MANY companies out there that appreciate us that want and are willing to pay for quality and consistency from their vendors. Our receivables come in on an almost daily basis so someone paying in 35 days rather than 30 doesn't effect our pocketbooks. The national vendor management companies are the ones cheapening the entire closing procedure in order to save the lenders money. Eventually some of this will backfire from the starting point of poorly searched titles and the subsequent flawed title policies, preindicated appraisals, up through the backlash of illegal closing practices.

If as the poster suggested the government steps in (and I for one sure don't want ANY parts of that) do you really think that we also would not be regulated? It would not be one sided and it would not be easy for us. First most people would be put out of work immediately due to the licensing, dues/fees and education requirements that would be placed on us. AND most of the regulations that would be imposed on us would have nothing to do with the basics of what we actually do. Small examples in my city, nowhere near the federal level - there was a noise/nuisance problem in the neighborhoods surrounding the college and the 'locals' were complaining. The city decides something must be done. Instead of enforcing the currently in place noise/public drinking/curfew laws, they come up with a new law that says no more than 2 unrelated by blood individuals may reside in any household. What does that really have to do with noisy drunken sophomores? Enforce the laws that are in place.

Also, another thing many fail to acknowledge is that we are not a necessary piece of the closing puzzle. We are TOTALLY unnecessary. We are a convenience and we can be done away with in a snap.

We ourselves are our own best regulators. Do a good job every time you are sent out. Market yourself. Read these boards to see who you want to avoid. As with most businesses, you don't start at the top. Work hard, move yourself up the ladder and you will still be here when the $50 sevices are long gone.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 1/22/05 10:34am
Msg #17706

Kudos to Hugh & You, Sue!

How's that for some fancy rhymin'? Both of you have summed up the present status quo in this industry very well & as a veteran in this business, Sue, your remarks should be taken to the bank.

Reply by Paul-CA on 1/22/05 11:09am
Msg #17712

Re: answers from Hugh and Sue

Thank you both for your very thoughtful responses. My apologies for having gone on a reactionary rant (or two) and my gratitude to you both for adding a voice of experience to the discussion. I have consumed an awful lot of data regarding this business in the past few weeks and threads of discontent in regards to signing services run through the entire fabric as do those of the inability of signing agents to organize around a common issue in order to protect or improve their part of the industry. What I failed to remember is that forums tend to present a slanted view of the world, one that is centered around problems and issues. Again, thanks to you both for adding an experienced view of the business.

Reply by Jolene Lien on 1/21/05 4:08pm
Msg #17641

AMEN!!!