Posted by MichiganAl on 12/15/07 2:42pm
Msg #226234

What say you mortgage and title companies?

Do you think a signing agent should be calling your borrowers after a signing is complete?

Reply by GA/Atty on 12/15/07 2:44pm
Msg #226235

The answer in general is ABSOLUTELY not.


However, that isn't to say that particular companies might be ok with it, or even encourage it, for particular signing agents whom they have come to l-o-v-e. I guess.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/15/07 2:46pm
Msg #226236

And how do you feel about a signing agent who suffers from severe dyspepsia? Think he should be allowed to sour the mortgage milk?

Who let you off the leash today, MA? Did you somehow poop in your own doghouse?

Reply by MichiganAl on 12/15/07 2:50pm
Msg #226237

Hey, I'm just open to learning something new

If mortgage companies, title companies, and signing services think we should be calling their borrowers after a signing as you do, I'll gladly add that to my best practices.

Reply by Loretta on 12/15/07 2:52pm
Msg #226238

I'm a little spoiled because I live and work in the area I grew up in so I know alot of the borrowers I visit. Unless it has something to do with the closing I did for them or I know them personally, I don't have a reason to call them unless they want me to. I have made some real friends from doing this. Then again, I don't live in a big city where everyone is a stranger.

Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 12/15/07 2:55pm
Msg #226239

Not a Mtg or TC, but I have .02 to put in

Al, I agree with you completely. I dare say that if I were to continue communications beyond the scope of that duty for which I was hired, I'd be off the "preferred closers" list of many a TC.

I always leave my business card with the Borrowers, and on occassion they have called me after the closing (for a myriad of reasons, mostly business), but THEY initiated the contact.
IMHO, Hugh is out of line (again).

Reply by Loretta on 12/15/07 3:00pm
Msg #226240

Re: Not a Mtg or TC, but I have .02 to put in

I met a photographer yesterday, I have done the owner of a limo company and the owner of a local restaurant. I will call the borrower of the photograhy company because I want her to take pictures of our family. I may need the limo company owner for my kids upcoming proms and I ate at the borrowers local restaurant that he owns. I did a closing yesterday for a human resource director at a local hospital. She brought her 2 year old son and while we waited over an hour for the darn hud, we talked about ex's (she's divorced) and our kids (we have a few between us). She asked me to have my son call her next week for a job interview.

I don't think that anyone can disagree with me about that side of the argument but I don't call anyone that I don't need or know, for any reason after leaving the settlement table.

Reply by MichiganAl on 12/15/07 3:21pm
Msg #226249

Even scarier

Borrower signs loan. Signing agent feels loan is a rip off and loan officer is a crook (as stated in previous thread). Signing agent calls borrower, borrower coincidently ends up canceling loan. I would NOT want to be that signing agent.

Reply by Loretta on 12/15/07 3:23pm
Msg #226250

Re: Even scarier

If the borrowers ever ask me that question (which has been often lately), I tell them that I they will have to decide that themselves. I don't know their circumstances.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/15/07 3:32pm
Msg #226257

UCI

beating same drum, I know.....

The "closing employee" will be the eyes and ears and certainly if you think someone is a crook, you'll be expected to report them to the fraud contact.

If the new legislation passes ripoff mortgages may cease to exist. They seem to be expanding the right of rescission to curtail this kind of lending. I expect mortgage lenders and pool investors will create self-policing procedures which will prevent much of this from ever reaching the table.

Reply by Lee/AR on 12/15/07 3:53pm
Msg #226260

Re: UCI...Seriously, UCI supporters...

How would the notary REALLY know? There are numerous good reasons for people doing what people do. And also reasons for it being in a higher rate mtg. (or whatever) than we think appropriate. Fact is, we don't know--nor is there any way for us to know--if a particular loan is the best fit. I just don't see this being a win-win situation for anyone. If we 'tell'--and we're wrong, do you really think we'll have a lot more jobs from that co/lender/title/LO? Conversely, if we "don't tell", is that going to come back & bite us? "The notary did know or should have known..." All we're really bringing to the table is our opinion--and we all have one! But what we lack is FACTS. P.S. I used to originate loans and know that the situation is frequently not what it seems to be.

Reply by WDMD on 12/15/07 4:08pm
Msg #226262

Re: UCI...Seriously, UCI supporters...

"I just don't see this being a win-win situation for anyone. If we 'tell'--and we're wrong, do you really think we'll have a lot more jobs from that co/lender/title/LO? Conversely, if we "don't tell", is that going to come back & bite us? "The notary did know or should have known..." All we're really bringing to the table is our opinion--and we all have one!"



I agree Lee. I don't see how anyone would ever want to have that burden of being possibly responsible for suspected fraud. Let's see, if we report our suspicions and they turn out to be wrong and a borrower loses a desperately needed loan who do you think they will come after? If you do not report it and it turns out it was fraud committed by the borrower who will the lender go after? Seems to me in our position now we already have a remedy if we suspect fraud. We don't notarize. Why take on additional liability?

All of this talk is whistling in the wind anyway,cause what eventually gets done may look like nothing it does now.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/16/07 4:24am
Msg #226319

Re: UCI/fraud - Lee & WDMD

The UCI provides a dedicated Lender contact to whom either the settlement agent or the signing agent can report any suspicions of fraud. Reporting a suspicion is not the same as making the determination of actual fraud, nor does it even imply that any loan would be unduly cancelled based solely on any unsubstantiated suspicion.

Also important to note is that the person reporting the suspicion is indemnified by the lender against any risk of retaliation as a result of their 'whistle-blowing'.

I think the provision of a dedicated contact is a great thing, and I would hate for signing agents to misunderstand the true 'risk' and related consequences placed on them.

Fraud - or the suspicion of fraud - is not the same as somehow determining the 'fit' of a loan product to any borrower's specific situation. Fraud involves some type of falsehood - and loan terms and/or costs - whether or not they are appropriate or predatory - are printed in black and white.

Reply by WDMD on 12/16/07 6:20am
Msg #226320

Re: UCI/fraud - Lee & WDMD

ReneeK: "Also important to note is that the person reporting the suspicion is indemnified by the lender against any risk of retaliation as a result of their 'whistle-blowing'."

Me: Is that specifically stated in writing that the notary is not held finacially or otherwise liable if they mistakenly report fraud and cause a borrower to lose their loan? Does it also hold the notary harmless by lenders if borrowers get a loan committing fraud that the notary "could of or should have" known? If thats true then great.


ReneeK:"I think the provision of a dedicated contact is a great thing, and I would hate for signing agents to misunderstand the true 'risk' and related consequences placed on them."

ME: Like I said if that is true then great, but all I keep reading on here is about how this is going to basically place a greater burden on the person at the table to be the "eyes and ears" of the lender. That implies, at least to me, that if more responsibility is being placed on the person at the table, then the person at the table is going to have more potential liability.
Especially if that person is an independent contractor, not an employee.

I have not seen where any of these experts on this subject here have stated what the potential liability is going to be on this new "cop" at the closing table. All that I get from reading these posters is that they seem to be excited that there may be someone else to lay blame on should something go wrong.

Lets face it, we are really nothing more than notaries in these transactions. (I'm going to get killed by that statement by those who feel that they must approve of everything in these transactions). If these documents did not require notorizations we would not be needed at all. Lenders would send the docs directly to the borrowers with sticky's everywhere telling them where to sign and initial. We would not be part of the process at all. Who would be the "eyes and ears" of the lender in that scenario? Not us.

If there is no additional liability on the notary by this other than the normal notary issues, then all that really needs to be discussed here is hey you guys need to be on the lookout for fraud. Here is a number to call if you suspect something. You will not be held liable (finacially or otherwise) for making an inaccurate report, or not finishing a signing because of your suspicions, or not reporting something that WE feel you SHOULD have known.

Other than having a direct number to a dedicated fraud department to call what's the difference then? Why is there so much discussion by some about how great this is going to be?

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/16/07 7:10am
Msg #226321

UCI - available for all to read =)

Yes, the indemnification is in writing:

"Lender indemnifies Settlement Agent and Signing Agent against any legal claims brought by a Lender employee or Mortgage Broker employee who is the subject of any suspicious activity report given in good faith."

For myself, I do NOT consider myself "nothing more than a notary", but I also do not feel I "must approve of everything in these transactions." But that's just a whole other topic. =)

The reason I posted what I did about the indemnification is because I do suspect there are conversations going on amongst people who haven't even READ the UCI, and unless/until they do, they might walk away with a misunderstanding - and spread those misunderstandings like wildfire.

Reply by WDMD on 12/16/07 7:49am
Msg #226324

Re: UCI - available for all to read =)




Melease do not misunderstand my post Renee. It was not posted to provoke but to ask questions as you seem to be more involved in this than the average notary who will read the UCI. I think you work for a title company if I'm not mistaken, which would give you more insight to the workings.

You state; "Lender indemnifies Settlement Agent and Signing Agent against any legal claims brought by a Lender employee or Mortgage Broker employee who is the subject of any suspicious activity report given in good faith."

Me; What about borrowers who may feel they have been wrongly accused?

You:"For myself, I do NOT consider myself "nothing more than a notary", but I also do not feel I "must approve of everything in these transactions." But that's just a whole other topic. =)"

Me: That is a figure of speech. In your role as an independent contractor (not as an employee of the title company) do you really think lenders would hire us when they could just send the docs directly to the borrower to sign if there were no notarizations? That is what I mean by just a notary. Approving of things in a transaction was not directed at you but others who post on here how they abort a signing for things that should not concern them.

You: "The reason I posted what I did about the indemnification is because I do suspect there are conversations going on amongst people who haven't even READ the UCI, and unless/until they do, they might walk away with a misunderstanding - and spread those misunderstandings like wildfire.'


Me: That is why I asked what I did. To try to get an understanding fom an insider. And just because someone may have a different opinion about things than someone else does not make them wrong. "Misunderstandings" can sometimes be cleared up by asking questions.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/16/07 9:12am
Msg #226334

NSA

Your whole NSA world is built upon the fact that you are not just a notary.

Reply by WDMD on 12/16/07 10:05am
Msg #226338

Re: NSA

"Your whole NSA world is built upon the fact that you are not just a notary. "

B.S. The whole NSA world is built around being a notary. Again, if there were nothing to notarize than there would be no NSA.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/16/07 11:26am
Msg #226341

If there were nothing to notarize ...

there would most definitely remain the need for a professional closing person - while it is true some lenders choose to send some closings directly to the borrowers, I can tell you from first hand experience, that practice is fraught with it's own set of issues.

I'm puzzled why you would imagine there'd be no need for mobile closers, were documents not needing notarization? Perhaps this is the basis for the division of SA's who are "first a notary" and those who are "signing agents, and notaries by consequence"? I mean, if it weren't for the notarizations - I'd be an SA and wouldn't likely be a notary. Others become a notary, and THEN branch out into being an SA.

Reply by WDMD on 12/16/07 11:58am
Msg #226347

Re: If there were nothing to notarize ...

"I mean, if it weren't for the notarizations - I'd be an SA and wouldn't likely be a notary."

Do you honestly believe that a lender would pay you to go out and get signatures on documents when they could get the same thing accomplished sending them to the borrowers at no cost? Wonder what they would pay for a service not needed, $10?, $20?. They NEED someone to notorize the documents. Thats the MAIN ( I said MAIN, not only) reason they hire an NSA,,the NEED of notorizations. Heck, lenders send the docs to borrowers all the time telling them to just find a notary saving themselves some bucks.



As for fraud, like you say, there are plenty of dishonest title companies out there. Maybe that is the basis for lenders wanting a fraud hotline, to keep title companies in check.

I also did not say there is no NEED for mobile closers. Don't be puzzled, re-read my posts. I said there WOULD be no NEED for mobile closers IF there was not any notorizations to be done. Perhaps lenders may WANT a mobile closer if there was no need for notorizations, but they would have no NEED for one if there was nothing to notorize.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/16/07 1:07pm
Msg #226352

reality check

I see no point in discussing real property closings for no notarizations. There have always been documents notarized in a closing so the point is moot.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/16/07 11:26am
Msg #226342

Re: UCI/fraud - Lee & WDMD

I am not attorney but isn't it true that the act of fraud is not complete until the transaction is complete (Loan funding) after the RTC period?

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/16/07 1:08pm
Msg #226353

fraud prevention versus discovery at a later date

If we can prevent fraud, we are to do so. Allowing the fraud to take place enables a theft and forces a title claim.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/16/07 1:11pm
Msg #226354

Re: fraud prevention versus discovery at a later date

If a post closing audit later discovers that a fraud took place, that's different. When they discover a case of mortgage fraud, they WILL attempt to forensically put the transaction back together and figure out who knew what and when. That is why YOU and I should never knowingly allow a fraud to move forward because to do so makes you a party to it.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/16/07 7:39am
Msg #226322

Re: UCI

** The "closing employee" will be the eyes and ears and certainly if you think someone is a crook, you'll be expected to report them to the fraud contact. **

The to-be-established fraud contact position peaks my interest.

In reading this board I find that there are notaries who cannot tell the difference between fraud and a high cost loan; or, between a borrower whose driver's license doesn't state his name with "Sr." on it and someone who is impersonating his 18 year old son and so forth.

I reflect back on a poster who thought it was suspicious that a person located a notary through the medium of the internet (posted a few days ago) while not giving it a thought that in Georgia she/he should not be signing loans.

I can only imagine, given the overactive imaginations of notaries who have already become paranoid and suspicious about every transaction due to whatever influence has invaded their thinking, how frequent and interesting the fraud hotline conversations are going to be.

I'd like to get one of those hotline answering jobs. It would be an entertaining gig...but not likely to happen...this seems like one of those jobs which can easily be outsourced to a desk in India.

Reply by WDMD on 12/16/07 7:51am
Msg #226325

Re: UCI

Amen Brenda. Well stated.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 12/15/07 3:30pm
Msg #226256

Absolutely not!

Al, you are forgetting Hugh operates under his own rules.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 12/15/07 4:48pm
Msg #226274

Been in This Business for Almost 7 Years Now...

...I can think of only one or two times I've ever called a borrower after a signing was completed & they were for reasons completely unrelated to the loan. One was just yesterday & it was to check up on their son (Aven, who I brought up for prayer 10 days ago) who's in the terminal stages of brain cancer. I'm all for repeat business, but calling a borrower days after the signing to chitchat about ANYTHING related to their loan on my own volition has never even crossed my mind.

BTW, (if I may interject this here) Aven is doing relatively well. His father said he's currently in stable condition with more radiation treatment scheduled in the next few days. I'll update every so often when I receive more news. Please keep him in your prayers.

Reply by JK/TX on 12/15/07 5:13pm
Msg #226276

It's the borrower's business....

I've never calculated/amort. the borrower's loan. I have noticed fees that I would not pay, but they were still below the total max allowed.

When people are strapped financially, $40-$100 extra a month can really help out w/the finances. If they are refi'g this month, they are paying the ppd interest for Dec, skipping Jan payment and they will not have a pymt until Feb..... this too could help "alot". If they are living day to day, I doubt they can think years down the road right now. Sad to say, but many of our military families are strapped for cash. (Sad to say, an extra $100. a mo. would help me right now!)

And no, as an SA, I have not stayed in contact w/borrowers that are strangers to me and I have never asked them to call me if they have questions...... my .02 cents.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/15/07 5:52pm
Msg #226277

fraud and high cost or predatory loans

There will be training directives on the UCI and what they expect a closer to look for.

As for the likely new definitions of high cost loans and predatory products, those issues should be settled before the borrower gets to the table.

You are right, except for fraud, I have always stayed quiet about terms. Fraud, on the other hand, I have always stopped.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 12/15/07 7:43pm
Msg #226297

that's quite a statement Diane, can you elaborate?

"Fraud, on the other hand, I have always stopped?"

Always, being an absolute, how have you always known. Can you say with absolute certainty that you have never, even unknowingly, participated in fraud? I'm curious how you can say always, with no qualifiers?

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/15/07 9:09pm
Msg #226305

Re: that's quite a statement Diane, can you elaborate?

Charles, I can only stop what I'm aware of. If I have reason to be suspicious, I do investigate. You see, title agents and their underwriters are liable for fraud. We insure against it so it's part of my job to be a fraud policeman.

Most circumstances we stop are ones in which the parties are being coached that what they are doing is ok. Once they understand that they are defrauding the lender, they usually back off.

We've had some tough characters, too, and dealt with them accordingly.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/16/07 7:58am
Msg #226327

I STILL DON'T GET IT

...There will be training directives on the UCI and what they expect a closer to look for....

Will someone please explain all this UCI hoopala again, one more time, very slowly please since I can't seem to grasp any real connection to us sitting at the table. I get the 'fraud' although I do have to say I have never, ever suspected fraud at teh table and I've closed A LOT of loans. Why in the world wouldn't these 'directives' be to the title company from the lender - the two the instructions are between - rather than us sitting at the table? You say it should be settled before we get to the table and it should. There is no way in the world we at the table are ever, for the fees we earn, going to sit and determine whether a loan is high cost or predatory. Also, what makes anything these UCIs will magically make everyone become honest. There are also ready closing instructions between ledners and the title companies - I assume these are a legal contract. Then why in teh world are we told to backdate, accept less than acceptable ID? Does anyone think this is going to change just because instructions have been updated and 'uniform'. Again, very slowly for me, please.

On another note, I saw on your blog you felt a loan was wrong - you copied the story from another site - where the lady was on the phone with the LO who told her something different than what she was looking at and said a FE would arrive with new/correct/updated docs. You said you would stop the closing. Since when are we, complete strangers who have no idea about anything otehr than what we see right in front of us, supposed to become protectors of the borrowers. They are adults. If she is looking at a document that says one thing and is verbally being told something else, and she chooses to sign, who am I to tell her she's an idiot. Am I to tell her also which car to buy because it's a better deal? TP is on sale at CVS this week, don't go to RiteAid (I know, a bad choice, especially measuring the $$$ amounts) but it's the same principle - they are adults capable of making their own decisions. This lady didn't have to sign. She didn't use her RTC. Her problem. It's not my fault (meaning me as a closer sitting at the table knowing nothing about her, her finances, her circumstances, her loan) if she's stupid or perhaps naive is a better word.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/16/07 8:04am
Msg #226328

fingers went too fast a few times

first paragraph... Also, what makes anyone think these UCIs ...

... There are already closing instructions ...

upstairs to begin cooking - granddaughter's birthday party today and 26 for dinner.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/16/07 9:25am
Msg #226337

training

Notary training gives you a secure base from which to decide if you are comfortable accepting ID and notarizing documents. If you are faced with a circumstance in which you believe you have fake ID or ID that is insufficient, you wouldn't be hesitant to refuse to complete the notarization, isn't that correct?

Title insurers and agents receive fraud prevention training as do mortgage lenders. We are taught to recognize certain methods used by fraudsters - big time and small time - and we are taught that to allow a transaction to proceed given these facts is to enable the fraud or collude with the parties to defraud another. This is why we stop transactions.

The FBI and the courts have made it clear that they hold the title agent or attorney at the table to a higher level of responsibility. We are supposed to protect the mortgage lender, consumer, whomever. When we err, we are to do so on the side of prudence.

Do we have bad guys in title and mortgage lending? Yes. Hopefully, the industry wide pressure against bad guys will help us to keep them honest or force them out of the business.

The UCI extend the traditional fraud prevention roles to the "closing employee" and so if you are at the table you play an important role within the framework of the entire UCI methodology.

I presume there will be training classes offered everywhere and suggest that we all attend.

The UCI are not intended to be mandatory for lenders but it is expected that they will be universally adopted by major lender and so they are likely to frame your work day world.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/17/07 10:50am
Msg #226480

Re: training

sorry but I just don't get it. Fraud happens in this business but not that often with individual homeowners - 99.99% of it should be caught in underwriting - that's what they do - make sure the lender's conditions are met. They have stacks of paperwork from the borrowers. If they don't like what's on those stacks, they can and do request more stacks. With the VERY limited info we have in front of us, I just don't understand what all this has been about (only on this board I might add started by you). We don't see title searches, we don't see HO dec pages, we don't see credit reports, no appraisals, we don't see W-2s and tax returns. Even if we do get copies of all that, NO ONE PAYS US TO REVIEW IT nor has ever given us any guidelines. I see nothing in these new instructions that indicates any of this will happen. People surely don't sit in front of us and discuss their defrauding schemes. I truly am not trying to be difficult but I just don't get why you think these new instructions are going to impact what WE actually do. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND. Another question, those of us who work for title companies, why aren't they giving us guidance and having us submit our input to whoever/whatever.

As for 'training' regarding fraud, I've taken more classes and seminars than I can count regarding title searches and closings (my stack of yellow PBI books is quite large). When I worked, our loans were insured through First American or Conestoga who both routinely sent out info. Granted, I have not worked in an office nor taken a CLE class in just over 6 years but I don't recall fraud ever being a topic at the classes I took - perhaps something very basic in passing. Maybe this has changed in the past few years.

Again, I WANT to understand but I just don't get what will actually change AT THE TABLE for us.

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/15/07 6:21pm
Msg #226288

I don't understand the point of calling them

What exactly is Hugh trying to accomplish by calling them in the first place? To make sure the loan funded? To see if there were any problems? To answer questions? To solicit business somehow? It just makes absolutely no sense to me.

Reply by LisaWI on 12/15/07 6:56pm
Msg #226291

Re: I don't understand the point of calling them-or

as my son used to say "It makes no complete sense" LOL

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/15/07 7:01pm
Msg #226292

Re: I don't understand the point of calling them

Fascinating.

We're a service industry; I don't know of any other service industry where a follow-up courtesy call to a client, patron or a customer would be viewed with aversion. I've been doing it for nearly two years now, and it seems to have worked. Though I'm retired and do closings only part time, I make a living off of it. And, at a time when signing agents across the country are going to work for Wal-Mart, my closings are up 13 percent this year (so far), and although I haven't run the traps on it, revenues are up even more, probably 20-25 percent.

Further, the loan officers who supposedly should be concerned seem to appreciate the rapport between the signing agent and the borrowers. At this point, I've got three pending offers and two feelers from mortgage brokers/bankers, all of whom I close for regularly, to join their shops (I'm a qualified loan officer).

You might want to try it.

I would suggest, though, in any follow-up call to a borrower, you NOT indicate that you think it's okay for a loan officer to lull someone into a refi that will take 14 years to pay off. The borrower just might have some reservations about anyone who takes such a view -- as they certainly should.

Reply by JK/TX on 12/15/07 7:26pm
Msg #226295

Re: I don't understand the point of calling them

Your post have made me wonder why you have not pursued a loan officer/mortgage broker position. Since you have the desire to steer the borrowers and you feel you could get them the better loan and/or make suggestions on their existing loans, then you should be a success as a loan originator, with many referrals!

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/15/07 7:46pm
Msg #226298

Re: I don't understand the point of calling them

JK chimes in:

***you feel you could get them the better loan and/or make suggestions on their existing loans,***

JK/TX, you apparently have the same difficulty reading as you do with coherent thought. The original post quite plainly said: "I can't say anything; it isn't my role."

Reply by JK/TX on 12/15/07 8:01pm
Msg #226299

Re: I don't understand the point of calling them

Wow Hugh..... you need to chill!

That post was "complete sincere". The industry is in need of more honest LO's with the borrower's interest in mind... and you seem to possess that quality. That's all I meant.

I would go further to explain ... but what's the point.

Reply by JK/TX on 12/15/07 8:06pm
Msg #226301

Re: I don't understand the point of meant "completely"...

but to hell w/it!

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/15/07 8:04pm
Msg #226300

Re: I don't understand the point of calling them

You're right; I need to chill. Sorry I jumped. I've seen so many really bizarre posts in response to the original query, I just lumped you in with the crazies -- and you're not even from Michigan.

I expect to begin originating loans in January.

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/15/07 10:00pm
Msg #226309

Re: I don't understand the point of calling them

"We're a service industry; I don't know of any other service industry where a follow-up courtesy call to a client, patron or a customer would be viewed with aversion."

But the service we provide is very specific and doesn't really warrant a follow up call. What exactly are you following up on, the service you provided or the entire loan transaction?

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/16/07 1:06am
Msg #226318

Re: I don't understand the point of calling them

I call. I thank them for their hospitality during the closing. I ask if there have been any problems, knowing, of course, since the closing has been completed, there have been none. I wish them good luck -- with their new-found affluence, if it is a home equity loan, or with their revised terms if a refi. Of course, if they have shared anything personal, such as a child's sickness, then I inquire about that. And I tell them I'm glad I met them.

It has been an effective tool that has worked well for me. There has been an occasional call from a borrower thereafter for a general notarization, but that's not really a factor in why I do it, since I have more of that sort of business than I want anyway. The real payoff has been when the loan officer calls, and the borrower has a favorable comment about the signing agent. Judging from the occasional feedback I get from loan officers, and from the title companies that say I was requested, it works for me.

To be a disinterested party to a transaction does not mean that you are an uninterested party. My experience is that the borrowers' genuinely appreciate the interest.

No one has suggested that anybody else on this forum adopt my practice. I was asked how I knew a borrower had cancelled, and responded. If you, or anyone else who has commented negatively, don't wish to make followup calls, by all means, don't make followup calls. You own your business, and YOU make those decisions. By the same token, I own MY business, and I make those decisions for me. And, since it seems to be working at least as well for me as those techniques employed by the naysayers work for them, I plan to continue doing it.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/15/07 11:44pm
Msg #226317

Re: I don't understand the point of calling them

<< We're a service industry; I don't know of any other service industry where a follow-up courtesy call to a client, patron or a customer would be viewed with aversion. >>

Would you agree that an SA is a disinterested party to the transaction?

If so, why would a disinterested party make "follow-up courtesy calls"? The only thing that can accomplish is to make the borrower think you are closer to the transaction than you actually are or should be.

Besides, the client, patron or customer is the party that hired you, not the borrower; you're marketing to the wrong party.

<< And, at a time when signing agents across the country are going to work for Wal-Mart, my closings are up 13 percent this year (so far), and although I haven't run the traps on it, revenues are up even more, probably 20-25 percent. >>

That's great - I'm always happy to see that someone's business is growing in the market we're up against now, but what evidence do you have that this is a result of your follow-up policy? And if you're not saying that it's the result of your follow-up policy, why bring it up at all?

This policy may be working for you now, but eventually a deal will go bad and questions will be raised about why you were in contact with the borrower after the signing. Personally, I would not want to be in that position; your mileage may vary...

Reply by GA/Atty on 12/16/07 8:04am
Msg #226329

Re: I don't understand the point of calling them

I would no more expect a signing agent to call me back than I would a pizza delivery guy. Or maybe like if I went and cashed a check at the bank and the teller called to make sure I had enjoyed spending the cash she gave me. Or the mailman... "Hello, Mr. Smith? Just following up to make sure you paid that delinquent cable bill I dropped off last Tuesday - I would hate for you to overlook it and miss the Sopranos next week....."

Either way, it might creep me out a little.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 12/16/07 9:22am
Msg #226336

I Think Both Mike & You...

...have nailed it as far as I'm concerned. To my way of thinking this is stepping outside of the boundaries which "should" be in place for a signing agent; but then that's what makes this industry the Wild, Wild, West. We're all independent business people, making our own decisions without a lot of guidance other than what we believe is our own common sense. Some of us (including me in the past) rely on our previous business experiences to guide our actions & from a signing agent perspective that rationale can be wrong. I think this is one them. My opinion.

Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 12/16/07 10:49am
Msg #226340

Something else to consider, from a RE Broker standpoint

In the situation Hugh described, wherein it was going to take the poor, hapless borrower 7 or 10 or more years to recoup the settlement charges factored into and ammoritized over the life the loan (presumably a 30 year mtg). Has anyone stopped to consider that, statistically, the homeowner will be selling his/her home within 4-5 years and will likely "recoup" those costs at the time of sale due to steadily increasing housing values?

And before anyone takes me to task regarding housing values, yes... I am completely aware of the current trend of declining values. What we are experiencing now is what we call a 'market correction'... values are coming down and will stabilize in the near future. In any event, the Borrowers should be able to recover those costs through resale. And historically, that resale happens with every single homeowner on the average of once every 4-6 years.

While a measley hundred bucks may not seem like that great a savings, there are countless possibilities to consider, such as paying off high interest credit card debt. Mortgage interest is tax deductible, while credit card (or other loan) interest may not have the same tax benefit. Sounds like it could amount to more than a $100 savings per month to me.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/17/07 3:22am
Msg #226440

Re: Something else to consider, from a RE Broker standpoint

Also, as sad as it is to say, a "measley hundred bucks" or even forty bucks a month could make a big difference to the family of some of our service men overseas. For some, it actually could be a question of short term cash flow, even if it doesn't make good sense over time. If they're running out of money before they run out of month, $40 could put groceries on the table.