Posted by Leon_CO on 5/5/07 8:32pm
Msg #189016
Message Deleted
This message has been deleted by a forum moderator.
Reason: Advertising
| Reply by NCLisa on 5/5/07 8:40pm
Msg #189017
Re: How frequently should signing agents need to re-certify?
I don't feel the need to be certified. My experience far outweighs ANY sites certification standards.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 5/5/07 8:41pm
Msg #189018
Re-certify? No. I voted first. Good poll, Leon, but
I doubt that anyone at the NNA will care one way or the other.
| Reply by Leon_CO on 5/5/07 9:03pm
Msg #189021
Re: Re-certify? No. I voted first. Good poll, Leon, but
>> I doubt that anyone at the NNA will care one way or the other. <<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question isnt, whether or not they will do anything. The object is to let them know where you stand on various issues.
I don't intend to just send them some numbers and say, "Okay guys, here's the tally." The numbers will be used to substantiate what is in the letters. But no one will ever know anything unless people speak out. Or NSAs can silently go down in defeat and continue to whine on message boards. Where does that get anyone?
| Reply by Joe Ewing on 5/5/07 9:00pm
Msg #189020
Re: How frequently should signing agents need to re-certify?
Leon a more useful poll would be of how many DIRECT assignments have you that are NNA certified Signing agents recieved since for example 1/07 to 5/07. The defintion of direct is any assignment that you don't split in some way with a 3rd party. This would be valuable information to all of us.
| Reply by Leon_CO on 5/5/07 9:07pm
Msg #189022
Re: How frequently should signing agents need to re-certify?
Joe, that's the first poll. Not the only poll. I will use your suggestion. It's a good question.
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/5/07 9:23pm
Msg #189023
Re: Okay - here's my .02 FWIW
It's not getting the NNA to realize we don't need to be re-certified - it's getting the lenders, title companies and, yes, signing services, to realize it and accept it and realize that years of experience speak volumes more than a 5 minutes online test. JMHO
| Reply by Leon_CO on 5/5/07 9:38pm
Msg #189026
Re: Okay - here's my .02 FWIW
Linda, I appreciate your's and everyone's comments to this thread. But I have to be honest with you. I am not going to try to sort through this thread to get the results of the poll. That is why it's on my website, so that I have a channel and a system for getting the results.
If you would like to make additional comments that can't be submitted to the poll, then do so in a form that makes it simpler for me to collect the data and file it, such as email.
Also, I don't spend a lot of time on this site. I just wanted to announce the opportunity to make yourselves be heard. I assure you that I will collect the data and submit the results in writing. Thanks.
| Reply by jba/fl on 5/5/07 9:39pm
Msg #189027
Re: Okay - here's my .02 FWIW
when the re-cert. is the same test, verbatim, as the original, whether 2 yrs or 10 years, what does it prove? Even though new forms have been introduced over the past 4 years that I have been doing this business, these have not been addressed in their training course. Same book, same test. What is proves is that I can read my previous answers and respond accordingly. It is a rip-off.
I'm sure at one point many have felt there was some weight to the NNA, that they were in our corner so to speak. Unfortunately, they are a sales org. and have done a good job of selling. Such a great job that they have produced a glut in the marketplace. Here in Orlando, FL they run their seminars, etc., at least every few months, not to mention their constant urging to take it all online.
| Reply by Pamela on 5/5/07 10:52pm
Msg #189041
jba/fl Re:
". . .when the re-cert. is the same test, verbatim, as the original, whether 2 yrs or 10 years,
what does it prove? Even though new forms have been introduced over the past 4 years
that I have been doing this business, these have not been addressed in their training
course. Same book, same test. What is proves is that I can read my previous answers
and respond accordingly. It is a rip-off."
I agree. Certification is good for new persons (if taught by excellent instructors).
But the course is just a basic class. Nothing to challenge the more experienced notary.
In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to continue to be "certified", when the class is the
same. The NNA (as well as other local companies), uses the same book, same material
etc. . .
Why continue to throw good money after bad?
Pam
| Reply by Lee/AR on 5/5/07 9:42pm
Msg #189028
Re: How frequently should signing agents need to re-certify?
I applaud your effort on this. I also think it's wasted on the NNA. The only thing that organization is interested in is money, money & more money... and thinking up new (fictitious) 'requirements'... and then 'hyping' them to Lenders, TC, SS so that they will require more hoops for us to jump through---and still more money for the NNA. I can think of no organization that does less for their members than the NNA while continually thinking up new ways to take money away from their members. OK, rant over.
| Reply by Pamela on 5/5/07 9:50pm
Msg #189030
Leon
I think that certification is a good for those new to the industry.
However, once someone has experience (i.e. 25-100 signings for example),
there would no longer be a need for that.
In California, our notary commission is for a 4 year term. A "Certification" should
equal that (or whatever, the notary's state requirements time limits are).
But instead of being issued by a private organization, such as the
NNA, it should be issued by the same office which issues the notary
commission (in California it is the Secretary of State).
And yes, I know that each state is different. Some notaries are appointed,
Even so, those who appoint them, should also be responsible for their testing
and certification.
Also, in lieu of a certificate, perhaps the state could issue a separate Signing
Agent"commission"or addendum, for those new persons willing to take on the
additional learning and testing.
And the training and testing must be comprehensive. As it stands now,
many people have certificates, yet still no nothing about loan signings.
The course should also teach what is required of a signing in all states, as
loan documents cross state lines most of the time. Such as, which states
are witness states, which states requires signings in an attorney's office
etc. . .
Additionally, for those states which do not test their notaries,
that should be changed too.
Pam
| Reply by Ernest__CT on 5/5/07 10:14pm
Msg #189035
Re: Leon
The comment "... once someone has experience (i.e. 25-100 signings for example),
there would no longer be a need for [certification]." speaks volumes. After a hundred signings one is just beginning to learn the business. While one is on the way to a hundred, one hundred may seem like a huge number. When one has done several hundred one realizes how much there was to learn. The wise people continue to learn, and many look at certification as a way of testing their knowledge.
I hope that I never get so arrogant that I think I've done enough signings to know everything.
| Reply by Pamela on 5/5/07 10:34pm
Msg #189038
Ernest_CT
The 25-100 signings is an example. It would be up to each state to determine
the number of signings a notary had completed to exclude them from certification.
Also, there are numerous signing services out there, who considers
someone to be "experienced" once they complete 25 or more signings.
Additionally, many of the notary networks mandate that a notary
complete a minimum of 100 signings before they are allowed to join.
Therefore, in my opinion, if 100 signings is good enough for membership
in many of the exclusive notary networks, it should also be good enough to
exclude the need for a Loan Signing Agent certificate.
I am talking basics here for a Loan Signing Agent Certificate.
If a person has completed "hundreds" or "thousands" of loan signings
and still need a basic Loan Signing certificate to validate him or herself,
then something is very wrong!
Pamela
| Reply by Leon_CO on 5/5/07 10:44pm
Msg #189040
Re: Leon
>> I think that certification is a good for those new to the industry.
However, once someone has experience (i.e. 25-100 signings for example),
there would no longer be a need for that. <<
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem that I see with this kind of thinking is that, people think of certification as some form of marketing tool. Certification should stand for a lot more than what it presently does. This seems to say, get certified so that you can prove to companies that you know what you're doing. Then once you've gotten a few signings under your belt, and have been in the business for a while, you don't need to be certified. It's not the way CPAs and other professionals view certification.
The problem with the current certification process is that, it doesn't really mean anything.
I had a chance to view the current results of the poll. While the numbers aren't that great yet, the graph said a lot about what certification should mean. I might even add another question to the poll, possibly a couple more, that are related.
| Reply by Pamela on 5/5/07 11:12pm
Msg #189043
Re: Leon II
"The problem with the current certification process is that, it doesn't really mean anything."
I agree. The way it stands now, certification "IS" a marketing tool for new people.
In my opinion, there should be weeks/months of training.
A "Certificate" should be awarded after several classes are successfully
completed AND a comprehensive state exam passed.
I have my real estate license (and am currently working on my broker's license).
It took much more than just a one day class!
If certification standards were brought up, many of the new Signing Agents would not
have to deal with the $40.00 companies. They could begin to work immediately with
the title companies etc. . .and cut out the "middle-agent".
But this would take much organization and political action. As it stands now, the
signing field is far too separate and in disarray. There is no one "Collective" voice.
Unlike the National Association of Realtors, which has a very powerful lobbying group,
notaries and Signing Agents do not have such a membership.
Also, unlike the NAR which is well-known and respected by the CA Dept of Real Estate,
the CA Secretary of State doesn't even acknowledge the role of Signing Agent
(I've already asked).
Pam
| Reply by BrendaTx on 5/6/07 12:25am
Msg #189048
Re: Leon II
If ever there is a push to regulate us via the government it will end the notary signing agent's business...for several reasons.
Be happy flying under the radar.
| Reply by Sharon Taylor on 5/5/07 11:41pm
Msg #189045
What makes you think your poll will sway them?
They have absolutely no interest in anything except what will "verify" their already-determined business plan, which is to convince every title company and signing agency that only NNA-certified notaries (Hey, I took a test and passed!!!!) are good notaries, so that notaries are forced to pay NNA for such certification. Even better if they can force said notaries to be re-certified every year or two - can you spell "cash cow" and "guaranteed money" here?
| Reply by Charles_Ca on 5/6/07 12:02am
Msg #189047
Ladies and gents, Leon's just looking for hits on his site! n/m
|
|
