Posted by dgd/CA on 9/15/12 4:31pm
Msg #434543
Secure Settlements... 3rd discussion...concern...
Well, darn. Went ahead and "binged" this. Very little information, particularly when one considers that this will be in place as of January. However, it's obviously so much, much more involved that simply (gripping here) about paying $99.00 for yet another bcq check. I must confess, I am going to contact a national T/C that I do signings for and ask one of their most respected reps about this, I know they've been closely monitoring this for quite some time. An earlier discussion voiced concerns and efforts to, and efforts to, distinguishing SAs from Closing Agents (I have no doubt as to my role, however, the first paragraph of this organizations definition-interpretation[?] of "standards and best practices" is too casually explained and a bit daunting).
Guidelines for Closing Professional Best Practices:
Only approved closing professionals may attend a closing transaction. Under no circumstances may a substitute closer, paralegal or legal secretary act on behalf of a closing professional at a closing. Closers who work for a title abstract company or settlement firm must have been registered with Secure Settlements prior to conducting a closing on behalf of an approved closing company.
https://www.securesettlements.com/standards-and-best-practice-closing-professionals
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 9/15/12 4:37pm
Msg #434545
I could be wrong, but this company looks like nothing
more than a signing service that offers to vet closers and notaries. Unless they're federally approved and sanctioned, I don't see why THEY are the ones to say what will be required.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 9/15/12 4:53pm
Msg #434548
I, too, could be wrong, but this company looks like nothing
more than a company trying to jump the starting gun and invent hoops so they can offer to fix the hoops they invented. Kind of a new spin of the same variety offered by that webcam notarization outfit. Am sure (well, no I'm not sure, but doubt) that they are related. Just looks to me like somebody trying to get on the bleeding edge of some new thing that they don't understand, but think they can make money doing. Agree with Linda.
| Reply by dgd/CA on 9/15/12 5:47pm
Msg #434553
Re: I, too, could be wrong, but this company looks like nothing
Hoping so. It does, however; seem to be that a number of Lenders are buying their "shtick." Therefore, my thought is that this organization is by-passing the TCs and going directly to the most major of national Lenders (After all, ServiceLink is owned by FNF, isn't that what they did? Sacrifice a major part of its' corporate parents individual branch and affiliates offices profits to secure large, nationwide accounts? Does no one recall the the merging of so many branch office/entities, termination of offices/branches of highly regarded staff and personnel in the winter of 2009/2010?) is, what is a mobile notary/signing agent to do? I cannot, nor would I ever presume to speak for anyone other than myself. Personally, and professionally, I grow so fatigued with organizations that have such well trained, highly compensated 6-7 salaried figured professional sales presentation closing staff that the "powers of management" fold so easily. Every time a new law (that involves real estate transactions in any shape or manner) comes into place, it seems to me, "we," the document signer, vital to the process of the RE transaction closing, and most often, called upon at a moments notice, are thrown out and must flounder, to and in the left field ... Be that as it may, there are 3 more months left in our calendars to "collective" try to, and assist one another, in making every best effort to figure this piece of #$)*&^ out. I wish us all good luck in this, and look forward to the postings of those far more knowledgeable than I. :-) This Is Why I Joined Notary Rotary... greatest regards and respects to you all.
| Reply by ToniK on 9/15/12 5:07pm
Msg #434550
Well according to the State of VA, closing agents are settlement agents and need to be licensed. as a notary signing agent, I do not do the job of a closing agent which issues title policies, title searches, real estate tax information, prepares documentation from the lender.
So I feel these companies are just trying to label us as something we are not, at least in VA, we are not closing agents.
| Reply by dgd/CA on 9/15/12 5:49pm
Msg #434555
Couldn't agree with you more.
| Reply by Dave Heine on 9/16/12 9:35am
Msg #434611
you all are taking this in the context of just a signing agent. The new CFPB Rules affect title agents, attorneys and ANYONE handling the closing documents. CFPB is not requiring lenders to vet all of the people in the transactin so that they "lenders" know who they are dealing with.
That means, appraisers, closing companues, signing agents, even the attorney that has to sit in on the closing. No one will get by with out going through this. Welcome to the new CFPB where they have the authority to make rules as they see fit.
In the title world, we are faced with the same issues for the background checks. Our title underwirters do criminal and credit on an ongoing basis. Our contracts as an agent provide for that. Our bank accounts are turned over to them on a monthly basis for their reivews and audits as they see fit.
Someone asked for links on this, the regulations are long. There is a group that has done and is doing ongoing updates to the title agents, but there reports are subscription based, so posting a link will not do anything for you.
The best source of information is American Land Title Association and your local state land title association. The title industry has known for some time this was coming. We did not know to what extent as the law is fairly vague when it says LENDERS must know who they are doing business with and have safe guards in pplace to stop or minimize the fraud.
As a signing agent, I would be more concerned that old style closings in a title office will return since as a title agency, I have to know who I am doing business with now to make sure my agency stays in complaince.
One thing is for certain, all the lenders I have dealt with are aligning with this Secured Settlements company. That will put all the other notary background companies in a different role. Unlike the NNA and others, under the rules secured settlements will have to have in place a continous monitoring of the people they vet, so it is no longer possible to be checked today and do somethign tomorrow that no one finds out about until the next background check or notary renewal.
| Reply by HisHughness on 9/16/12 10:48am
Msg #434613
***Welcome to the new CFPB where they have the authority to make rules as they see fit.***
Actually, that is far from the case. As is true with any federal agency, the CFPB is restricted in what it can do by the Constitution of the United States, a vast body of pre-existing federal law, and the enabling legislation for the CFPB itself.
As a consumer, I am grateful that we finally have an agency such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is long overdue.
| Reply by Dave Heine on 9/16/12 3:39pm
Msg #434639
Hugh:
I know your a lawyer but, you need to read this..... http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285339/commonsense-reforms-prevent-cfpb-abuse-sen-rob-portman
Most importantly, the Washington firms representing the title industry have come out and said this very same thing....
The CFPB has vast power to limit consumer choices on everything from buying a first home to paying for a college education. No other federal regulator has so much authority over personal economic decisions, with so little responsibility to answer to the American people and their elected representatives.
By law, the CFPB answers to no one, sets its own budget, is controlled by a single director, and cannot be restrained unless its regulations threaten the stability of the entire U.S. financial or banking system.
Imagine a local school board structured this way: a one-person board, appointed by the mayor, who can’t be fired, and who can spend millions of public dollars every year without the approval of taxpayers or elected officials. If you wouldn’t want this structure in a local school board, why would you want it for a powerful federal regulator?
| Reply by HisHughness on 9/16/12 5:12pm
Msg #434645
You have a problem with the CFPB, take it to JPol
We waited a long time for this agency to be created. Do you really think I, or any reasonably objective observer, are going to be influenced by a rightwing publication like the National Review?
Once again, as has happened time after time, a political conservative initates a discussion in Discuss Work or Leisure that is clearly political, ignoring the rules of the forum. The ONLY people who choose to ignore the rules and the wishes of the creator of the forum and initiate political threads are conservatives; I have never seen such a thread deliberately initiated by a progressive.
| Reply by jba/fl on 9/16/12 5:54pm
Msg #434652
Well, Dave, it sounds like you are describing DCF her in FL n/m
| Reply by jba/fl on 9/16/12 5:59pm
Msg #434655
Correction: here in FL. n/m
| Reply by Dave Heine on 9/16/12 8:38pm
Msg #434675
Here. Try this if you would google it you will find it. Not political related at all except it does not agree with you
http://www.discovery.org/a/19271. ... Clearly, the CFPB lacks the checks and balances required by the separation of powers clause........
The CFPB, in contrast, confers unprecedented power on a single director for a five-year term while dodging requirements for congressional oversight. The bureau is an independent unit funded by and located inside the Federal Reserve, and yet outside the review of either the Fed or Congress.
Any way you cut it, Dodd-Frank and its offspring mean that consumer costs will go up because all financial institutions have to get more "lawyered up" and divert personnel and resources to compliance and legal defense, and away from banking and lending services.
We can't know what's next, but the record thus far suggests that the CFPB has solutions in search of problems, and new means to find them. The last thing a sluggish economy saddled with excessive debt needs is a new costly regulatory bureaucracy intent on "occupying everything" with no limits. So what can be done?
Challenging Dodd-Frank's constitutionality — as is being done in a suit filed in June in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. — may be the best long-term course. Clearly, the CFPB lacks the checks and balances required by the separation of powers clause.
Other federal agencies are governed either by commissioners whose terms coincide with the administration under which they serve or by multiple bipartisan commissioners or board members. The CFPB, in contrast, confers unprecedented power on a single director for a five-year term while dodging requirements for congressional oversight. The bureau is an independent unit funded by and located inside the Federal Reserve, and yet outside the review of either the Fed or Congress.
| Reply by HisHughness on 9/16/12 8:53pm
Msg #434677
You just keep trying to shovel this into Discuss Work
Now you are citing a conservative <religious> web site.
You have a problem with a specific CFPB policy that impacts our profession, this is an appropriate place. You might even want to cite some of your conservative cesspools to support your view, though my reaction would be to think that undermines it.
But you haven't questioned a specific policy. You have attacked the entire agency, an agency that most progressives supported in its creation and continue to support. THAT belongs in JPol, not here.
| Reply by dgd/CA on 9/16/12 5:16pm
Msg #434646
ToniK...Secure Settlements
You have echoed my thoughts. We are most diffidently Not Closing Agents. My fear, as yours, is that this vetting organization (currently selling this like crazy to the major lenders), at the end of the day, has no idea what we do and will somehow "clump" us in (sales philosophy: the more you include, the longer the page, the "better" the presentation, the lesser of likelihood that anyone making a contractual decision will read each and every word and line). That's why I'm contacting a friend of 30 years, an actual Title Officer on Monday. I'm not going through 500-1000 pages of nonsense myself (lol, I'm probably not smart enough to figure it out any way). Fortunately, for me, that's what his department spends much of their time doing on a day in and out basis. I will be more than pleased to share his opinion (which he gets to have because he is a lawyer) with everyone on NotRot, most certainly will no doubt take more than a day or two for him to respond. At that point, recognizing that this forum is "rolling," I will start a new discussion. Thank you for your thoughts....
| Reply by MikeC/TX on 9/15/12 6:03pm
Msg #434558
The thing to keep in mind here is that you are a notary, not a "closing professional" (whatever the heck that is; I think they just made it up). You have no responsibility for the transaction other than to witness the signing of the documents, so these "best practices" (which I also think they just made up) really don't apply.
Also:
"Closers who work for a title abstract company or settlement firm must have been registered with Secure Settlements prior to conducting a closing on behalf of an approved closing company."
I must have missed the memo where they were anointed as the sole arbiter of who can and cannot perform a closing, and I also missed the memo where they were identified as the company to develop "best practices" for the industry. Their "best practices" seem to be nothing more than those practices that are best for Secure Settlement's business plan...
| Reply by dgd/CA on 9/15/12 6:30pm
Msg #434566
My (current) thinking exactly. Issue, did find several Lenders that have signed on with this organization. Quite frankly, a TC is in the business of making money, if those Lenders, which may continue to grow, represent a large profit pull, who then do they side with? you and I? I think not... Ugh... what's a Notary Public to do? Thank you for your, as well as all others, truly well thought out postings.
| Reply by anotaryinva on 9/15/12 8:36pm
Msg #434587
Best practices code for NNA one of their partners n/m
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/17/12 1:28am
Msg #434689
Reminds me of the XYZ's "certification". If they can sell it, it apparently doesn't matter whether or not it makes any sense or if it's meaningful or even appropriate to what we do.
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/16/12 4:40am
Msg #434601
What they're trying to do ...
...is establish themselves as 3rd party risk management for Lenders, to perform duties that Lenders now perform themselves (& of course, claiming they will do it better).
For some background - all Lenders vett every Title Agent & every Title Company and every Mtg Broker prior to engaging with them on any loan. Some of this vetting process is done annually, via submission of various documents (licensing, insurance, etc); some is on-going (industry standard ratings such as LACE ratings, court-case watchdog-ing, etc); some is on a per/loan basis (CPL's). Lenders thereby work with their own list of "approved" fellows - meaning approved by that Lender, according to that Lender's process of approval, which is all intended to at LEAST meet Federal and State guidelines in mitigating risk & fraud.
This is where Secure Settlements hopes to interject themselves - as the vetting process for the above. This would be their 'front' door service, and as a sort of 'back door' service, they will vett out the closing professionals upon their own application for such.
The big question is: Will any Lender(s) rely upon them as 3rd Party vetting services, as opposed to continuing to do their own risk/fraud management? If they get a large Lender to sign on, that in turn will send a big ball rolling downhill. For example, the Midwest lender's office I worked in had over 600 title agents on it's approved list at any given time - if just that one office had used any particular vetting service (it did not, but ...), each of those 600 agents would need to be vetted by the service in order to remain able to process those loans.
Yep, they've come up with a nice gig, if they can get it. If we're taking bets, I'm laying mine down that we won't be needing to be vetted by them for A) a very, very long time or B)ever. (I could always lose the bet though.)
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 9/16/12 6:36am
Msg #434607
Soooo....what you've basically confirmed, Renee
is this company doesn't know the difference between Settlement Agent, Closing Agent and Notary Signing Agent....they see the word "agent" and it's damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead.
Can't stand working with a company that is clueless as to our role in the process.
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/16/12 8:13am
Msg #434608
not seeing that, Linda
I think they're pretty clear on the various roles - and I may have to eat that bet, because I see Negrete had posted earlier that he has more than one lender routing vetting services through this company. I do NOT see this particular 'risk management' company acting/presenting themselves as a SS or Settlement agency, either.
On their website they show the logos of the NNA, ALTA, Reator & the MBA - it is carefully worded to say they "support" membership in these associations, but does not state or imply that they've been endorsed, partnered or supported back in like fashion. IMO, it's a marketing ploy just naming those associations and hoping nobody will read the print, but just see the logos and make assumptions.
What I can NOT find is any reference to the CFPB's proposed guidelines relative to this 'new vetting requirement'. The proposal is over 1,000 pages and I'm NOT reading it - but in reading professional/industry news items & bulletins on the up-coming changes, I can't find word one about this particular topic. If anyone can point me to that, I'd sure appreciate it.
| Reply by ToniK on 9/16/12 11:18am
Msg #434620
Re: not seeing that, Linda
send me link to this 1000 page doc. I hope its in pdf and I can ctrl F keywords or skim over it. Im an expert skimmer...lol
|
|
