Posted by Jose Ramon Maestre on 12/5/13 11:05am
Msg #495091

The True Facts on The SPW…

While NSA’s are receiving letters daily about updating their certifications and BGC, what has been lost in this process are the facts.

Recently a NSA sent an email to Mr. William Anderson of the NNA regarding some of the concerns about the SPW and the new standards. Mr. Anderson replied with some interesting facts. While everyone scrambles to comply, the truth is there are no standards yet in place, there are no SPW approved providers, there are no SPW approved providers for BGC. This is all still in the works and may not even become a requirement until mid to late 2014 possibly even 2015. The letter is too long to post here, however if anyone would like to review the answers I can provide it. I have permission from the NSA to do so. Here below is a sample of the questions and responses:
2. Your requirements are so stringent that only the NNA Back Ground Check is acceptable, when other companies who provide that service can provide screenings which comply with your standards, but are not acceptable.

{Answer: Please understand that the SPW was only announced a month ago. At that time the SPW standards were introduced. The SPW still has a lot of work to do in completing the Certified Signing Specialist examination and processes for approving education and certification providers, including the NNA. The NNA currently is not an approved certification provider because no entity as of this date is approved. Other organizations may be approved to offer SPW certification services and they will be free to compete in the marketplace. The NNA will not be the only provider of these services. The SPW has an antitrust policy that it follows in order to ensure that it complies with the letter and spirit of these laws. Right now, you say only the NNA certification is "acceptable." It is not acceptable to the SPW because SPW certification does not now exist. If title companies tell you that they want you to be NNA-certified, that is a much different thing. Any title company or signing service may establish its business rules and determine which standards they will accept. This is not the NNA's or SPW's doing.}

Who gave you the Federal Authority to set standard, make test and tell us who we will get out Back Ground Checks from?

{Answer: The SPW standards are voluntary standards for lenders and title companies. They are not mandates from the federal government; however, they are consistent with federal regulation that the lenders and title companies must comply with. The SPW does not tell you where to go to get your background screening. This comes from individual companies who have made business decisions about which background screenings they will accept. The SPW standards are completely open; the background screening standard has been published in its entirety so that any company can produce a background screening the complies with the standard. The goal of the SPW standards is to give Notaries a choice as to where they go. It may not appear that there is much choice at the moment, but once again, we are one month into this…….

Why announce all these changes at this time? Why are SS and title companies requesting these requirements at this time?
So as you can see above even The NNA is not approved at this time. There are no approved examinations or test. No approved BGC providers. No approved certification programs. No set effective start or date for implementation of these standards. Recently in several responses to questions by NSA’s to FNF even they state that this was not their initiative, “the Signing Profession Workgroup (SPW) that you referenced is an initiative of the National Notary Association which is not affiliated with FNF either.”.
So you may want to raise concerns and question the request you have been receiving. If enough NSA”s do this, maybe we can find out the real answers.

Reply by jba/fl on 12/5/13 11:30am
Msg #495093

It is all sabre rattling, nothing more, at this time.

Just another method for the NNA to garner more of everyone's money.

Thanks for your post Jose.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/5/13 11:30am
Msg #495094

Task at hand is to get ALL notaries to realize this

and drop the "sheeples" mindset

I know you post frequently on LinkedIn with very informative posts - I can tell you there IS a notary there (and I'm sure more than one) who has taken the exam and is now promoting herself as a CSS - a designation that doesn't even exist yet.

It's the sheeples that are the problem here - they are the enablers. Amazing that the SPW spokesperson himself says it's in the formative stages and is not final but there are notaries who already believe it and take it for gospel.

Here's a suggestion to all the "members" of that SPW - don't use notaries any more. All you title companies who are concerned about safeguarding privacy and think we're the weak link in the chain, start sending your documents directly to the borrowers and let the borrowers handle their own docs and be responsible for their own privacy. Let them print the docs CORRECTLY and find their own notary - you companies can provide a list of notaries for them to contact. However, be warned - the notary will only notarize - there will be no "Signing Agent" or "CSS (pfft)" duties performed - AND the notary will be paid CASH at the table for their notarizations, time and travel. HUD reflects notary fees POC.

JMHO

Reply by jba/fl on 12/5/13 11:47am
Msg #495095

I can deal with this. n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/5/13 12:08pm
Msg #495099

I can handle that, too...

With all of the notarizations involved in a single package... let 'em call me up to handle this as straight GNW. here in CA, I can charge $10 a pop plus travel. In many cases, that means I'd be getting MORE money that way with far less work and effort.

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/5/13 12:10pm
Msg #495100

Bingo Marian! n/m

Reply by jba/fl on 12/5/13 12:32pm
Msg #495106

Same here. n/m

Reply by JPH13/MO on 12/5/13 12:44pm
Msg #495111

Re: I can handle that, too...I couldn't MO allows $2 sig

If every state allowed the GNW fees CA allows, I would be SO happy. I can only charge $2 per notarized signature, up to $25 for convenience fee and up to the government allowed mileage fee, which would hardly ever add up to making $100 or more.

Reply by Lee/AR on 12/5/13 12:16pm
Msg #495102

Me, too.

Cash on the barrelhead, they return docs. I came, I stamped/collect cash, leave. No negotiating, no Notarial Evidence Form, faxing, printing, driving to dropbox, statusing, waiting a month for pay.

Reply by CarolF/NC on 12/5/13 12:21pm
Msg #495103

I often get these deals for out of state loans.

How sweet it is

Reply by Laurie Manzanares on 12/5/13 12:38pm
Msg #495108

Re: LIKE!!!! and more money n/m

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 12/5/13 12:40pm
Msg #495109

Linda, Wells Fargo is infamous for doing this to its clients

I'd be very surprised if they continue this practice when it comes to refi's.

I get alot of clients that have WF loans and I can write a handbook of how frustrated they were when they realized they had to find a notary public on their own. Most couldn't find anyone available on their time or new anything about loan documents. Some hired notaries that didn't know what they were doing, and had to have their loan documents re-signed.

I'm glad to say that I have lots of repeat WF clients that still have my biz cards.

Reply by MAC/WA on 12/5/13 1:01pm
Msg #495116

LIKE. Banks and TCs could also do more inhouse signings.

We would show-up at the designated bank branch or TC office and conduct the signing. Many bank branches here have already extended their hours to accommodate signings. They can print the docs and have them ready for when the borrowers and notary public shows up.

Reply by JJNotary/CA on 12/6/13 2:05am
Msg #495259

That could be great, as much as I love my printer

It use to be people HAD to take off of work to sign doc.'s - and then banks and brokers started staying open later so that people could get off work a bit early to sign, and then borrowers said 'can't get off work, can you meet me somewhere after hours?' and there's your 150 notary fee (possibly with mobile fee on top) - because it was after hours, and the notary needed to have that much more training, since they were now conducting the signing. But now, we are carring the responsibility, without being given the credit somehow.

Giving half the fee to sc's but paying for all of the hoops we're jumping through just seems like an unsustainable system, not that it has to go all the way backwards, but there has to be a max out here.

Reply by MAC/WA on 12/7/13 11:54am
Msg #495445

Heard the other day of someone who sat in a TC office and

knocked out 6 signings, not bad for a day's worth of work.

BofA, WF, and Chase (hell, Chase has offices in Safeway stores here), are examples of branches I have been to in the evenings.

I have done a small # of signings in RE and broker offices, both had clients involved and obviously stayed late to seal the deal and their fees. I would have no problem going to their offices either. They also are licensed and heavily regulated, they might easily be able to bear the responsible for the docs.

Reply by MW/VA on 12/5/13 3:00pm
Msg #495156

That would cut out all the middle men that profit from these

transactions. That's why, IMO, it isn't going to happen. Everything you say is absolutely true.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/5/13 12:04pm
Msg #495098

So, they can't even keep their own story straight?

Per the above: "The NNA currently is not an approved certification provider because no entity as of this date is approved. Other organizations may be approved to offer SPW certification services and they will be free to compete in the marketplace. The NNA will not be the only provider of these services. The SPW has an antitrust policy that it follows in order to ensure that it complies with the letter and spirit of these laws. Right now, you say only the NNA certification is "acceptable." It is not acceptable to the SPW because SPW certification does not now exist."

And per the NNA themselves in their "transition" notice... they said, "If you purchased a background screening-Notary Signing Agent certification package from the NNA in 2013, wait until we contact you. Your screening meets the Standards. The NNA will contact you one year after your last screening to authorize another at no extra cost."
Source: http://www.nationalnotary.org/bulletin/bulletin_articles/the_transition_process_sidebar.html

Reply by CarolF/NC on 12/5/13 12:13pm
Msg #495101

This just appears to be such blatant

false and misleading advertising on the part of NNA regarding the whole SPW. I really hope one of the many State or Federal agencies in receipt of complaints will investigate these activities.

Reply by Lee/AR on 12/5/13 12:27pm
Msg #495104

Isn't that something~~~

....Your screening meets the Standards... until...

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/5/13 12:36pm
Msg #495107

We decide it doesn't anymore? LOL

I will NOT get political...I will NOT get political.

That just made me laugh.

Reply by Darlin_AL on 12/5/13 1:01pm
Msg #495115

Those of us who have been following all the published info

are aware of the status of the proposed new standards to comply with-- IF we want to work for those companies that will require the standards. That I chose to pay $39 for the update to my BGC in order to remain as an agent for a company is my business decision. The posted information has been very clear about all your revelations here; also that notaries will have more vendors to choose from, if they wish to comply w/the standards for testing & BKC. The annual fee going forward was listed as $69 by xyz. As stated here before, those large companies have a big dog in the hunt, and a lot of loss exposure. Of course they want to comply w/the CPFB regarding us 3rd party vendors.
One of the benefits to us signing agents put in place by the SPW is that we only have to carry $25 K E&O, instead of the $100k now required by one client I have. So, for me in my state, it will save $100 from my overhead.
I am seeing what you all are complaining about, but I don't see it as a future impediment to doing business at a profit. I personally hope these standards will weed out the cheapskate notary signers and the cheapskate SS. just my .02 AND if you think my business decisions make me a sheep, that doesn't bother me at all...on the way....to the bank.

Reply by redd on 12/5/13 1:20pm
Msg #495122

Re: Those of us who have been following all the published info

Darlin_AL, I have to agree with you....I get what the complaining is about too but the SPW response makes sense. People are getting all fired up prematurely in my opinion. And I have always thought something should be done to force these SS companies from hiring based solely on how cheap they can get someone for. The lenders want standards set and it has to start somewhere. Lowballers should be put out of business over this......jmho

Reply by CarolF/NC on 12/5/13 1:23pm
Msg #495124

Redd, have you looked at the list of

members on the SPW? They are the low ballers. You think they are miraculously going to start paying more?

Reply by redd on 12/5/13 1:31pm
Msg #495125

Re: Redd, have you looked at the list of

Maybe not but what I do expect are those who work for those fees to be weeded out. The ones in my area will likely be unable to pass the test and/or unwilling to or too lazy to go to the trouble and definitely the trouble of paying the fees for these requirements. I say good luck to these lowballers when they try to fill their orders and at the same time expect those of us who do go to the trouble to accept those paltry fees. So the lowballers will either go out of business or step it up. The lowballers are the reason lenders are having to push for some standards!!!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/5/13 1:35pm
Msg #495129

Re: Redd, have you looked at the list of

I doubt the test will be any more difficult than the one the NNA has now... which is OPEN BOOK and easy.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/5/13 1:34pm
Msg #495128

Let me be clear... I'm not opposed to "standards"

In fact, I'm all for a Universal, voluntary, set of standards that are recognized across the board for independent business owners.

But the SPW's offering doesn't do that.

People...don't forget the CPFB's only actual requirement of financial institutions is that they have some sort of oversight of their service providers. There are NO standards actually defined. There are some recommended, but none required. The NNA and the SPW have come up with an arbitrary set of standards and are selling them to the financial companies...and thus the notaries.

My biggest beef has always been, and will continue to be that fact these "standards" create too much behavioral control over independent contractors. They are trying to create an employee relationship while paying IC rates. The script is completely ridiculous... not in what it does, per se... but that they think I will agree to use it. It's MY business. I do my job the way I see fit. I won't fall for that... and neither will the the IRS or state and other local taxing authorities.

Reply by redd on 12/5/13 1:53pm
Msg #495135

Re: Let me be clear... I

They are making suggestions. Codes of conduct...best practices...those are things that goes on in every professional organization I am involved in or have been involved in. It's to RAISE STANDARDS in the industry. Again, the reason this is having to happen is because of the bad apples! The lowballers who will hire any warm body to handle an assignment created this mess..... As an IC, I will conduct signings professionally as always, but the script for me will be a suggestion....perhaps some of it will be welcomed. Are they going to make me record the signing????

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/5/13 2:03pm
Msg #495136

It may be suggested to you....

...but not to THEM. They are saying that in order to obtain the certification the notary is agreeing to use an approved script from the hiring company... I won't do that. I will not create an employee relationship as an independent contractor. It just isn't happening.

From the Code of Conduct:

"4.4. Presentation of Documents
The Certified Signing Specialist WILL present each closing document to a signer in conformance with a signing script authorized by the contracting company, and by naming and stating the general purpose of the document, specifying the number of pages and indicating where signatures, dates or initials are to be placed.

...


9.5. Signing Scripts
The Certified Signing Specialist WILL follow all signing scripts in performing signing services as may be required by the contracting company.

...

9.7. Contracting Company Instructions
The Certified Signing Specialist WILL review each lender’s and contracting company’s instructions and signing scripts for the assignment prior to the signing appointment and follow such instructions and scripts provided they do not violate a statute, regulation or official directive related to the performance of notarial acts."


9.7 is...possibly... the only out there, in that the use of a required script by an independent contractor violates the quite a few tax codes regarding behavioral control of employees vs. independent contractors.

Reply by redd on 12/5/13 2:11pm
Msg #495137

Re: It may be suggested to you....

I read the script, and it is pretty much in line with what I already do. I am handling something that belongs to someone else. The package does not belong to me. If they are paying me (what I ask for) and want me to be sure to explain what I am putting in the face of their client to sign, sobeit!! And if this "script" makes the experience better for the borrower, then why would I be against it! My purpose when I accept a signing is to take care of the lender and the borrower. I want both to be comfortable with me... It's not about me, as long as I get the fee I ask for of course! If that makes me wrong, bad, sheeple, or whatever, then SOBEIT!

Reply by ikando on 12/5/13 11:40pm
Msg #495251

Re: Let me be clear... I

To quote Marian: "People...don't forget the CPFB's only actual requirement of financial institutions is that they have some sort of oversight of their service providers. There are NO standards actually defined. There are some recommended, but none required. The NNA and the SPW have come up with an arbitrary set of standards and are selling them to the financial companies...and thus the notaries. "

A true statement about the CFPB and the OCC both. However, because the NNA has such a potent PR presence, not only are the title/lending companies listening, but also the politicians. IF those representatives decide that the SPW guidelines will potentially offer them something to work with, guess what rabbit hole we'll be going down.

In my opinion, if the NSA industry is to survive, our voices should be heard outside of the three main forums we all frequent. Ideally the people who ask us to complete the process for them will actually come to a table for dialogue that will help ALL of us to thrive. Unfortunately, looking through my rose-colored glasses, I'm having a hard time seeing Utopia from here. There will always be groups of people who undercut on fees, who accept those low fees, and feel they are doing just fine.