Has anyone else heard the buzz about no more Net Branches in 2009?

been hearing more and more buzz about no more net branches.

Wondering if anyone else has gotten a more firm word on this?

Would not surprise me.  State banking depts are cracking down as is HUD on 'ghost lenders' with no presence in the states they operate.  Esp since many complaints from consumers involve this type of lender.

I think the chatter has picked up. At the same time, I think we've all been hearing the same thing since 2004 or 2005. Given the current market, and the bigger issues at hand, I can't see any national ruling coming down on this. And if you leave it up to the states, just like everything else you'll end up with 50 different variations of the same thing, all of which accomplish nothing.

AC

I think you are going to see an extremely strong effort to regulate the mortgage business from this point forward. Look at our current mess? There should be a tremendous tightening of the lax standards on bankers and that will affect the tightening of banker licenses.

There is clearly an intent to get non-traditional bankers under control and get originators on the National Registry. By allowing Net Branches to skirt this rule under a banker license, you can expect swift changes to include their originators or outlaw them completely.

no more net branches for you!

come back 1 year!

Don't know if the GFE I saw was a net brancher's or not, but the client was getting 7.5 with 2.5 pts for FHA.  I would have been at 6 with 1.5 pts.  That guy may lose the deal completely.  Also had about $1300 in UW & Processing fees.  Advised the client to get him down on the fees if he wanted ANY paycheck.  The guy was talking about a streamline already.  Why not just give the client a decent rate to start with?  If they do close with him, I can guarantee that he will not be getting the streamline.

I've been hearing a lot of buzz regarding aligning with a fed chartered bank. What are the pros/cons of doing so???

James:

I've been hearing a lot of buzz regarding aligning with a fed chartered bank. What are the pros/cons of doing so???

I made the move about 6 months ago and I am glad I did.  I have the ability to originate loans in all States except Hawaii and Alaska.

I can bank the loans with Eagle or broker out to over 70 lenders.

Mark Ganovsky:

I made the move about 6 months ago and I am glad I did.  I have the ability to originate loans in all States except Hawaii and Alaska.

I can bank the loans with Eagle or broker out to over 70 lenders.

So does the bank pay all of your expenses or does it come out of your "branch" profit center? If not, you are a net branch.

I agree that the states can determine their own guidelines but that only works for non federally chartered banks.  State law doesn't apply to federally chartered banks.  I think that should be the only change needed and we fix all this.  Elimate the exemption for banks following state law is a big step. Now you've got tighter state laws (which have all tightened up over the past 2 years) requiring all loan officers to be licensed or have brick and mortor, etc. That would fix a big piece of the net branches and other loopholes because they lose all the benefits.

On the other hand anything eliminating the distribution channels for homes loans would pose many more problems for the industry and consumers. We already see the issues with pipelines messing everything up.

There are more than enough laws on the books to enforce to get the rife raff out of the industry and a national registration system to keep them out is all that's needed.  Leave the rest to the free markets and capitalism.

John Rodgers:

So does the bank pay all of your expenses or does it come out of your "branch" profit center? If not, you are a net branch.

The branch pays all expenses, there is a per file fee for all brokered loans of 3/8's of a point up to a max of $1100 per file.  If we bank the loan with Eagle then there is no fee.