Forum

Broker news forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Mortgage Broker News | 23 Oct 2014, 11:08 AM Agree 0
After reading about a perceived double standard in the mortgage industry, one industry player has called for more oversight for one particular group of professionals.
  • Adrian | 23 Oct 2014, 01:58 PM Agree 0
    Yep, this is a trend that I am experiencing.. No on my desk but yes at the branch. I'm not sure what more the banks that are still underwriting broker deals) need to do to tell us they no longer want our business.
  • AnthonyC. | 23 Oct 2014, 02:51 PM Agree 0
    Its the same old double standard which we all know exists...validation of debt servicing and other critical "conditions precedent to advance" on broker origination (versus branch origination) is always held to a higher standard...brokers should hope that OSFI actually implement thorough audits of branch-originated mortgage files for BFS and high-net worth borrowers...and if so, i'm certain that they will uncover many files which should not have been booked, were the branch to adhere to OSFI requirements.

    Just last month I lost a bank-approved file (whose bank name by the way rhymes with "smational"...god bless them) and was a fully qualifying BFS Income with add-backs, for a high net worth client's $1MM+ purchase with a LTV of 75%, to their own RBC branch, shortly after I had requested d.p. confirmation...the branch previously declined the file due to a high TDS ratio...I got the TDS down to below 44 with legitimate add-backs (client's bureau was reporting three vehicle leases, paid for via her company).

    After she had downloaded her corporate/personal statements via her online banking, she received an "unsolicited" call from her banker, whom she then informed ( i guess to rub it in) that her financing was approved via my efforts, and to which then said banker miraculously was willing to make an "exception to the rule" and offered her an approval with a lower cost of funds (shaved 10 bps from my fixed rate) which to my regret, she accepted.

    All in a day's work folks...keep on smiling...

  • Kate | 23 Oct 2014, 05:50 PM Agree 0
    Yes, Antony, it is an experience shared!!
    Having worked at a bank, I saw deals that were put together because the clients were wealthy, or a professional ,, creative financing, I believe is what they called it!!!! The bank did not want to loose potential business from the client, so steps were taken to solidify the business. hmmm,
    it happens all the time!!
  • rhéau | 27 Oct 2014, 02:27 AM Agree 0
    lost a client and a friend of 50 years for the same situation,and also a commission of $7,000.00.
  • rhéau | 27 Oct 2014, 02:27 AM Agree 0
    lost a client and a friend of 50 years for the same situation,and also a commission of $7,000.00.
  • Brian | 27 Oct 2014, 07:01 AM Agree 0
    Had a Lawyer noway he qualified to purchase the $450,000 Recreational Home even with 20% cash down. Lo and behold a Bank off the 401 got him 95% CMHC financing! The Mortgage Officer put EMILI to sleep on that one. Hope that Branch is audited soon.......
  • Brian | 27 Oct 2014, 07:01 AM Agree 0
    Had a Lawyer noway he qualified to purchase the $450,000 Recreational Home even with 20% cash down. Lo and behold a Bank off the 401 got him 95% CMHC financing! The Mortgage Officer put EMILI to sleep on that one. Hope that Branch is audited soon.......
  • Janice Ashworth | 27 Oct 2014, 01:45 PM Agree 0
    It is very unfortunate that these incidents occur and hopefully the new OSFI audits lessen the frequency of these types of things from happening. I find it more annoying when a client has us do all the work on a new mortgage or a renewal and then they go to the bank or the bank calls and the rate is matched. Allowing a refundable fee to be charged would lessen these incidents. I have great, loyal clients that respect my time and appreciate my knowledge who realize I work on commission - but it does occasionally happen. I will say however - I have been referred many more mortgages that qualified quite easily that were turned down by a branch due to lack of experience or unavailable mortgage product(s) to suit the file. These cases are the ones that show the need for experienced, knowledgeable mortgage brokers on all files not only poor files. So - it works out in the end - often better in my case.
    Janice Ashworth - Mortgage Specialist - Jencor Mortgage Corp.
  • Broker | 27 Oct 2014, 02:15 PM Agree 0
    I do about one deal a month... with the same bank, that has already declined the client at the branch level. You should see the confusion on the clients face when I am able to present the paperwork in front of them. Sometimes it comes down to proper packaging of a file but in my case, my experiences have been opposite.
  • Broker | 27 Oct 2014, 02:16 PM Agree 0
    Opposite from the article in the fact that the branch says no, and I am able to say yes.
  • Keith | 28 Oct 2014, 05:28 PM Agree 0
    This is not a criticism of anyone in particular, but if the banks (TD, Scotia) are as seemingly as difficult to deal with because the branches continue to compete (unfairly according to some) as so many brokers continue to lament on this forum, why do you insist on sending them business?

    I haven't used either for over 5 years, and it has not hurt my business at all. I have never run into a customer that has told me "I must deal with X Bank". Before anyone pops up with a "you probably don't do much volume". When I started in this industry in 2006 I, like most people, did about 5 million in volume. I now do 10 times that, still without sending business to the banks. I send it all to broker only lenders.
Post a reply