Mortgage Brokernews

Latest Comments

• David Franklin 2019-02-19 4:22:08 PM On what basis do you think that Barry Segal could have issued his RRSP tax opinion letter that the initial Fortress first syndicated mortgage of nearly $17 million on a $4 million purchase the month before was RRSP eligible? There was no appraisal,only a future based opinion of value stating that the value for the land, without taking into account a reduction from its value based on the projected gross profit that could be made. The projected value of the land was $21.89 million. If a 20% allowance was made on the projected value of $72,042,875, the residual value of the land would have been about $7.5 million. The following is from the Olympia Trust investor RRSP document. “AND WHEREAS the Borrower has delivered Olympia Trust a legal opinion confirming th the Mortgage granted by the Borrower to the Lender is eligible for investment by the RRSP Account provided the amount of the First Priority Construction Loans and the Mortgage granted to all of the Junior Secured Lenders do not exceed the fair market value of the Lands.” The investor mortgage agreed to postpone to construction financing, but at the time the opinion was issued, it was a first mortgage. By the way Derek Sorrenti, whose office provided the independent legal advice had knowledge of the value of the property. Why didn’t his office disclose this information to investors? If this information was disclosed, do you think any anyone would have invested? On what basis did Barry Segal issue his tax opinion letter to Olympia Trust Company which was not licensed to do business in Ontario, especially since the Fortress investors were mostly in Ontario and could not be promoted or solicited to open RRSP accounts with Olympia Trust Company. Also remember that his firm was one of the law firms acting for Fortress Real Developments Inc., Fortress Real Capital Inc., Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza. Could it be said that he was in a conflict position when he issued his RRSP tax opinion?

• David Franklin 2019-02-19 2:35:22 PM So what happened with Fortress is not new news. Larry Elford is the voice of experience and knows that these frauds happen because of the failure of the regulators. In the Fortress fraud, FSCO, OSC for allowing Jawad and Vince to deal in mortgages and the Law Society of Ontario for not issuing its warning to the profession when it knew that the ILA was improper by the end of May 2016 and also that the RRSP tax opinion issued by Barry Segal of Norton Rose Fulbright was an issue, especially since it was issued to Olympia Trust, a trust company not licensed to do business in Ontario. The RCMP sworn information set out as one its reasons of the fraud was that the RRSP investment values were inflated.

• 2019-02-19 12:45:29 PM The CIBC Economist's prompting to MIC's to follow the B-20 regulation is totally regressive, but not at all surprising coming from a practitioner of a dismal science which is economics. The B-20 set is an overkill. It is fiddling with market dynamics in a housing-shortage market and making it impossible for otherwise solid citizens to invest in a dwelling. Regulations in force, even prior to the B-20 addition were, and still are, 100% in favour of the lender who already has an iron-clad investment in other peoples dwellings without any recourse other than walking out barefoot in case of default. Taking the collapse of the US mortgage sector and applying the reasoning to the Canadian market shows a complete lack of understanding of the two peoples. Nobody in Canada is asking three months free nor, along with it $15,000,-, to furnish the house. Get back to your senses guys.

• Bob 2019-02-19 10:16:43 AM I would have to agree with you Karen. I don't believe Jim understand how banks, credit unions and mono-line lenders vary from one another. Another great point is that Banks and credit unions penalty can be much higher than a mono-line since they factor original posted rates and current posted rates into IRD calculation of a fixed term. On average mortgages are broken early 3.5 years into a 5 years for many reasons. Broker/agents have more credibility in the industry when it comes to bank reps as well as they have to obtain provincial license to provide advice and service. Is Jim aware that banks reps are not licensed and only protected by the institution?

• Asf 2019-02-18 11:39:36 PM Scam