Mortgage Brokernews

Latest Comments

• No One Wins 2018-12-19 10:25:30 AM Exactly, and David Franklin is standing in the middle with a flamethrower. Many of these projects could have survived or at least broken even given enough time, sadly as you have stated here, that time may have passed.

• Mortgage Broker Store 2018-12-18 7:33:15 PM Our brokerage has been approached by various people over the past few years that want a mortgage based on the cash flow and equity in rental properties (AIRBNB). We have funded a few and turned down most. Many of the potential applicants are from the GTA, most GTA condos are now making it harder for AIRBNB to operate, which means that we can not fund these mortgages. My advice is, before you fund an AIRBNB, call the management office and talk to them, also go visit the property yourself. It is not as easy as it seems. The reason for turning

• Investor 2018-12-18 6:39:00 PM The biggest concern here is not being address! all this negative media attention and attacks on specific projects does not help us as investors. From my understanding, there is still some significant residual value in a lot of these projects for many of the investors. I'm not saying there are no liable parties, I am sure there are, and they all should be held accountable. But we need to stop lighting fires to our own investments, a lot of these projects that are for sale or under receivership are losing significant value due to the negative press. Which buyer in there right mind would want to assume or purchase and project that has been labeled as failures in the media. Whatever equity there is in some of these projects are being significantly lost. Remember, 8 % of nothing is nothing, unless the hammer drops and projects have faltered in receivership or other means, lets see how this plays out. Lives are being destroyed by this, all the negative press only adds more stress on peoples lives.

• David Franklin 2018-12-18 4:41:36 PM No One Wins are you an investor, did you sell Fortress mortgages or just an interested party? We need this information to know on what basis you made these above comments.

• David Franklin 2018-12-18 2:55:50 PM I was told that FSCO was into see Michael Daramola, the principal broker of FMP quite a few times over the years to help him make his paperwork compliant including the KYC form. I was told he amended his documents to make them FSCO compliant. I can now better understand why, at least the FMP sales force, would believe that the Fortress mortgages were FSCO compliant and that was because they saw the FSCO employees meeting with him. I have seen 2016 mortgage documents that added the negative information required by FSCO, including negative information on Jawad and Vince, as a result of their problem with the OSC. I believe that the reason they could add additional negative information and still sell, was because they knew, from experience that the investors who invested, did not read the documents. I believe that the sales force had been groomed to present so that the investors were made comfortable that the investments were safe and secure and not high risk. I have spoken with Fortress sales people who invested themselves and got their family and friends to do so as well, because of how they were told when they were trained and they have since learned that they were not provided with full disclosure, especially about the 35% fee. They have said that if they knew this they would not have sold these investments and most certainly would not have invested in them. Why was FSCO spending its time helping to make the brokerages compliant, when with all of the information they had, they were not in checking the KYC forms and finding out that most of the investors had not ticked box 4 on the form - high risk, amongst other breaches. There was a press release from FDS around 2013 when it announced it had sold $100 million in syndicated mortgages. The alarm bells should have been going off at FSCO because how could such a new company sell so much. If FSCO had gone in to investigate properly, they would have closed them down no later than 2012 and if they had been proactive, which the legislation set out, they should have closed them down by the end of 2010 and this fiasco would have been stopped and a lot less money would have been lost. Why do you think that FSCO did not follow its mandate of protecting the public interest?