Mortgage Brokernews

Latest Comments

• David Franklin 2018-12-13 1:03:27 PM Clarence, I received a letter, dated July 10, 2017, from Jeremy Devereux of Norton Rose Fulbright as counsel to Fortress Real Developments Inc. In case you didnot know, Jawad Rathore is the 80% shareholder and Vince Petrozza the 20% shareholder and they are officers and directors of this company. Included in this letter are the following statements: “In public statements you have repeatedly asserted that Fortress receives a fee of 35% of the funds raised for development projects in which Fortress is involved, and that such a fee is set out in Development Consultant Agreements.” “When Fortress is retained as a consultant by a developer, Fortress is typically entitled to a fee for its consulting services and its costs in the range of about 2-4% of total project costs. In addition, the amounts payable by the developer for broker and agent commissions, mortgage administration fees and referral fees — none of which are payable to Fortress — are typically in the range of 18% or more of the funds raised.” By doing the math, Fortress is receiving 35% less the 18% which leaves 17%. If the 18% paid out is higher, then Fortress receives a lower amount than 17%. Fortress stated publicly that it raised $920 million so the 35% fee is $322 million and 17% is $156.4 million. Why can’t Fortress cover the trustee and legal fees that investors are paying from the money it made? Why is it increasing the losses of the investors? How do you feel knowing this that you had your family members invest in these mortgages and you profited off them? How do you think the agents who invested themselves and had family members invest feel now? How do their family members feel? Were you and the other agents aware that in addition to the 35% that two years interest at 8%, 16% was also deducted, so that the developer only received 49% of investor funds? Also, were you and the other agents aware that the interest payments received by investors came from their own capital? Investors I spoke with thought that the interest payments were being paid from the developers own funds and not from their own money. Why did these investors think this? Why didn’t the agents tell them this? The development agreements set out that $5,000 of investor funds was to be paid to a charity, So, when Fortress claimed it was a philanthropist, it was the investors who were really the philanthropists. Clarence, how many agents knew about the 35% fee?

• 2018-12-13 12:15:38 PM Wow! Are you ever delusional! Save your breath crook. Many of us here have a ton of experience dealing with the fortress crooks and brokers such as yourself. Nothing you can say here is going to excuse you or anyone else involved in peddling this scam. He excuses you provide for things not working out with Fortess are laughable. As are you.

• Investor Voice 2018-12-13 11:17:33 AM I was not a employee of FDS. Just how I can access products of Manulife and Sunlife among others, without being an employee of theirs, I could access the products provided by FDS. My mortgage license was held there and besides syndicated mortgages, I also arranged residential mortgages. I don't know why I have to justify myself when all I am trying to do is inform people with supporting documents from credible sources that I didn't create.

• Investor Voice 2018-12-13 11:13:44 AM The presentation shared the court records of the Anti-Slapp decision between Fortress and Rabidoux so again, I am not leaving things out to sway opinion. No point arguing with you. Hopefully, people will not choose to be ignorant and make claims without fact.

• Investor Voice 2018-12-13 11:08:47 AM I am not concerned of people joining or leaving any group...just that they know the information. I shared over 50 articles in my presentation, 99% of them against Fortress and syndicated mortgages...I am not sharing one side and you should stop making more false claims like those. I think people should read everything. I feel court documents are more credible than newspaper articles. Also, in Canada, every individual and business has the right to defend themselves from any allegation and Courts don't grant injunction orders blocking people from speech unless it is proven that the speech is untrue and damaging to the individual and/or business. With Anti-Slapp it no longer matters to the court's if the information is factual or not or if it causes harm, as long as it can be construed that it is in the public interest. I think facts are in the public interest. Untrue statements can never be in the public interest.