Alvaro Ramirez

People, understand, modifications have nothing to do with one being able to keep their home. They have to do with “Loss Mitigation” that is the servicer managing its losses. If the modification is the most effective tool to minimize the losses that that is the decision, it has nothing to do with one keeping the home. That is the crude reality. You have to know what questions to ask and know how to counter the bank. If there is a negotiation involved is not in what type of mod you get from your server but in getting to that answer. So they told you, you were missing documentation. I would ask what was missing then review the documents you had sent in to confirm. If you had sent the document in make that argument. You will then probably be told that they had sent you a letter stating which document was missing. So ask for a copy of that letter to be faxed over to you so that you can make sure that indeed they had originated that letter. It is about weakening the servicer’s argument logically not emotionally. As far as gearing up emotionally – My advice after helping over 2,000 families is – Leave your emotions at the door – Your job is to make the case that the modification is the best solution to mitigate the bank’s risk.

The mortgage industry would perhaps recover faster with less government intervention. In a conversation I had with the Chairman of the ASF’s investment committee, he noted that as long as government continues to get involved in the mortgage markets investors will keep at bay simply because the uncertainty it creates by possible excessive regulation… As I recall at the beginning of the mortgage meltdown NAR spoke heavily against all the “toxic assets” created by originators. Where realtors not beneficiaries of such mortgages? As there were originators who used liar loans to put borrowers in a loan so were realtors happy to find those people a home that they themselves probably new was out of their price range. – Having said that is not about blaming anyone – I’m just trying to make a point. Why is NAR so against FHA increasing its requirements? The bottom line is the profitability of its agents could be affected. Let’s be real about a borrower who has a 580 FICO – if credit history tells someone’s ability/desire to pay his debts on time; a low FICO will says they are less likely to repay that debt. So why wouldn’t we, as tax payers, be okay with the increase in the requirements? In my opinion NAR is advocating for the less responsible person to have the ability to obtain a loan – But why should NAR care about the quality of the borrower so as long as he gets a loan to purchase a property? Its member’s are so transaction driven with no skin in the game – If that borrower were to default for whatever reason no skin of the back of the realtor. That is the lender’s problem right?

The challenge of dual agency is that it would be difficult for the buyer and seller to say that their best interests are at the center of the transaction. This only because as a client you are always left wondering that if indeed your interests were being protected, specially in this market. The same can be said when the RE Agent is also the loan office on the transaction or the loan is being done by the same office. While there are plenty of honest and ethical RE Agents and Loan officers - we are in a market where we must regain consumer confidence and that may mean to take the necessary steps to show we mean well every time. This can be achieve perhaps by doing away with dual agency and separating mortgage and real estate as it used to be. You either do real estate or lending but not both.