No. of Recommendations: 5
From an industry newsletter:

During last night’s president debate, Mitt Romney brought up the issue of the ‘Qualified Mortgage’ rule, saying that if we actually had one the housing market might be further along in its recovery. The fact that Romney even knew of its existence is impressive.

Of course, it would’ve been nice if the moderator Jim Lehrer explored the QM issue, but it was not to be. As for the president, I would venture that he doesn’t know much about QM and another key rule for mortgage bankers, the ‘Qualified Residential Mortgage’ rule.

During the debate, Obama did single out "loan officers" for giving mortgages to consumers who weren't qualified. In that sense, the president has evolved. It shows that he’s no longer blaming just loan brokers for the mortgage mess and is recognizing that retail loan officers (at Ameriquest, Household, Associates) were just as guilty.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
In that sense, the president has evolved. It shows that he’s no longer blaming just loan brokers for the mortgage mess and is recognizing that retail loan officers (at Ameriquest, Household, Associates) were just as guilty.

Unless there was more verbage than what you stated, I think you're putting too much meaning into whether "loan officer" or "loan broker" was used.

To 99% of the US those are interchangable terms.
ie. "my neighbor is a loan broker at BofA" means the same as "my neighbor is a loan officer at BofA".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
the housing market might be further along in its recovery

Depends what people are looking for in a housing market "recovery". Unfortunately I think too many people are hoping for a return of 2005 prices, and there's no reason for that to happen until inflation and the time value of money makes those prices more inline with median/average incomes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hi foo1bar,

Unless there was more verbage than what you stated, I think you're putting too much meaning into whether "loan officer" or "loan broker" was used.
To 99% of the US those are interchangable terms.
ie. "my neighbor is a loan broker at BofA" means the same as "my neighbor is a loan officer at BofA".

She wasn't putting too much *meaning* into it... the specific meaning is there regardless if the majority of the public are unaware of the distinction.

I think she was lending the President far too much assumption of intelligence in this regard... I do not believe *HE* understands the difference (and tragically the sponsors of Dodd/Frank have *explicitly* proven they fail at the distinction.)

Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
She wasn't putting too much *meaning* into it...
Let's substitute in a better term, so the different definitions of "meaning" aren't causing confusion.
"... too much *significance* into ..."

the specific meaning is there regardless if the majority of the public are unaware of the distinction.

If the majority of the public believes that there is no distinction, then at least one definition IS that there isn't a distinction. Dictionaries and definitions are based on how terms are used, so if many people say they're the same thing, they are the same thing. And yet because there are established definitions where they're different, they can be different at the same time, and determining which definition is appropriate depends on context.
So while speaking about the Dodd/Frank law, and it's legal terms, they could be different, but at the same time, while speaking to a general audience in general terms they can be the same. Without knowing more context of the comments, I'd say they're being used interchangably, and that for the audience (ie. general public) it's reasonable to consider them the same.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If the majority of the public believes that there is no distinction, then at least one definition IS that there isn't a distinction. Dictionaries and definitions are based on how terms are used, so if many people say they're the same thing, they are the same thing
*ONLY* to the ignorant, which we are theoretically supposed to trust the POTUS is not.

The term 'loan officer' describes a subset of both loan brokers and retail lenders, the latter 2 being distinct from each other in a financially and legally important way.

Using the term 'loan broker' as synonymous with 'retail lender' or 'loan officer' may be a common colloquialism, but its a very significant distinction legally and financially... and anyone in the related legal or financial industries would expect anyone seeking an office regulating that industry to display their understanding (or at least avoid displaying obvious ignorance.)

Obama pulled that off, this time... so the hope is he's been schooled in the legal and financial distinctions so he doesn't appear as ignorant.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
foo1bar wrote: Unless there was more verbage than what you stated, I think you're putting too much meaning into whether "loan officer" or "loan broker" was used.

I didn't attach any meaning to anything. The entire post is a direct quote.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Dictionaries and definitions are based on how terms are used, so if many people say they're the same thing, they are the same thing

*ONLY* to the ignorant


No - usage drives definitions.
When a dictionary writes/updates a word's definition it is describing how the word is used - NOT how some people think it should be used.

There are many words that have multiple definitions - some even contradictory - because that is how the words are used in real life.

An example you might be familiar with is "realtor" - it has two definitions:
www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/realtor


(US)
®
1> a real estate broker or appraiser who is a member of the National Association of Realtors

noun
2> ([r-]) a real estate agent


Legally it's #1 - but many people talk about any RE agent as a "realtor", whether they are a member of the NAR or not.

An example that is usually more appropriate for programmers would be definitions 3a and 3b of hacker http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/american/hacker
(Many people who were early creators/adopters of the term in computer parlance used it in meaning 3a, and strongly disagreed with 3b being an appropriate definition - yet it has by usage become defined as 3b as well.

The term 'loan officer' describes a subset of both loan brokers and retail lenders,
I believe you meant to say a superset of ...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The term 'loan officer' describes a subset of both loan brokers and retail lenders,
I believe you meant to say a superset of ...

No, superset would imply that all loan brokers and retail lenders fall *INSIDE* the set of loan officers (aka 'loan originators.')

I meant subset.
All loan brokers are not necessarily loan officers (though most are.)
All retail lenders are not necessarily loan officers (and many in fact are not.)

All loan officers work for either loan brokers, or retail lenders.
No loan brokers work for retail lenders, nor do retail lenders work for loan brokers.


When a dictionary writes/updates a word's definition it is describing how the word is used - NOT how some people think it should be used.

OK... drop "loan broker" into Google, and the 1st two definition references are;
http://www.in.gov/sos/securities/2803.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_broker

Both clearly make the distinction, with no ambivalence nor confusion, between an actual, legally determined mortgage/loan broker and a simple loan officer.

It doesn't matter if 99% (as you guess) are indeed ignorant of the definitions or not... the definition remains what it is.

Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Dave's right...insofar as the Dodd-Frank Act is concerned, there's a legislative difference between "loan broker" and "loan officer"--a fact that has implications for loan brokers but not loan officers.

Nonetheless, I doubt that Obama is aware of the distinction and likely doesn't care.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
During last night’s president debate, Mitt Romney brought up the issue of the ‘Qualified Mortgage’ rule, saying that if we actually had one the housing market might be further along in its recovery. The fact that Romney even knew of its existence is impressive.

I was a bit surprised - but certainly not impressed - that Romney knew of its existence.

I would have been impressed if he was able to demonstrate that he actually understood and could explain it.

No such luck.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I would've thought it weird if he had expounded on "qualified mortgage" when there are lots of other topics that demand deeper examination.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I would've thought it weird if he had expounded on "qualified mortgage" when there are lots of other topics that demand deeper examination.

I would too... I thought Romney did a great job getting so many points out on the floor, despite Obama hogging up more of the time. Romney was very efficiente...

--
whyohwhyoh
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I would've thought it weird if he had expounded on "qualified mortgage" when there are lots of other topics that demand deeper examination.

I agree.

I guess that's why it was so puzzling that he brought it up in the first place, only to reveal a facile understanding of the issue. Why even bring it up?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I doubt that Romney has only a "facile understanding" of what a qualified mortgage is.

Hell, he can't even bring up the most understandable symbol of government waste--Big Bird--without the entire librul population exploding on the internet.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I doubt that Romney has only a "facile understanding" of what a qualified mortgage is.


That's cool; you are entitled to your opinion. His debate comment - taken by itself in context - certainly doesn't advance the notion that there was anything of substance behind it; it was just a pointless digression.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
CCinOC: "Hell, he can't even bring up the most understandable symbol of government waste--Big Bird--without the entire librul population exploding on the internet."

You actually beleive that PBS is the most understandable symbol of government waste?

Regards, JAFO
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement