Only The Good?

The Palm Beach Post published an interesting letter from a reverse mortgage lender.

Jeffrey Melcer writes that “as a reverse mortgage broker, I feel compelled to comment on some of the points made in ‘Congress looks into reverse mortgages as abuses begin to occur,’ (Feb. 18, Business ). Demographics suggest that the reverse mortgage will have enormous growth over the next decade as Baby Boomers retire, so it is crucial that potential borrowers understand exactly how these loans work and how to protect themselves from unscrupulous brokers.”

Melcer goes on and says:

“There is nothing wrong with the reverse mortgage itself. For many seniors, it is truly a lifesaver and a way for them to stay in their homes and retain financial independence. A good broker has a fiduciary and moral responsibility to see that the proceeds received from the reverse mortgage are used as intended, and not speculated or ‘conned’ away.”

Why does only a “good” broker have a “fiduciary and moral responsibility to see that the proceeds received from the reverse mortgage are used as intended”?

In other words, why shouldn’t all loan officers — just like all lawyers, all doctors and virtually all real estate brokers — have a fiduciary obligation to borrowers? I’m not worried about the “good” ones….

For the full letter, go to: Reverse mortgages aren’t the problem; rogue brokers are

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 3:53 am and is filed under Reverse Mortgage . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.