I primarily work in Oregon originating loans however, we have recently been approved in California to orginate loans.
Now my question is: Would you (as an agent) want to send your clients to a Loan Officer in Oregon or would you much rather he lived in the area?
I ask this because I'm curious to know if it truly matters where someone is located as long as they are professional and you can trust them with your clients. If they are fast, efficient, and they are doing a great job for your clients would it matter as much? Obviously if I refer my clients to an agent it reflects on me and I want them to do a good job and in turn that makes me look good. Vice versa you want to send your clients to someone who makes you look good.
I'm just curious to know what the general idea is on this topic.
I'm a Real Estate Broker for Oregon Real Estate Properties in the Eugene/Springfield Oregon area. I specialize in the entire Lane County are of Oregon.
ActiveRain Corp. is not responsible for the accuracy of the site's content (which is written by members of the ActiveRain Real Estate Network) and does not endorse the views of the real estate agents, mortgage brokers, and others listed here.
Powered by the ActiveRain Real Estate Network
© 2009 ActiveRain Corp. All Rights Reserved
I really don't care where the lender is located as long as he/she is trustworthy, professional, knowledgeable, efficient, and stays in contact with me and the buyer.
I am currently working with two buyer, both in California, who are buying investment property here in South Carolina.
Michael Thompson, MBA, Realtor
Century 21 Anderson Properties
http://www.MichaelThompsonProperties.com/
The only way I will work with an out-of-area lender is when I have a buyer who brings his local lender into the transaction. It is seldom easy, often extremely hard to coordinate to a close.