Jay Beckingham

Well I know the actual reason, which is that the State of Florida has changed the law in regards to my lending status, and I am now required to become licensed. Really I don't have a problem with being licensed, but so much of this seems fishy to me.

I currently work for a company which is considered a correspondent lender, and as such I am exempt from needing a brokers license, but that will change as of January 1st. At that time essentially anyone who looks at a file will need a license unless

They work at a Bank.

The legal aspect of this is that banks come under a different jurisdiction, that being federal, and are unaffected by the changes in state law. The part that I don't feel comfortable with is that it appears the bankers don't feel that they need to fall under the same requirements or scrutinization. After all we all know

that certainly no bank employee could have done anything questionable, which helped to contribute to the mortgage problems.

That just couldn't be possible now, right?

Day 1 Mortgage Brokers School

I must admit that I got extremely lucky in that my instructors are excellent. I'd like to tell you that this was a result of my own research, but it's not. They're just real good.

And Honest!

They make no bones about the fact that their purpose is to prepare us to pass the state's test. Their job is hampered by the fact that in many cases the test is outdated, and that you must learn the wrong answer, which happens to be the right answer, as far as the test is concerned.

That's right forget the correct answer, or it will be marked wrong, and you may not pass.

The state tries to pass off the test as important, but not important enough for them to do their due diligence so we all may actually learn something, and do things right.

They certainly are not setting a very good example.

Most of the class is made up of experienced loan officers, who also lost their exemption, and must now become licensed, but we do have some newbies. They're a little bit more than just confused and

We're setting a real bad example for them.

I guess that's not important.

I first arrived in Florida in 1992, and have been involved as a mortgage lender for about 15 years, without a single complaint. I do sincerely try to do it right, all day, everyday.

So I will get the license, because I have to, it's the law.

BUT,

I'm not sure why.

If you're looking for property in Lehigh Acres as a primary residence take a look at USDA/RD also known as Rural Development. Also keep in mind that this program is available in parts of San Carlos Park, Estero, Bonita Springs, and all of Collier County.

The BIGGEST fallacy to dispel is that Rural Development is for rural properties. It sounds like this should be the case, but it's not.

RD loans are available, pretty much, anywhere that the United States Department of Agriculture has determined that they are needed.

These decisions have absolutely nothing to do with if the property has any rural influences, but there are geographical restrictions.

Why are they so hot? they offer;

100% financing

No monthly mortgage insurance (MI)

the closing costs may be financed or paid by the seller

No First Time Homebuyer requirement

No FHA seasoning requirement for properties

possible additional funds for repairs

credit exceptions with 620 scores and above.

There are income limits, but they have been increased.

This is a great program for those with limited funds or those who are looking to minimize up front costs.

And this program is;

RED HOT!

Sizzling Actually!

I realized this while reading an article about the birdseed guy, Jim Carpenter. He stated that "he was just too stupid to realize that he couldn't make a living selling birdseed." Well he started with one store around 700 square feet, and now has about 270 franchises across the United States and Canada. Jim has a passion for the "natural world."

I read about Jim in "Success Magazine." Yes I read a magazine called "Success," and yes it is filled with those disgusting positive ideas and stories about people who have overcome incredible odds to be successful, and how they did so. I really need to stop reading this stuff as it can't possibly help ME!

Wrong!

I must admit my buddy Deb snickered, as she handed me the mail. Here's your copy, he he, of "Success Magazine," he, he, he, snicker, snicker.

"Thank You," I replied.

Well, I've got to tell you,

I'm just to stupid to think I can't be successful in our current marketplace!

The most important reason is that I refuse to accept that I can't.

Another reason is I've seen worse. Go ahead, argue with me about this.

On another forum I made a comment suggesting that you think about what you would consider a successful 2010. An old friend of mine suggested that "you've got a message that most people won't consider, for alot of folks, in this economy it's day to day." I reject the former, but accept the latter.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't identify what they would consider a successful 2010.

and

develop a plan

and (to quote Rocky)

Go for it!

So, to a certain degree, just like Jim,

I'm just too stupid to think I can't be successful in 2010!

and

I'm very thankful for that!

Okay I went on the IRS site, the real one, and read the updated info available. I have a BIG question.

The existing homeowner has/had to have been in the home 5 of the last 8 years.

If they are in it currently what happens?

Must it be sold?

Closed?

Listed?

WHAT?

I live in Southwest Florida, where many people buy residences as their primary residence for tax purposes. This does not mean that they sell their existing residence wherever. They may homestead the new property, get Florida licenses, and register to vote, but hey still own the original home and may use it for X amount of months during any calendar year.

Do they qualify for the $$$$$

Once again I was on the IRS site, but didn't see this addressed.

Does anybody know what the rules are?

If not, why am I not surprised.

If so, please share.

Please,

Somebody Help ME!

The Homebuyers Tax credit has been extended. Well many think that that's a good thing. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's interesting that all the reports say it was extended, as that's not actually the case, as it was changed, possibly for the better, we'll find out, and then passed.

Why do we feel a need to confuse people with the provisions of some of these bills?

Having had the tax credit around for awhile it's safe to say that most/all of us realize that a first time homebuyer isn't necessarily a first time homebuyer. They could actually be a second or third time homebuyer as long as they have not owned a home in the last three years. Are there not words in the english language to cover this?

Oh yes, I forgot, First Time Homebuyer is politically popular.

I see that existing homeowners may now be eligible for a tax credit. Now look out here. An existing homeowner, according to the provisions of the bill, doesn't necessarily have to be an existing homeowner. In this case an existing homeowner may be someone who has, or had owned/resided a home for 5 of the last 8 years.

That doesn't mean that they own the home currently!

I'm not sure anyone is going to read this posting or they may think so what. But the short history of the tax credit has shown that many who claimed and received the credit were not eligible. Some were as young as 4 years old, according to a report from C(constantly)N(negative)N(news). You better look out for those computer literate 4 year olds. I wonder if some who are qualified won't file for the benefit.

Do you think the kid in diapers, buying stock on TV, is buying a home and claiming the credit?

Okay, so maybe only Andy Rooney and I would have these types of thoughts/concerns. Me I like to keep things simple.

Hey Andy, what do you think?