Complaint Review: Ameriquest Mortgage - Fort Myers Florida

I was trying to refinance a loan with your office in the beginning of April 2004. I just had started a new job and had been on unemployment for a year prior to this. But had no problems with keeping my original payments up to date. Just looking for that lower rate. They had faxed a income verification statement to the office with a cover letter stating for my boss to over inflate the gross amounts. The appraiser took copies of my original appraisal from april of 1997 when i originally bought the house and started added costs from there. No termite inspection was ever done. The reason for the loan was to receive cash out for other expenses. Well a notary showed up at the house at 10:00 for me to sign the paperwork and said I would receive my copies overnighted the next day. Yeah right it took three months of hounding them everyday to get the paperwork package and I about fainted when I saw the fee's and misc costs that were charged. These were never discussed. And whats up with the added $10,000 to the loan costs. Is this the bonuses your talking about?? The loan was closed on 04/08/2004 and they never paid the original mortgage company until 05/25/2004. I had a credit score of 712 but they gave me such a bunch of molarkie about what I could save that i fell hook line and sinker. And guess what... I just can't get rid of this STUPID company, they have ruined my credit with their scams..

Reading Jack's inane commentary, I am reminded of the sage advice: Never argue with an idiot; Witnesses may not be able to tell the difference. I accept the risk because I believe the readers of this site possess sufficient intelligence to separate the wheat from the chaff. So far... Jack has offered nothing from the perspective of an Ex-Employee. Jack: ARE you an ex-employee? No. How can anyone take you seriously while you masquerade on a message board? I am outing Jack as a bitter Ameriquest customer who learned about the lending industry only after somebody "tricked" him into signing a 2/28 with a 3 year prepay. Waaaah, Jack. Waaaaah! This "attack" on me -as you have termed it- is WEAK. Quoting Cassius Clay, "Is that all you've got?"

If you want to see what AQ is up to with the secondary market, check this out: http://www.secinfo.com/$/Search.asp?Find=ameriquest A recent NPR segment: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10165859 A significant % of AQ's loan were based on fraud. These bad loans are still a problem - just navigate secinfo.com and you'll find out why.

If you want to see what AQ is up to with the secondary market, check this out: http://www.secinfo.com/$/Search.asp?Find=ameriquest A recent NPR segment: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10165859 A significant % of AQ's loan were based on fraud. These bad loans are still a problem - just navigate secinfo.com and you'll find out why.

If you want to see what AQ is up to with the secondary market, check this out: http://www.secinfo.com/$/Search.asp?Find=ameriquest A recent NPR segment: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10165859 A significant % of AQ's loan were based on fraud. These bad loans are still a problem - just navigate secinfo.com and you'll find out why.

I am very surprised that Nicole took the stance that she did in her last response. I originally responded to this forum because of Nicole's fairly accurate account of what took place on a daily basis at AQ. Rex is a typical ex-Amerquest employee; and I am not only attacking him, I am essentially attacking other ex-subprime originators like him. As for expanding my vocabulary, I don't see any need to use any other word than abomination to describe large direct subprime lenders like AQ. Even after articulating some of the shenanigans that she saw, Nicole simply does not understand that people with alt-A credit were pushed into these junk loans. She even admitted that most loans carried exorbitant fees. Again, a good mortgage broker would NEVER charge the mammoth fees that AQ charged and would NEVER place a customer into a 2/28 ARM with a 3-year pre-pay. I hate to repeat myself, but I think this needs to be drilled into the heads of ex-employees at these pirate subprime lenders. Nicole's statement that consumers who will be in their homes for the foreseeable future should not be concerned about a pre-pay is absurd. A pre-pay on a fixed product could make sense for customers who plan to stay in their homes. This is not the case for a 2/28 or a 3/27 because they are considered to be "band-aid" loans, meaning that the goal is to refinance after the fixed period into a fixed rate loan. This is why the 2/28 & 3/27 are unique to the subprime market. Unscrupulous originators like Rex sold these ARM products with semantics to push customers with decent credit into them to make their lucrative monthly commissions. As for loan suitability, Nicole is way off base by calling it subjective. Suitability is a hot issue right now thanks to unscrupulous managers who train the Rex's of the world to take advantage of their own ignorance. It should not be tuff to understand that a customer with a 670 credit score and one mortgage late should be pitched on an alt-A fixed product with a pre-pay and that a customer with 520 score on the verge of bankruptcy should be sold on a 2/28 without a 3-year pre-pay, which defeats the purpose of the loan.

The Revenue Generator is right, Maybe we need to sue them/the software co, and the stock and bond holders at the same time, we need to let them know about the fraud, if they know about the frauds they can be sued also or held responsible. If there is fraud on the mortgage contract it might be a breach of contract. Origination Software, Is that the same software they use to cause default and or foreclosure during the servicing of the mortgage? We need all the help we can get. Thanks

What is up with all the negative derogatory ex-employee bashing? I have to admit I enjoy it on some very low gossipy level but SERIOUSLY! Jack- we get it, everything AQ did was an abomination (for all of our sake, try expanding your vocabulary)- think you could call out the company though & not the person on the message board? We're supposed to band together against the company who knew what they were doing and who weren't offering better programs, rates & fees- not bash all the people who worked there. The only reason AMQ did so many ARM loans 2/28, 3/27 etc... there are TONS of them, is because rates were extremely low for these loans at the time making the payments lower. That is what the american consumer ALWAYS wants- low rates, low payments. You talk about suitability but that term is so subjective. Every borrower is different. Also, any homeowner who is going to be in their home for the foreseeable future shouldn't care about a pre-pay- those were designed for investors, gotta go!

How could I be an Ameriquest attorney? I am hardly defending the company. Once again, Rex proves how ignorant and naive he is. He sites AQ's 30 year fixed and their 2/28. Their origination program, SNAP, chose the program for him. Again, this origination software was an abomination. The choices between two of AQ' junk loans does not fall under the concept of suitability. Rex does not understand the concept of suitability. He does not understand that people with decent credit were pushed into their junk subprime loans. Again, eveything was done with a one-page underwriting sheet, which was, again, an abomination. Rex needs a better financial education.

How could I be an Ameriquest attorney? I am hardly defending the company. Once again, Rex proves how ignorant and naive he is. He sites AQ's 30 year fixed and their 2/28. Their origination program, SNAP, chose the program for him. Again, this origination software was an abomination. The choices between two of AQ' junk loans does not fall under the concept of suitability. Rex does not understand the concept of suitability. He does not understand that people with decent credit were pushed into their junk subprime loans. Again, eveything was done with a one-page underwriting sheet, which was, again, an abomination. Rex needs a better financial education.

How could I be an Ameriquest attorney? I am hardly defending the company. Once again, Rex proves how ignorant and naive he is. He sites AQ's 30 year fixed and their 2/28. Their origination program, SNAP, chose the program for him. Again, this origination software was an abomination. The choices between two of AQ' junk loans does not fall under the concept of suitability. Rex does not understand the concept of suitability. He does not understand that people with decent credit were pushed into their junk subprime loans. Again, eveything was done with a one-page underwriting sheet, which was, again, an abomination. Rex needs a better financial education.

How could I be an Ameriquest attorney? I am hardly defending the company. Once again, Rex proves how ignorant and naive he is. He sites AQ's 30 year fixed and their 2/28. Their origination program, SNAP, chose the program for him. Again, this origination software was an abomination. The choices between two of AQ' junk loans does not fall under the concept of suitability. Rex does not understand the concept of suitability. He does not understand that people with decent credit were pushed into their junk subprime loans. Again, eveything was done with a one-page underwriting sheet, which was, again, an abomination. Rex needs a better financial education.

I bet Jack is an AMQ attorney? Am I right? Jack? Thank's Rex :)

Okay, folks, this is the final installment of Jack's continuing education program held online for all to review. Jack, you seem to be hung up on one specific loan program. Maybe you were victimized by Ameriquest. Why else would your current life ambition be to attempt to slam somebody on a message board? You sign on here as an ex-employee, yet you've never identified the branch city location, the branch manager name, nor the area manager name. What have you to hide? Jacky's ERROR: "He explains this as if he originated the loan for a savvy investor." CORRECTION: No, I explain this as it was. I attempted to educate every borrower I met at AMC, knowing that most of them didn't understand the industry. You see, there wasn't a 3/27 available while I was employed at AMC. For the few people whose incomes, credit scores, and equity figures were not suitable for other loans, they signed 2/28 loans to get the lowest possible rates and payments. THAT is suitability, Jacky. The higher rate on the 30 fixed disqualified them because the Debt to Income Ratio was too high. Jack's ERROR: "There have been articles... people who could have qualified for a 30-year fixed." CORRECTION: Your readings fail to take into consideration the number of people who either did not WANT the higher payment of the 30 fixed, or did not QUALIFY for that loan program, based upon their Debt Ratios. What part of this do you not understand? Jack's ERROR: "I could only imagine how many of Rex's unsuitable loans had an inflated appraisal." CORRECTION: Your imagination, Jack, has nothing to do with our reality. I had zero loans with inflated appraisal values. Outside of Hawaii and NYC, we have the highest property values in the country... and they continue to rise. I recognize that this is a foreign concept to you in your territory. You've proven to be the "dolt", Jacky. We're done here. Get some help. It's important to note that I had several customers owning multiple homes who could not get the type of loan they wanted elsewhere and repeatedly came to my office to obtain the loan terms they sought. Why would they do this if they were receiving anything other than great service and suitable products?

Rex proves again and again that he is a poorly trained originator. It is obvious that he only knows how to regurgitate what he learned at these large pirate operations. _This says is all: __________________________________________________________________ CORRECTION: The prepayment penalty does not affect the equity of the home unless that loan is paid off before the anniversary of the third year, or if 20% of the original loan amount is paid during any calendar month during that 3 year term. _____________________________________________________________________ He explains this as if he originated the loan for a savvy investor. Again, this loan is for a person on the edge of bankruptcy. Would a person with financial problems have the ability to pay 20% of the loan amount at any given time? The answer is obvious: Of course not. People with credit problems could not pay 20% of one of their credit cards - this is the reason that they refinanced in the first place. Hence, this loan with a 3-year prepay is very appealing to the investors on the secondary market because if the customer refinances the entire loan in year three, the prepay will be enforced, and if they don't, the interest rate will jump in year three, sometimes to the capped rate. He proves my point that AQ's process and that of other large direct lenders were nothing more than revenue generators. They dangled the carrot in front of little bunnies like REX who did not know any better. Rex did not understand the concept of suitability then and it obvious that he does not grasp or is even aware of it now. There have been articles in the Wall Street Journal & Investors Daily about the 2/28. The main point that was made is these articles was that a significant amount of customers who were pushed into this loan were people who could have qualified for a 30-year fixed. What took place over the last five years will have repercussions on the mortgage & securities industries for years to come. AQ was the prime culprit of this mess; and the 325 million dollar settlement that AQ was subjected to was a slap on the wrist. They originated, processed and "underwrited" billions of dollars worth of loans that were securitized on the open market. I put underwrited in quotes because they were not properly underwritten. Again, the "underwriting" was done at the novice originator's desks with a one-page sheet. This is how dolts like Rex could churn out so many loans - specifically loans that were done in ONE TO THREE DAYS. The industry should never have allowed this. I could only imagine how many of Rex's unsuitable loans had an inflated appraisal. This is going to be a nightmare for all of us now that the federal government is going to step in and try to bail people out. State governments are starting funds to bail people out of these loans with inflated appraisals. This is a nightmare for decent brokers who pitched and sold suitable loans. The microscope will be placed over them by government bureaucrats who don't know anything about the industry. I think a case study should be done about AQ and other large direct lender by an industry expert. Rex could be one of their exhibits.

Jack is a perfect example of a person who assumes too much and knows too little. Jack repeats his errors in life. I repeated the guidelines to clarify WHY people signed 2/28 loans with a 3 year PPP. Ameriquest did not have a 3/27 during my term of employment. If they had, then this well-trained originator would have recommended THAT loan program. ERROR BY JACK: "The pre-pay in essence sucks even more equity out of the customer's home." CORRECTION: The prepayment penalty does not affect the equity of the home unless that loan is paid off before the anniversary of the third year, or if 20% of the original loan amount is paid during any calendar month during that 3 year term. Get your facts straight, Jack. JACK'S ASSUMPTION: "When Rex worked for AQ, they had a branch system. This is how they perpetrated so much fraud. The branches were in isolated office locations. If fraud got out of hand, they would fire dolts like Rex and write them off as rogue employees." CORRECTION: At that time, we had borrowers raining down upon us so heavily, there was no reason to commit fraud. We didn't have to "persuade or convince" anyone to borrow from AMC. With the highest average loan size in the country, there was plenty of business, plenty of commission, and plenty of us with integrity. I have read that there were huge problems with fraud at Ameriquest. I will tell you that if there was any level of fraud at the branch where I was employed, it must have been very minimal and it was kept away from myself and others. The real problem at our branch while I was employed there was that there wasn't enough time to get everything done in a workday. Delegating to the new hires meant taking 3x or 4x the task time to explain the process of the task. I could see where somebody would avoid explaining and training on certain days in order to speed the workflow. This would lead to poor training. It's okay, Jack, we don't expect you to know everything about everything, so give it a rest.

Listen up folks: Rex is a perfect example of a poorly trained originator. The large direct lenders have poisoned the industry with his kind. This statement says it all: _______________________________________________ A: Often, including the 3 year PPP was the only way to get the debt-to-income ratio low enough to get the loan approved within the lending guidelines of a 2/28. With the 3 year PPP, the interest rate was slightly lower, thus the payment was lower and made the D/R below 50% or 45% or whatever the guideline was at that time. ________________________________________________ He is simply regurgitating Ameriquest's guidelines - which were completely unique to the industry. They had their own origination software, which was designed to be a revenue generator for the company. A good mortgage broker would NEVER place a customer into a 2/28 with a 3-year pre-pay because it is an abomination. The pre-pay in essence sucks even more equity out of the customer's home. A 2/28 is strictly reserved for a customer who is on the verge of bankruptcy. AQ offered a 3/27 at the end of their branch days, but most originators would choose the 2/28 because it generated more revenue - hence, a bigger commission for the poorly trained originators, which helped them make their monthly commission. I am using the term "poorly trained". The Ameriquest "training" was also an abomination. They taught the originators to use a "dummy proofed" origination system. When Rex worked for AQ, they had a branch system. This is how they perpetrated so much fraud. The branches were in isolated office locations. If fraud got out of hand, they would fire dolts like Rex and write them off as rogue employees. Well, they had tons of these rogue employees - just read the old blogs on here. The same stories were told in every state where AQ did business. If you are a homeowner who is experiencing credit problems, stay away from the large direct lenders that deal in subprime. Take the time to find a good reputable mortgage broker with experience. And please, do some research on the net before you go to closing.

Who are you, Jack? Why so hostile? I'll answer the first question to remain a good sport in the absence of cordiality. Q: How many 2/28 ARM programs with a 3-year pre-pay did you put people into? A: Often, including the 3 year PPP was the only way to get the debt-to-income ratio low enough to get the loan approved within the lending guidelines of a 2/28. With the 3 year PPP, the interest rate was slightly lower, thus the payment was lower and made the D/R below 50% or 45% or whatever the guideline was at that time. This bears repeating for those who don't fully understand how lending works: If the loan doesn't have the terms the borrower is seeking, the borrower need not sign that loan. Seems to us here at this office that you don't know jack, Jack. For no reason you've made the mistake, Jack, in assuming that people who were formerly employed at Ameriquest remain the same; have not left the DOC to become licensed agents with the DRE; have not realized the differences and have moved on. You need to be more circumspect before you log on here. It's not my intention to justify or defend any individual or company. If people want the truth, some of us have the answers. Jack in Berwyn doesn't want answers and truth, he simply wants a punching bag. It ain't me. So, Jackie, take it out on yourself for signing a "bad" loan, or take it out on the company. Don't assume you know anything about a person until you've met that person. I hope you get the help you need. Good luck to you.

Rex, How many 2/28 ARM programs with a 3-year pre-pay did you put people into? How many 1 and 3-day closings did you originate? How many customers in the alt-A range did you place into AQ's junk subprime loans? How many LIBOR programs did you originate with ridiculous fees and points? How many of your appraisals were inflated? What does MBS & ABS stand for? Rex has no clue what he is talking about because he was not trained properly folks. He probably does not even realize that AQ did not have a proper underwriting department. All of the novice originators at AQ were given a one-page underwriting sheet. The industry shopuld not have allowed Ameriquest to exist.

Rex, How many 2/28 ARM programs with a 3-year pre-pay did you put people into? How many 1 and 3-day closings did you originate? How many customers in the alt-A range did you place into AQ's junk subprime loans? How many LIBOR programs did you originate with ridiculous fees and points? How many of your appraisals were inflated? What does MBS & ABS stand for? Rex has no clue what he is talking about because he was not trained properly folks. He probably does not even realize that AQ did not have a proper underwriting department. All of the novice originators at AQ were given a one-page underwriting sheet. The industry shopuld not have allowed Ameriquest to exist.

Rex, How many 2/28 ARM programs with a 3-year pre-pay did you put people into? How many 1 and 3-day closings did you originate? How many customers in the alt-A range did you place into AQ's junk subprime loans? How many LIBOR programs did you originate with ridiculous fees and points? How many of your appraisals were inflated? What does MBS & ABS stand for? Rex has no clue what he is talking about because he was not trained properly folks. He probably does not even realize that AQ did not have a proper underwriting department. All of the novice originators at AQ were given a one-page underwriting sheet. The industry shopuld not have allowed Ameriquest to exist.

Rex, How many 2/28 ARM programs with a 3-year pre-pay did you put people into? How many 1 and 3-day closings did you originate? How many customers in the alt-A range did you place into AQ's junk subprime loans? How many LIBOR programs did you originate with ridiculous fees and points? How many of your appraisals were inflated? What does MBS & ABS stand for? Rex has no clue what he is talking about because he was not trained properly folks. He probably does not even realize that AQ did not have a proper underwriting department. All of the novice originators at AQ were given a one-page underwriting sheet. The industry shopuld not have allowed Ameriquest to exist.

I found this site accidentally while searching for something else a lonnng time ago and have returned occasionally. The timing of these visits typically coincides with AMC or Argent in the news. Frank, we're all disappointed in your ability to recall the facts. I read nothing constructive in your comments. 1) You say that you were a Mgr, yet you don't say for how many years, nor during which time period. 2) You feel that my math example was incorrect, yet you have no correction to offer. My example stands. While employed at Ameriquest, I was introduced to a few Branch Mgrs, Area Mgrs, and our Regional Mgr. --- during conference calls, regional training days and sponsored vacations and grew to know them during personal strategy calls after work. As a former Branch Manager, you should be able to support my statement that The Game at AMC was to earn more than the next guy/ branch/ area/ region. The most money was being made outside the office --- I hope you knew that at the time you were employed there. A reply to Ken in Holland, MI: Ken, I truly wish I had a way of helping you with your current struggles. The culture at each of the 229 branches was slightly different. We simply didn't have a corrupt culture. During my exposure to that company, loans were raining very heavily -- so, it was not necessary to sprain or break any laws. It wasn't. "...(Rex) and so many other employees that work for or have worked for Ameriquest say they were the honest mortgage broker." CORRECTION : I've never said that Ameriquest was an honest mortgage broker. I've never said that I was the honest mortgage broker. The term "broker" doesn't apply to Ameriquest. I am currently an honest mortgage broker. There's no other way. "To make a statement like that and in the same sentance you would say that their was so much fraud going on and you didnt report it or tell the media. Are you just stupid or were you lied to like so many of us." CORRECTION : Ken, you really should use Spell-Check before asking if others are stupid. "Should of" is actually "Should've" which is a contraction involving the words "should" and "have". "I also wish I knew where everyone of you worked because Im sure your present employer would love to know how you operated @ your last job." CORRECTION : My current employer knows where and how I worked. Believe me. I'm okay with the fact that you're bitter after a bad experience. Later, you'll understand that it simply is not possible that all employees of any one company are bad. BTW : Ameriquest was not my last job. That job took me to the tulip fields of your beautiful state and I met a lot of hard-working furniture craftsmen. You should visit CA sometime to see how we make left turns over here. :)

I guess I shouldn't be so shocked that most these responses are very rude and emotional but it is weird coming from men. Of course you all are too afraid to leave your names or offer any information as to your past or experience. Everyone gets burned at some point and you all are blaming me for an attitude you think I may have instead of looking at the reality which is that there are offices like this everywhere and somebody's gotta take a stand. Why not me? That makes me a martyr, i don't think so! I never said I suffered- I went through this open eyes, willing to lose my job over it even though I didn't think it was right. I had worked for very reputable places in the past and this AMC office didn't hold a candle to any of them. It seems to me that people who are responding are taking their frustrations out on me without actually reading what I've wrote. Yes, I got on here to vent about a particular office within AMC. I think they were a great company who helped tons of people who probably couldn't have received a loan elsewhere. I also intended to help people who are not in the business and just want an honest response. There is no school for loan processors- it's all OTJ training. I have 7 years experience and have seen over 3000 loans, how about instead of stating there's misinformation, you be specific & teach me something. So far noone has. I've said before that the l/o is the salesmen BUT if there were not loan processors who know the underwriting guidelines- many many more loans would get denied or not submitted at all. And you say we're the worthless piece of the puzzle. If there weren't loan officers- people would still get loans... amazing huh?! They would call up mortgage companies instead of l/o's harassing them by phone or email. The accurate statement would be: If loan officers really knew what a processors job was, the mortgage business wouldn't need them- but that hasn't happened yet. Honestly, how much do your l/o's know about title work- liens, how to release them etc., how about anything on the 13-22 page appraisal other than value? In my Florida experience they can barely read credit reports & paycheck stubs, forget about asset & pension information. I can read rate sheets, figure points & fees and explain pretty much any program out there so really what else do the l/o's do besides cold call and bring in that extra business that maybe wouldn't call in? It is a team effort- including the Branch manager who keeps everyone in line. I never said that I cared about how much the l/o's make, it's not about the money for me & that should be clear by now. I pointed out that they were making tons of money in the midst of their fraud & deception which is probably their motivation. I have done sales before- I've had my broker's license too- I PREFER PROCESSING because I feel that is where I can make a difference, that is where the real knowledge is. A salesman is just a good talker which isn't that difficult a skill to master, I envy them as much as I envy the soldiers in Iraq. I hate to say you're right after all your ridiculous allegations but the truth is that there are many uneducated- untrained loan officers in the business- same with processors & branch managers. Your statement about the mortgage snapshot doesn't help anyone, even if some people didn't know those steps, it doesn't matter- it's the inbetween that gets messy & confusing. To the most recent poster- I don't know who burned you but it was apparently pretty bad. Are you suggesting we all get out of the mortgage business? Every business has it's flaws and they will never change until people who watch it go on do something about it. I lost my job defending non-predatory lending. You're on here cussing people out, like a teenager would, with no knowledge of this industry and how it works. I do have compassion for those who had the wool pulled over their eyes, for the ones who sat at the closing table with a notary, a loan officer & the branch manager telling them what was on each paper but not actually expecting you to read it. I know the trickery involved and I'm not justifying it but any lawyer would tell you to read before you sign. If they're rushing you- there's probably a reason & unfortunately without people like me on your side- noone's gonna point out the pre-pay or the points and extra fees you're paying becuase it goes in their pocket- this is why I say talk to your processor- we don't get any extra fees or points when you sign. We are supposed to be the regulator between the lender & the l/o. I know the branch manager guy is gonna hate that sentence because l/o's & bm's expect everyone to listen to them and they must have all the control- even on a website. But that just proves my point... the bm's & l/o's want to do illegal things to make more money and any processor who has work ethics will protest this for the borrower & for the lender. I've said before I was praised for doing my job by the actual borrowers and that's not to sound conceited or to make it seem like I am perfect. It's proof of how appreciative people can be when you treat them right and truly take the time to explain all aspects of the loan program, fees and disclosures in words they understand. One more thing, a thank you to all the good loan officers out there who do this every day and make my job easier by being honest with the borrower. If I had known what I was in for I would've stayed right by your sides.

Just a quick statement I would like to make! I think it it very funny that you(Rex) and so many other employees that work for or have worked for Ameriquest say they were the honest mortgage broker. Are you kidding me. To make a statement like that and in the same sentance you would say that their was so much fraud going on and you didnt report it or tell the media. Are you just stupid or were you lied to like so many of us. So next time one of you dip *&*& say we should of read our mortgage papers and we deserve what we got, just remember you guys knew what was going on and still worked for this company. So dont come on these sites and say poor me I had to work so many hours and they treated me so bad. I dont give 2 *&*& about any current or present Ameriquest employee you guys are just as guilty as Ameriquest and everyone of you should be locked up! Im so glad that their is a site like this so we can put the word out about a company like this and what is going on. I also wish I knew where everyone of you worked because Im sure your present employer would love to know how you operated @ your last job. You are all crooks!!!!

I'm not sure where either of you "Nicole" or "Rex" have gotten your mortgage education, but there is simply alot of misinformation on these reports. I wholeheartedly agree with the person who stated that Nicole was a busbody, disciplanarian, etc. This seems to be evident by the fact that her comments are very indignant and she views herself as some sort of martyr. Put simply it was not Nicoles job to determine wether her colleagues were making lots of money and it would be interesting to me if the separation notice actually stated that she was fired for being "too ethical". As far as the comment about processors telling the truth to the borrowers...lets put it this way: if the AE, LO, etc, didn't originate the loan your services wouldn't be needed. Period. Of course there is a sales aspect to the business. EVERY business has a sales process. Thats why YOU process and THEY sell loans. No offense but it seems as if you might be a little envious of the compensation they made due to their sales talents vrs a more admnistrative, data processing job such as loan processing. Sales people always make more money, in any business. Heres how the mortgage business works in a snapshot: when a loan is originated, submitted and funded, it is then sold to an investor. Sometimes to Wall Street but also to the largest mortgage back securities institutions in the world, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. All loans are sold eventually, although the perception sometimes is that the lender holds on to them. Ameriquest did not hold the loans, they sold all of the loans to investors on Wall Street. They did service the loans, in other words the loans remained in their name, but they were ALL sold. I know this because I was Branch Manager for them for years until I started my own mortgage company 6 years ago. Rex, I'm not sure how your math works but it is grossly incorrect on your above report. Amereiquest made their money in three ways: 1) Their junk fees, 2) Their origination fees and 3) By the interest rate yield spread paid by the investor. Yes, they did pay less than most brokers in terms of percentage on loans, but they also provided insurance, health benefits, etc as well as an oppurtunity to move up in the company through hard work. I made plenty of money there because I worked hard and believed in the systems. The loans I provided to the borowers were good loans for them in the situation they were in. Yes, the interest rates were high, but their credit situation was usually pretty desperate. No one held a gun to their head to sign these loans as far I know. Most companies would not have given them a loan whereas Ameriquest could. Also, brokers that pay you 80% are not going to provide with leads, health insurance, etc, and if they do they won't be around for too long because they won't be profitable. The problem in our business today is there are too many uneducated loan officers who think that they are indespensable because they made a few hundred grand during the refi boom and too many borrowers who get themselves into trouble and then blame everyone for their mistakes. It is this sort of inaccountability that makes life for everyone (including the borrowers in the end) very difficult. Its usually liberal, pathetic, underachievers that think that they have no responsibility for their actions that create the mess that we are in with subprime lenders going out of business, Ameriquest getting sued, etc. The minute people understand that they have a obligation to themselves to find out whats good for them and live with their decision, life will be better for everyone in this country. Don't get me wrong, in no way do I condone fraud of any type. The problem is that there isn't anymore fraud than there was 20 years ago in terms of the relative increase in refis and home purcahses in the last 7 years. Its the hot button in our industry today much like the automotive indusrty of the 80's. Point is, learn the business, do your job and if you don't like where you work...quit! Stop badmouthing companies until you own your own and are perfect.

I'm not sure where either of you "Nicole" or "Rex" have gotten your mortgage education, but there is simply alot of misinformation on these reports. I wholeheartedly agree with the person who stated that Nicole was a busbody, disciplanarian, etc. This seems to be evident by the fact that her comments are very indignant and she views herself as some sort of martyr. Put simply it was not Nicoles job to determine wether her colleagues were making lots of money and it would be interesting to me if the separation notice actually stated that she was fired for being "too ethical". As far as the comment about processors telling the truth to the borrowers...lets put it this way: if the AE, LO, etc, didn't originate the loan your services wouldn't be needed. Period. Of course there is a sales aspect to the business. EVERY business has a sales process. Thats why YOU process and THEY sell loans. No offense but it seems as if you might be a little envious of the compensation they made due to their sales talents vrs a more admnistrative, data processing job such as loan processing. Sales people always make more money, in any business. Heres how the mortgage business works in a snapshot: when a loan is originated, submitted and funded, it is then sold to an investor. Sometimes to Wall Street but also to the largest mortgage back securities institutions in the world, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. All loans are sold eventually, although the perception sometimes is that the lender holds on to them. Ameriquest did not hold the loans, they sold all of the loans to investors on Wall Street. They did service the loans, in other words the loans remained in their name, but they were ALL sold. I know this because I was Branch Manager for them for years until I started my own mortgage company 6 years ago. Rex, I'm not sure how your math works but it is grossly incorrect on your above report. Amereiquest made their money in three ways: 1) Their junk fees, 2) Their origination fees and 3) By the interest rate yield spread paid by the investor. Yes, they did pay less than most brokers in terms of percentage on loans, but they also provided insurance, health benefits, etc as well as an oppurtunity to move up in the company through hard work. I made plenty of money there because I worked hard and believed in the systems. The loans I provided to the borowers were good loans for them in the situation they were in. Yes, the interest rates were high, but their credit situation was usually pretty desperate. No one held a gun to their head to sign these loans as far I know. Most companies would not have given them a loan whereas Ameriquest could. Also, brokers that pay you 80% are not going to provide with leads, health insurance, etc, and if they do they won't be around for too long because they won't be profitable. The problem in our business today is there are too many uneducated loan officers who think that they are indespensable because they made a few hundred grand during the refi boom and too many borrowers who get themselves into trouble and then blame everyone for their mistakes. It is this sort of inaccountability that makes life for everyone (including the borrowers in the end) very difficult. Its usually liberal, pathetic, underachievers that think that they have no responsibility for their actions that create the mess that we are in with subprime lenders going out of business, Ameriquest getting sued, etc. The minute people understand that they have a obligation to themselves to find out whats good for them and live with their decision, life will be better for everyone in this country. Don't get me wrong, in no way do I condone fraud of any type. The problem is that there isn't anymore fraud than there was 20 years ago in terms of the relative increase in refis and home purcahses in the last 7 years. Its the hot button in our industry today much like the automotive indusrty of the 80's. Point is, learn the business, do your job and if you don't like where you work...quit! Stop badmouthing companies until you own your own and are perfect.

I'm not sure where either of you "Nicole" or "Rex" have gotten your mortgage education, but there is simply alot of misinformation on these reports. I wholeheartedly agree with the person who stated that Nicole was a busbody, disciplanarian, etc. This seems to be evident by the fact that her comments are very indignant and she views herself as some sort of martyr. Put simply it was not Nicoles job to determine wether her colleagues were making lots of money and it would be interesting to me if the separation notice actually stated that she was fired for being "too ethical". As far as the comment about processors telling the truth to the borrowers...lets put it this way: if the AE, LO, etc, didn't originate the loan your services wouldn't be needed. Period. Of course there is a sales aspect to the business. EVERY business has a sales process. Thats why YOU process and THEY sell loans. No offense but it seems as if you might be a little envious of the compensation they made due to their sales talents vrs a more admnistrative, data processing job such as loan processing. Sales people always make more money, in any business. Heres how the mortgage business works in a snapshot: when a loan is originated, submitted and funded, it is then sold to an investor. Sometimes to Wall Street but also to the largest mortgage back securities institutions in the world, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. All loans are sold eventually, although the perception sometimes is that the lender holds on to them. Ameriquest did not hold the loans, they sold all of the loans to investors on Wall Street. They did service the loans, in other words the loans remained in their name, but they were ALL sold. I know this because I was Branch Manager for them for years until I started my own mortgage company 6 years ago. Rex, I'm not sure how your math works but it is grossly incorrect on your above report. Amereiquest made their money in three ways: 1) Their junk fees, 2) Their origination fees and 3) By the interest rate yield spread paid by the investor. Yes, they did pay less than most brokers in terms of percentage on loans, but they also provided insurance, health benefits, etc as well as an oppurtunity to move up in the company through hard work. I made plenty of money there because I worked hard and believed in the systems. The loans I provided to the borowers were good loans for them in the situation they were in. Yes, the interest rates were high, but their credit situation was usually pretty desperate. No one held a gun to their head to sign these loans as far I know. Most companies would not have given them a loan whereas Ameriquest could. Also, brokers that pay you 80% are not going to provide with leads, health insurance, etc, and if they do they won't be around for too long because they won't be profitable. The problem in our business today is there are too many uneducated loan officers who think that they are indespensable because they made a few hundred grand during the refi boom and too many borrowers who get themselves into trouble and then blame everyone for their mistakes. It is this sort of inaccountability that makes life for everyone (including the borrowers in the end) very difficult. Its usually liberal, pathetic, underachievers that think that they have no responsibility for their actions that create the mess that we are in with subprime lenders going out of business, Ameriquest getting sued, etc. The minute people understand that they have a obligation to themselves to find out whats good for them and live with their decision, life will be better for everyone in this country. Don't get me wrong, in no way do I condone fraud of any type. The problem is that there isn't anymore fraud than there was 20 years ago in terms of the relative increase in refis and home purcahses in the last 7 years. Its the hot button in our industry today much like the automotive indusrty of the 80's. Point is, learn the business, do your job and if you don't like where you work...quit! Stop badmouthing companies until you own your own and are perfect.

While I do appreciate constructive responses, I'm not sure why you would attack my character. I have had plenty of jobs before & since Ameriquest and never have I been reprimanded, for being 'a disciplinarian' or 'too authoritative' or any other reason. In fact, before AMC I had never been 'fired'. I take pride in my work and anyone who shares this knows that when you can't take pride in your work it gets very frustrating. I'm not saying I didn't make mistakes or that I know everything there is to know about mortgages. I learn something new every day which is why I enjoy this line of work so much. I assume you are not in the mortgage industry since you are unaware that enforcing guidelines IS EXACTLY my job description. Collecting the RIGHT paperwork was my job, telling the loan officers when they needed to provide more documentation was what I was hired for, that is what a loan processor does- quality control. Doesn't mean I was rude or authoritative while doing it but I'm also not a push over. My job description also included signing several documents stating that I had reviewed everything and it was legal & legitimate. It's hard to put your name on the line while suspecting fraud. Being reprimanded from both sides- corporate underwriting (why would you send me this document, you know we can't accept it!) and loan officers (just get it done, i don't care what it takes). I exhausted all efforts prior to using force, they did like me at one point; these loan officers did not know or recognize anything but strength in the workplace. I assure you of all the people involved, my behavior was the least unprofessional. That statement is very well supported by the fact that a week after I was let go, corporate lawyers came to my old office & shut it down. As far as being too ethical, this stems from things like refusing to give a dying woman a horrible loan that she didn't need or want inevitably leaving her family debt. Or refusing to send a drivers license to corporate in which the borrowers age was changed by a loan officer to allow for a pre-payment penalty that she didn't want. Refusing to do these illegal things which you might refer to as my 'job' is what makes me a great processor and soon, a great underwriter. It's people like you, who allow these things to go on with disregard that ruin the industry.

Nicole wrote: "I was fired for being too ethical and trying to force other employees (loan officers) to comply with guidelines, procedures and governing laws." While Nicole does not prove anything about her being too ethical, I can see why she would have been fired based on her authoritarian attitude, "trying to force" people whom she had no direct control over per the nature of her job. Had she followed her job description and not taken on the role of disciplinarian and "guideline police," perhaps she would still have a job today. No one appreciates a busybody or know-it-all in the workplace, so it is no wonder that she was fired. Hopefully she will learn from this experience and execute more professional behavior in her next employment opportunity.

I was an AE in one of the most expensive housing markets in the USA and I left Ameriquest when I realized that I was worth more outside of that company. When I realized that they treat their employees the same as the borrowers. That company simply wants to squeeze as much profit as possible from both groups of people. Their motto should have been "Churn and Burn, Expect no Return". When I say that the AEs were underpaid (I was) I am referring to their game board monopoly money payout percentage tiers. If an AE generates (rough example follows) $40,000 in revenue, the commission is 8%. Working in a broker capacity in the real world, the commission is north of 80%. To get to $40,000 in revenue each of those AMC loans had to have a 3 year PPP, or SNAP! would cut the revenue by about one-third. So, to clear $35,000 as you indicate, that AE had to be stacking loans with LOOs. We did that. That type of action was cheating the system in retaliation to the cheating the LOO and AE that AMC did. I feel no remorse in that area. The salary and medical benefits were nice, but you have to take into consideration that the "missing commission" that AMC wasn't paying went into the fund that paid for the salary and medical. The company could afford to pay $28,800 salary because it was making HUGE profit from the LOOs and the AEs by not paying what they truly were earning. Let's look at it: A $400,000 loan with 2.781 points (or whatever was permissible under Section 32) at easily 1% higher than the prevailing interest rate [all the while, AMC was not paying any rebate to the AE]. The amount of $4,500 can be estimated for the rebate of 1.125 and $11,124 can represent the revenue from the points. Add these figures to calculate the raw revenue that is generated from a loan of that amount at, say 7.25% --- which is a real interest rate on a real 30 fixed that we offered at AMC --- and there's more than $15,624 that would be shared between a broker and a loan officer. Let's use 80% for the loan officer' split and we have $12,500 pre-tax income on ONE loan. If the AEs and LOOs at AMC were earning this amount of money (1) they wouldn't NEED to be defrauding borrowers. (2) they would rarely show up for work. (3) the company would still grow and have healthy income, but not the billions per week (exaggeration here) that it had. I could be wrong on number (1). It likely has more to do with ethics and monitoring branch activities than anything else. But, hiring kids just out of college (or with no college education) means that their business ethics haven't yet been formed. The trips to Vegas, Hawaii, the SuperBowl? All paid by LOOs making 4% payout on 1-2 units per month until they grew their skills and began booking 5-7 units per month to receive 12% payout. And 12% is still 68% underpaid.

Hi Rex- Let me first answer your questions. yes i was just trying to get through this so i did make some spelling errors but let's see. close the same day- meaning the processor submitted the application, got underwriting approval, drew docs & had the borrowers sign them at a closing table with a title closer the same day. I'm not sure in what context you are using the word escrow but I did not mean funds being released the same day. In my experience at AMC there were very few purchases & even fewer that actually put money down (in an escrow account). So, when I say escrowed I do mean 'to set up an escrow account for taxes & insurance'. It's actually a transitive verb that indicates action being taken and I used it correctly. Please don't compare me to our president, I take offense. As you should know being in this business- the bank, lender or instituion responsible for the risk associated with the loan and the Federal Reserve are 2 different entities. Maybe I should have said that AMC does not broker out or "give away" any loans like a lot of mortgage companies who can't assume all the risk on sub-prime loans. The federal reserve was designed to regulate, supervise and maintain the stability of our economy- meaning most funds borrowed in most ways are run by them or borrowed from them. I didn't mean to indicate that AMC has a stockpile of cash laying around to loan out but they retain the responsibility of the Note, unlike a lot of mortgage companies who spread it around. The federal reserve ok's the check cut by the title company 7 days later at funding. I haven't worked for AMC since 2004 so they must have changed the recission period after I was gone. My mistake. Good for them! I got the settlement info from the Better Business Bureau, glad to know they paid out more, there are plenty of people who deserve it. I realize the GFE is an estimate but it's the best way to see what they are promising.. sure it can change, LIBOR rates fluctuate daily so there are no guarantees but the GFE is the test. If they rack up a bunch of ridiculous fees then you know they're trying to get as much $ as they can, if it changes drastically at the closing table the borrower will have cause for concern. Preliminarily, it is an estimate but they still have to sign it at closing and at closing it has to be accurate. It contains all the info that is pertinent to borrowers in the same place & allows them to compare between companies. I would have said HUD statement but those can be more confusing to read & they don't give as much info in the same place. So, now that I've cleared those things up.. you're lucky you weren't exposed to all the fraud & as I said before there are legitimate AMC offices out there. As for the pre-pay thing, borrowers should expect a pre-payment penalty. You are absolutely right with your give-to-get theory and especially when it comes to investors. The lender or secondary lender makes all their money from interest in the first however many years (depends on the length & type of loan), the borrower will not pay much towards principle until the end. What incentive would the lender have to lend money if they weren't going to make any profit? Plus, they help out the rate, which you mentioned.. and they also help by paying the broker on the 'back end' which means out of the lender's, not the borrower's, pocket. I don't know how you can say the a/e's are underpaid, were you an a/e or a processor? Maybe because you are in a location where the houses are worth less? I made more when I moved to Florida because the property values are higher, making the loan amount higher, making that fraction of a percentage we earned on each file higher. I saw a/e's clear 35k a month but that was probably at the height of the fraudulent activity. I'm not sure what their cut percentage was, I'm thinking at least 40% which would take awhile to earn at a brokerage firm. They also received a salary which is very rare for most brokers. They were also given leads generated by the american-friendly commercials that were airing at the time and by sponsering MLB. Aside from the branch manager harassing them for not meeting quota, they had it pretty easy from what I saw. I agree a lot of them are money-hungry but I don't think it was the lack of income that made them do fraudulent things. It was the greed and potential for more money added to the fact that these guys were so inexperienced. You say they may have 'hidden' fraud from you but if you are a decent processor, you can tell when docs are faked or something is fishy... I can. Sometimes, it was the right thing to let the borrower get their loan but sometimes it was only to help the a/e get one more deal and that's when I spoke up and that's when I got fired. If you are a good processor then maybe your office just wasn't affected, it's good to know there are other people out there trying to really 'do the right thing' for the borrowers & not the company. Tell me, why did you stop working for AMC?

I worked for Ameripest in CA. I'm trying to reconcile a few things in your statement. Maybe you simply typed too quickly w/o editing. When you state that Ameriquest would "close a loan the same day that the borrowerd applied..." What you're saying is that the Salesperson would close the sales cycle -- not that escrow was closed the same day. When you state that "The money for your house comes directly from their pocket, not a bigger bank or lender..." how do you reconcile that with your other statement that "...to fund means to release the money from the federal reserve bank..."?? When you state that "...we were given 7 days to fund (to fund means to release the money from the federal reserve bank; in reality AMC allowed those 7 days for processing) the loan after it was signed. Funny thing is, you don't get your money for 7 days but you can only rescind the loan within the first 3 days." This doesn't address the fact that AMC was brought to court several years ago and began including a 7 day recision period on every loan as part of their settlement with the government. The borrowers had a full 7 days to cancel the loan. Period. The loan couldn't fund until after the recision period expired. The $295 million settlement was actually $325 million. Verify with Wikipedia or Google. Escrowed reads like a noun that has been "verbified". I guess there's a bit of George W in everyone these days. I can read what you mean, but the correct way to say it is that the taxes and insurance are held in an escrow account, or impounded. The GFE from AMC is just that --an estimate-- that can before the docs are signed by the borrowers. Like you, I was one of the employees that was doing the right thing before AMC was printing "Doing The Right Thing / Constant Improvement" on their internal documents and mousepads. What a joke THAT was. I was totally unaware that there was so much fraud going on at their branches. In our branch, I didn't see any of the fraud that is described on this site. Maybe they hid it from me because I was so "straight" in my transactions. We did have Account Executives (bogus title) try to hide the PPP from the borrowers. I always explained that the borrower had to Give to Get : Give the company a guarantee that you'll be a customer for 3 years and you will Get a lower interest rate (by about .25%). It seems to me that the real problem with the money-hungry AEs was that they were underpaid compared to the real world outside of AMC. If they were paid what those loans were earning at a brokerage, they would never have to falsify anything to earn a comfortable living. The problems were self-made for Ameriquest.