The case in point:
- an underwriter found suspected fraud in a file
- paystubs were not consistent and a verbal and then written verification of employment was sent to the employer listed on the loan application
- HR personnel at employer/medical center claim the paystubs are not the type they use
- letter of explanation, from employer (a doctor), was not on letterhead
- letter of explanation had the office phone number that was a cell phone
Note of Interest:
- It is probable that the applicant and applicant's employer are in fact legitimate. Google search of the records show facts of both as indicated in loan file
The problem:
- lender, nor Alethes, is unable to prove that employee in fact works for stated employer
- HR personnel at medical center has indicated, in writing, that applicant does not work there
- LO and processor insist it is a different doctor/manager with same name, yet have not produced any evidence to support; only emails and phone calls explaining that the lender and I have got it wrong
- the lack of acceptance by LO and processor to accept responsibility for not noticing and properly correcting the problem, or denying the loan, prior to submitting the loan to the underwriting
Assumption:
- if an underwriter or compliance person can find a potential problem, others involved with the file can find the potential problem and stop the file from going farther until the problem is eliminated
Results:
- day 1 - the lender initially suspended our ability to do business - not just this loan officer and processor, but the entire company
- day 1 - I suspended the loan officer, processor, and manager while the investigation is conducted
- day 1 - I requested all information sent to me by all parties
- day 2 - discussed matters with LO, processor, and manager
- day 2- based upon our overall track record, lender is allowing us to maintain a relationship with restrictions
- day 2 - confirmed documents that indicate inaccurate documents with HR Manager. HR Manager has tried to call the number on suspicious letter from employer given by processor - the phone answers and then immediately hangs up
- day 3 - the lender sent a representative to my office to discuss the problems. Lender is going to keep company's relationship but with additional restrictions
- day 4 - continue to investigate matter
- day 4 - processor has sent denial to borrower and there has been no expressed concerns from borrower
- day 4 - I went to San Antonio to meet with doctors but phone calls were not returned
- day 4 - reverse search of phone number shows that it is a wireless number
- day 5 - attempts to call phone number on letter is still unsuccessful. Number does not ring..goes to a fast busy signal
Excuses:
- there are multiple doctors with the same name and the lender, nor I, have contacted the correct people
- it's normal with people with new phone numbers to not have a voicemail
- the applicant is working for a doctor
As serious as this problems it, it is equally alarming is the processor, and to an extent the LO and manager's unwillingness to accept responsibility for any part of this problem. The processor is angry at me for the suspension of employment. I've been specific about with processor about the fact that I do not believe the processor did anything wrong other than not being diligent enough in working the file and succumbing to an LO's urgency to get a file submitted.
In a discussion with the processor on Day 4 about the conditions under which the processor would be reactivated, the processor let it be known that I had a law suit headed up my lower exterior (butt) and that the processor would never do business with that lender again.
So, while I've been mulling over all the ways I could have prevented this problem and what to do about the problem, others just want to claim it wasn't a problem and go on about their business.
A severe unwillingness to accept accountability.
How would I ever trust people like this to work for me in the future? In order to have trust, I have to be able to hold them accountable. I have to be able to check their agenda and their agenda seems to be; 1. submit file, 2. if some thing's wrong, lender will catch, 3 if lender catches, whoops, 4. next deal.
The lender in this case has added a quality control task to the process in order to do business. If I choose to allow these employees to work for me, I have to add processes or risk the same bad results.
This is a prime example of 1. decreasing trust = 2. increase costs = 3. decrease profits. The speed of trust slows down to a crawl with all parties.
All due to Unwillingness to Accept Accountability
Posts
