The Appellate Court’s decision to squash the postponement and drive forward the compensation changes reeks of the work of The Warlock. Only one with tiger blood running through his veins could possibly harness the power to blind the truth and force an agenda that will harm an already ailing industry. The double helix of Adonis DNA went on full display as the Federal Reserve Board flexed its rhetoric and somehow won the most recent showdown. Am I the only one recognizing the similarities of Charlie Sheen’s antics and the way this whole thing is going down?

The core of the law is being created on idealism and grounded with a skewed perception of what seems right. Like Charlie and the Goddesses, you would like to think that two is better than one, but in reality that is not the case. These laws are being created to curb the perceived outrageous greed of the originator that perpetrates every transaction and will somehow, like rehab, cleanse the industry of its evil ways. C’mon, truth be told, the products that were abused are gone and for the most part so are the thieves that stole our industry’s integrity.

I find it disappointing that the court sided with the Board, which presented nothing new and echoed its original stance. Sidestepping real issues like consumer access and limited competition while pointing fingers and saying the other side did not do enough to show true cause. Am I the only one appalled that the court was molasses-slow and eleventh-hour late to stay the order, but is now lightening-fast to put it back in play? Whatever happened to proper due diligence, weighing the pros and cons and coming to a proper conclusion? Too many times I have found in business that good intent can have bad consequences. Making a decision merely to make a decision is typically a poor choice.

Unfortunately, the real impact this law is going to have is that the consumer will pay more at closing. Decimating compensation in business is counterproductive. Restrictions in this industry will only usurp the true spirit of business and stymie growth. In essence, without the flexibility to offer more product choices and cost options, the consumer suffers. Most rate sheets today show little difference in rebate between the lowest of interest rates and the highest of interest rates and that goes for both the forward and reverse mortgage products. In the past you could present a higher rate if cost was an issue and use the rebate on the backend to absorb the third-party fees or even the origination to stay competitive. Or if rate was the issue, you could lower the rate and increase the origination, but the consumer had the choice.

Now we will be driving loans to lenders not based on relationships or proven processes or even exceptional service but on loan amount only, can anybody see a problem with this?  As Charlie has found out in Detroit and again in New York, what seems like a good idea sometimes spirals into a sea of boo’s and walkouts.  Hopefully this industry can reverse the action and bring back some sort of sense to the compensation models before the damage is deadly. I am hopeful this much-maligned legislation will be overturned in time but until then may the Trolls fight on!