Why Haven’t Loan Officers Been Told These Facts?
One of the more challenging origination areas for mortgage loan officers (MLOs) is understanding transaction requirements. Globally. This challenge extends to understanding stakeholder requirements in general and in particular.
Understanding stakeholder requirements begins with identifying who the stakeholders are and how their requirements have originated or evolved. The ‘why’ of a requirement is an essential question for better understanding and delivering stakeholder goals.
Prioritizing requirements often follows collecting them. Most stakeholders have must-haves and nice-to-haves. What specific requirements must be understood to successfully achieve stakeholder objectives? Each stakeholder is primarily focused on their own objectives, often blinding them to others’ needs. For example, the borrower is not concerned about whether the lender can sell the loan, and the FHA is not interested in whether a loan officer gets paid. The inability to perceive, identify, and correctly prioritize transaction requirements is the root cause of transactional and subsequent relational failures.
Once the requirements are gathered and prioritized, they can be organized into various groups or categories for better management. For instance, if the borrower has $15,000 available for a purchase, that amount is a crucial requirement. Additionally, the investor requires a minimum borrower contribution of 3%, which is also essential. These requirements are must-haves.
Requirements mainly arise from experience. Individuals learn what is effective and what is ineffective through personal or vicarious experiences. It is said, “A fool can learn from his mistakes, a wise man learns from other people’s mistakes.” This is why corporate or collective learning can be so powerful. However, when collective wisdom is disconnected from its original context, requirements can become rigid and counterproductive. This is why the mortgage industry makes exceptions. Whether referred to as a waiver, exception, or accommodation, the idea remains the same: this particular requirement is unsuitable for this specific situation.
Why Requirements Matter
MLOs must develop a sixth sense for risk and requirements. For example, credit policies. It is crucial to know the program requirements early, rather than discovering impactful requirements during underwriting. Credit policy serves as a method for lenders or investors to manage risk. Risk identification and management typically rely on industry experience.
Consider the transaction elements that increase the probability of delinquent payments.
- Low credit scores (the applicant does not manage credit well)
- High DTI/Low residual income
- Low or no cash reserves
- Dependence on unstable income
Each risk carries its own probability of delinquency. When combining multiple transaction risks, on-time payment confidence goes down the drain. This is referred to as total risk or layered risk.
To compensate for a perceived threat risk, the MLO must learn to think like the stakeholder who makes the requirement. Only when the originator can stand in the stakeholders’ shoes can he or she better understand how to mitigate the threat effectively, given the transaction circumstances.
For example, the MLO calculates a 49% DTI, and the co-borrower has a 627 credit score. The lender’s minimum credit score is 620. FHA manual underwriting allows offset with compensating factors at 580 or higher.
II. ORIGINATION THROUGH POST-CLOSING/ENDORSEMENT
(A) (5) Title II Insured Housing Programs Forward Mortgages
Manual Underwriting of the Borrower
The 4000.1 requires no less than two of the following offsets for high-DTI:
One: Verified and documented cash Reserves
Two: Minimal increase in housing payment
Three: Significant additional income not reflected in the effective Income
Four: Residual income
A high debt-to-income ratio itself is not the problem. The concern is what the high DTI represents or indicates, which is a lack of disposable income and reserves, that correlates with higher delinquency rates.
The lender declined this loan because the originator failed to understand the actual risk. There are several changes that could have improved the submission. Firstly, the applicant qualified well for down payment assistance (DAP). By facilitating a DAP, the originator could have reduced the debt-to-income ratio (DTI) by using a no-payment, no-interest second mortgage, which is widely available in the transaction location, thereby increasing the applicant’s residual income and reserves while possibly lowering the loan-to-value ratio (LTV).
Secondly, the applicant indicated receiving child support and requested that it be considered in the credit decision; however, the originator did not document this income in accordance with the guidelines. The originator noted that the child support would terminate within 3 years and chose to omit it from the underwriting transmittal. Proper documentation is necessary for underwriting to “consider” this tax-free income.
In the case at hand, the underwriter must exclude child support from the ratios and residual calculations due to income stability (duration); however, it’s impossible to overlook the positive effect of an additional $2,000 per month tax-free on a $3,700 housing payment, if only for 29 months. Many stakeholders will agree that the risk of performance issues is highest at the beginning of the term. The file includes the applicant’s asset verification, which indicates a clear pattern of timely receipt of child support. Even without the Down Payment Assistance (DAP), this deal was still feasible.
Using a holistic risk assessment as a Mortgage Loan Originator (MLO) reduces the risk of serious, avoidable mistakes in credit submissions. It’s essential to develop an instinct for identifying risk, enabling a more comprehensive and timely evaluation of program requirements and mitigations. Make sure to ask or determine why the requirements are important.
BEHIND THE SCENES: FEDERAL DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY CAPTURE ASIDE, LOW-LEVEL MORTGAGE FRAUD IS STILL IN THE FEDERAL CROSSHAIRS
Licensed Mortgage Loan Officer Charged with Bank Fraud
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Florida
Tuesday, March 10, 2026
Orlando, FL –A grand jury has returned a federal indictment charging Jason Morales (44, Chagrin Falls, Ohio) with six counts of bank fraud. If convicted, Morales faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in federal prison on each count. U.S. Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe made the announcement.
According to the indictment, Morales concocted and executed a mortgage fraud scheme targeting a financial institution. To ensure that otherwise unqualified borrowers were approved for mortgage loans, Morales created fictitious and fraudulent paystubs and other employment documents in the name of a construction company and consulting company that his clients never worked for. The bogus income documents falsely indicated that his clients had worked at these companies and had monthly earnings. Additionally, Morales altered legitimate bank statements provided by the borrowers and created fictitious bank statements that he submitted to the financial institution falsely representing that the borrowers had sufficient assets to qualify for the mortgage loans. Morales submitted the fictitious documents he created to the financial institutions who relied on them when making underwriting decisions.
To further deceive the financial institution, Morales created websites for the construction and consulting companies listing his email and phone number so that when the lenders called to verbally verify employment Morales impersonated company executives and falsely verified employment.
An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed one or more violations of federal criminal law, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless, and until, proven guilty.
This case was investigated by the Federal Housing Finance Agency – Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – Office of Inspector General, and Federal Bureau of Investigation. It will be prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Chris Poor.
Tip of the Week – Have a Question About Operations, Sales, Marketing, or Compliance? Email Your Questions to the Loan Officer School Journal.
We invite LOSJ readers to submit questions on any topic to the editor. Topics can include compliance, sales, marketing, implementation, and other areas that may be helpful to our customers. If we use your question, we will include only your first name in our response. Please send your questions to: losjmailbag@gmail.com.
Necessary Mailbag Disclosure: The LOSJ is a periodic publication from LoanOfficerSchool.com designed to educate and inform our readers. Please note that we do not provide legal advice, and nothing in the LOSJ should be construed as a legal opinion on specific facts or circumstances. The content serves strictly for informational purposes. We strongly advise readers to consult legal counsel regarding any legal matters or specific questions.