Mortgage Broker Recommendation

brian2614

Anyone like to recommend someone to me.In the process of applying.
Thanks

julias_jewel

brian2614 wrote: »

Anyone like to recommend someone to me.In the process of applying.
Thanks

Fogarty Financial/Remax on parnell street beside the credit union are good... I think her name is Margaret

allthedoyles

Also near a credit Union ..................Shanahan Begadon on Military Road

tankbarry

Anita Cambie on the Dunmore road she will go through loads of banks to get you the best deal.....................

Siamsa Sessions

I'd recommend George Walsh in One Stop Mortgages.

They're on the Lower Yellow Road.

Tim the Enchanter

tankbarry wrote: »

Anita Cambie on the Dunmore road she will go through loads of banks to get you the best deal.....................

I'd second that, shes very good.

brian2614

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

I'd recommend George Walsh in One Stop Mortgages.

They're on the Lower Yellow Road.

Cpl of people not on here have told me to stay away tbh,thanks anyway!

Kracken

Might be better to avoid a broker if possible, if you go direct to the institution you might get a better deal, brokers get paid commission from the banks and may give you a mortgage that might be best long term for your needs.

Dicky Pride

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

I'd recommend George Walsh in One Stop Mortgages.

They're on the Lower Yellow Road.

Stay away from this man.

brian2614

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Stay away from this man.

I intend to,thanks for the heads up

dark_shadow

I went to paul quinlan down in patrick street. Cant remember the name of the place but found him very good.

Siamsa Sessions

Folks, I don't know the people in One Stop that well and I'm in no way connected to the business - I just used him a few times and came away happy each time.

Given the reaction on here though, I might have a look around next time I need something in that line.

Kracken

remember brokers can only supply a banks service if they bring in over a certain value.

E.g. a certain broker on patricks hill back in 2005 had to bring in over €50,000,000 a year in mortgage value to be able to supply First Active / Ulster Bank mortgages. That information came from the First active staff themselves.

Understandable that was the tiger economy and they were throwing out money but the same model still exists, so be careful.

justbored

This post has been deleted.

Gavlor

Kracken wrote: »

remember brokers can only supply a banks service if they bring in over a certain value.

E.g. a certain broker on patricks hill back in 2005 had to bring in over €50,000,000 a year in mortgage value to be able to supply First Active / Ulster Bank mortgages. That information came from the First active staff themselves.

Understandable that was the tiger economy and they were throwing out money but the same model still exists, so be careful.

Absolute nonsense. Whoever told you that was spinning some yarn!

cuppac12

Really couldn't recommend Anita cambie highly enough. She has always done better for me than going to the banks.
Plus she isn't tied to office hours which is really handy.
Worth a call

spankmemunkey

Ive a house ill sell ye, do ye a good deal!

Kracken

Gavlor wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Whoever told you that was spinning some yarn!

Why is it spinning yarns, if it came from an official source, from a loans officer that handled such things, and there has been other supported evidence to back up what I have said.

That evidence being: Huge numbers of mortgages given without thorough checks.

€50M worth of mortgages breaksdown to 200 granted at a value of €250,000. So therefore it well within belief.

Gavlor

Kracken wrote: »

Why is it spinning yarns, if it came from an official source, from a loans officer that handled such things, and there has been otheIr supported evidence to back up what I have said.

That evidence being: Huge numbers of mortgages given without thorough checks.

€50M worth of mortgages breaksdown to 200 granted at a value of €250,000. So therefore it well within belief.

A loan officer? That was also looking for your business??

I work in this sector, I've worked in both brokerage and banking and can 100% confirm that it's nonsense.

What would have happened if the broker committed to 50 million but only issued 20million?? Would the bank look to foreclose on the loans as the 'agreed' threshold wasn't reached??

And as for your evidence?? What has thorough checks got to do with a bank setting a minimum business threshold for brokers?

spankmemunkey

What happens if people lied on your mortgage application? I mean what happens if the company you bought the house off lied about the cost so as to say you were paying X amount and you paid X amount as a deposit in order to secure your loan? like bypass a deposit you never had? i believe this was going on quite alot in the waterford property market!

Kracken

Gavlor wrote: »

A loan officer? That was also looking for your business??

I work in this sector, I've worked in both brokerage and banking and can 100% confirm that it's nonsense.

What would have happened if the broker committed to 50 million but only issued 20million?? Would the bank look to foreclose on the loans as the 'agreed' threshold wasn't reached??

And as for your evidence?? What has thorough checks got to do with a bank setting a minimum business threshold for brokers?

Did you work in the First Active office in waterford or for first active? If not, then how do you know, what their policy was for this specific agent? You are only speculating on your experience, were as I have a direct quote from the office personal that it was specific to.

What would happen if they didn't issue €50m, they would get a reduced commission as is standard in all tendered contracts when sales are involved. (I have written those tender statements)

Foreclosure has nothing to do with, in fact that would be illegal as a mortgage is a contract between the issurer and the issuee not the sales agent. That's sales 101. To think otherwise is a gross oversight.

It has nothing to do with the banks, it's the minimum checks on the side of the sales agent, as we have clearly seen on several media reports that people given too much money.

In fact a former work colleagure used overtime and gifted money to make his earning appear higher.Therefore financial backgrounds were not checked thoroughly enough. Hence why the nation is in the state it is in.

Kracken

spankmemunkey wrote: »

What happens if people lied on your mortgage application? I mean what happens if the company you bought the house off lied about the cost so as to say you were paying X amount and you paid X amount as a deposit in order to secure your loan? like bypass a deposit you never had? i believe this was going on quite alot in the waterford property market!

Agreed, I have causes where money was gift from a parent and then once the 100% was granted gave the money back to the parents. Thus cheating the system and the broker never checked.

Gavlor

Kracken wrote: »

Did you work in the First Active office in waterford or for first active? If not, then how do you know, what their policy was for this specific agent? You are only speculating on your experience, were as I have a direct quote from the office personal that it was specific to.

What would happen if they didn't issue €50m, they would get a reduced commission as is standard in all tendered contracts when sales are involved. (I have written those tender statements)

Foreclosure has nothing to do with, in fact that would be illegal as a mortgage is a contract between the issurer and the issuee not the sales agent. That's sales 101. To think otherwise is a gross oversight.

It has nothing to do with the banks, it's the minimum checks on the side of the sales agent, as we have clearly seen on several media reports that people given too much money.

In fact a former work colleagure used overtime and gifted money to make his earning appear higher.Therefore financial backgrounds were not checked thoroughly enough. Hence why the nation is in the state it is in.

So it's reduced commission now? Your original comment implied that first active would only accept mortgages from a broker if they placed 50million worth of business.

And you have a direct quote from a bank official... Not exactly hard evidence, more like gossip to me!

Banks followed the same practices as brokers regarding >100% mortgages.
Whilst it was wholly immoral I think it's unfair to imply that brokers were the only one's up to this.

Kracken

Gavlor wrote: »

So it's reduced commission now? Your original comment implied that first active would only accept mortgages from a broker if they placed 50million worth of business.

And you have a direct quote from a bank official... Not exactly hard evidence, more like gossip to me!

Banks followed the same practices as brokers regarding >100% mortgages.
Whilst it was wholly immoral I think it's unfair to imply that brokers were the only one's up to this.

First of all, I stated that they would accept brokers, if they could make a sale of €50m as in the future tense, therefore all standard contracts have a clause that dictated, if they fail to uphold the contract, there are financial consequences. This is how contracts are provisioned! Can you demonstrate otherwise, where you involve in such deals?

Secondly, I never stated it was all the brokers fault, the fact that this is a broker related thread and not a bank thread implies that we are talking about brokers. The fact that you have worked in the brokerage industry, in my opinion makes you subjective to this topic.

To be honest I think anyone that loaned money without taking every effort to verify a loanees credentials is at fault.

Thirdly, you use the term gossip again, how do you know its gossip? I am stating the facts that I presented with at that time; does a court of law not take the same approach when someone give testimony. It is accepted as evidence, granted this is an internet forum and not a court. But my word still counts.
Where as, you are retorting with a biased view of what you think. You weren't there, you were not privvy to the context or the nature of the conversation, therefore you are only speculating.

Therefore, specifically outline why it must be gossip and not fact?

Gavlor

Kracken wrote: »

First of all, I stated that they would accept brokers, if they could make a sale of €50m as in the future tense, therefore all standard contracts have a clause that dictated, if they fail to uphold the contract, there are financial consequences. This is how contracts are provisioned! Can you demonstrate otherwise, where you involve in such deals?

Secondly, I never stated it was all the brokers fault, the fact that this is a broker related thread and not a bank thread implies that we are talking about brokers. The fact that you have worked in the brokerage industry, in my opinion makes you subjective to this topic.

To be honest I think anyone that loaned money without taking every effort to verify a loanees credentials is at fault.

Thirdly, you use the term gossip again, how do you know its gossip? I am stating the facts that I presented with at that time; does a court of law not take the same approach when someone give testimony. It is accepted as evidence, granted this is an internet forum and not a court. But my word still counts.
Where as, you are retorting with a biased view of what you think. You weren't there, you were not privvy to the context or the nature of the conversation, therefore you are only speculating.

Therefore, specifically outline why it must be gossip and not fact?

Definition of gossip per google:

Casual or Unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed by fact as being true.

I'll leave it at that.

Gavlor

Kracken wrote: »

First of all, I stated that they would accept brokers, if they could make a sale of €50m as in the future tense, therefore all standard contracts have a clause that dictated, if they fail to uphold the contract, there are financial consequences. This is how contracts are provisioned! Can you demonstrate otherwise, where you involve in such deals?

Secondly, I never stated it was all the brokers fault, the fact that this is a broker related thread and not a bank thread implies that we are talking about brokers. The fact that you have worked in the brokerage industry, in my opinion makes you subjective to this topic.

To be honest I think anyone that loaned money without taking every effort to verify a loanees credentials is at fault.

Thirdly, you use the term gossip again, how do you know its gossip? I am stating the facts that I presented with at that time; does a court of law not take the same approach when someone give testimony. It is accepted as evidence, granted this is an internet forum and not a court. But my word still counts.
Where as, you are retorting with a biased view of what you think. You weren't there, you were not privvy to the context or the nature of the conversation, therefore you are only speculating.

Therefore, specifically outline why it must be gossip and not fact?

Definition of gossip per google:

Casual or Unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed by fact as being true.

I'll leave it at that.

Kracken

Gavlor wrote: »

Definition of gossip per google:

Casual or Unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed by fact as being true.

I'll leave it at that.

Interest, the definition by Google of fact is:

"Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article"