We are coming up to 8 years since the FSCO-administered laws
surrounding mortgage agent and broker licensing changed. As some of you may
recall, prior to 2006 there was no mortgage education requirement for mortgage
agents, nor were they licensed, but a mortgage broker would have to complete an
arduous 14 courses at Seneca College to become a broker. Mortgage agents could
voluntarily take an introductory course at Seneca but it was not the law and
did not result in a license or recognition from FSCO.
After the changes, agents began being licensed and
recognized by FSCO, and brokers could become brokers with far less in terms of
the education pre-requisite and companies and brokers who administer mortgages
would have their own unique licensing requirement and license.
Also during this time, CAAMP came out with their AMP
designation. Another new and innovative way for agents and brokers to achieve
enhanced credibility in the market place through education and accreditation.
This is now evolving to become a broker-only designation so it will be
interesting to see how this impacts agents who are AMPs.
The changes to the laws to create a mortgage education requirement
were made in large part to protect consumers. The question is now, 8 years
later, has it really helped?
·
Has making it easier to become a broker resulted
in more brokers, thus devaluing the title and creating more competition?
·
Has creating a mandatory mortgage agent
requirement resulted in better educated agents, thus improving the industry?
·
Did the change improve/enhance the overall
credibility of the profession?
It would seem to be common sense that more education and
oversight of the industry by FSCO would lead to better protection for consumers
and an improved perception by the public that arranging your mortgage through a
mortgage agent or broker is a safe and competitive bet.
We’d love to know what you think. Please chime in on our thread on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/purviewformortgagebrokers.
No comments:
Post a Comment