Connect with us

Government

Face-to-face reverse mortgage counseling is back in Massachusetts (for now)

HECM counseling in Massachusetts has a legal face-to-face requirement now back in effect, but the industry is hoping to change that.

Published

on

Reverse mortgage professionals in Massachusetts will be reliant on their borrowers’ ability to complete their required counseling sessions under the state’s face-to-face mandate following the expiration of a provision temporarily relaxing the standard that expired on April 1.

This is according to prior legislative documents reviewed by RMD and an announcement this week by the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association (NRMLA).

In an email update to its members, NRMLA explained that a spending bill containing an amendment that would permanently allow for telephonic and video counseling was approved by both houses of the state’s legislature, but that the addition of new amendments to the Senate version had prolonged the process that would allow it to become law prior to the expiration of the last extension.

The issue has remained a specter over the state’s reverse mortgage business for years. Massachusetts is the only state in the country to require in-person reverse mortgage counseling, a requirement that caused issues and effectively halted its reverse mortgage business during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Industry professionals and trade organizations — including NRMLA and the regional Massachusetts Mortgage Bankers Association (MMBA) — have urged state leadership to adopt a more permanent solution. It looked as if one would pass last year, but a revision of the budget bill deliberated at that time included an amendment that removed the permanent allowance from a prior version approved by the State House.

George Downey

Reverse mortgage industry veteran George Downey of The Federal Savings Bank in Braintree, Mass. has been a critical figure in the advocacy for a permanent solution that would allow for remote counseling. While he remains apprehensive about the latest budget bill and whether it will include the desired language in its final form, he also shared that this time feels a bit different when compared to prior recent efforts to address this issue.

In addition to support from NRMLA and other trade associations, Downey said the outreach he and others have done on the issue has felt fruitful.

“We’ve done as much as I think reasonably could be done to get the information to the surface so that the conference committee members, when they were evaluating these various amendments, would have some sense of what this is about and how important it is,” Downey said in an interview. “So, I feel a measure of confidence in that regard. I’ll be optimistic and give us 50% odds.”

Part of the challenge in getting such a provision passed, he said, stems from longtime reputational challenges the reverse mortgage product has had that are difficult to challenge among lawmakers, he explained.

“It’s those old misconceptions, those old biases that carry a lot,” he said. “That’s just speculation on my part, but I’m pretty sure that that was the problem.”

Downey previously explained to RMD that there are only five full-time U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-approved counselors serving the state. But the disruption caused by COVID-19 has helped lead lawmakers, regulators and the public to become more aware of how useful remote communication is today.

At the NRMLA Annual Meeting and Expo held last October in Nashville, HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing Counseling David Berenbaum alluded to the challenges in Massachusetts. He elected not to directly comment on them but said that there is no reason for HUD to believe that alternative delivery methods of counseling could not provide quality services.

“Our expectation at HUD is that the quality of the services should be maintained regardless of modality,” he said at the event. “And I do know from my experience in the space that superb housing counseling can happen in many different ways. It’s really the professional offering those services that make all the difference.”

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Two new countries just joined Europe’s passport-free travel zone

The change affects those coming from other European Union countries by land or sea.

Published

on

One of the biggest things that surprise American travelers moving across several European countries for the first time is just how easy it can be to cross between borders. When traveling by train, one can easily discover that you are in a different country only by looking out the window and noticing that the language on the station signs is different.

Established in 1995, the Schengen Zone is an area of open borders between many of the countries making up the European Union. The goal was to remove the need for internal borders within countries that already have freedom of work and movement as well as establish a common EU area.

Related: A country just went visa-free for visitors with any passport

While the initial signatories to the Schengen Agreement were only Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, the idea worked incredibly well and more and more nations joined over the next 30 years. On March 31, the coalition of 27 countries increased by the partial addition of Bulgaria and Romania — two nations that had long been slated to join the Schengen Zone but needed to complete a number of steps to prove that they properly address illegal migration.

Luxury cars are shown driving toward the Romanian border. Ana Poenariu/AFP via Getty Images..

AFP/Getty Images

Two more countries partially join 'the largest area of free movement in the world'

The two countries' ascension grants EU citizens and visitors who have already crossed through another port of entry free access by air and sea but requires some identity document checks at certain land borders for the time being. Bulgaria and Romania have been on the pathway to join the Schengen Zone since 2007.

More travel stories:

"I welcome the lifting of internal air and sea border checks," Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said in a statement. "This is a great success for both countries and a historic moment for the Schengen area — the largest area of free movement in the world."

Prior to this change, Croatia was the last country to join the Schengen Zone in January 2022. The land borders for Bulgaria and Romania remain due to resistance from the member state of Austria about illegal immigration flowing west through those two countries. The partial ascension was called out by some lawmakers who felt like they were being asked to hit a moving target not required of other countries.

Here is what the change will mean for travelers passing through these countries by land, air and sea

"Bulgaria and Romania have been fulfilling all criteria for joining the Schengen area for years – we are entitled to join with the terrestrial border as well," Romanian European Parliament Member Siegfried Muresan said to the Associated Press. "[The partial membership] will offer additional arguments to the last EU member state that has been vetoing the full accession.”

Those coming into Bulgaria or Romania by plane or ship from another EU country will not need to show their passport at the airport or port crossing. Both countries have, in recent years, have seen a significant burst of tourist interest as off-the-radar European destinations that have become particularly popular following the pandemic but the vast majority of border movement occurs by land.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

How the UK’s new rights around flexible working will affect employees and businesses

A statutory right to request flexible-working arrangements was introduced in 2014 but has been little used. New legislation coming into force could change…

Published

on

By

Making everyone fit. Studio Romantic

Employees in the UK have just received a new right to request flexible working arrangements from the first day of a new job. This is courtesy of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act and supporting secondary legislation, which are in force from April 6, and represent an important change to employment regulations for Britain’s 1.5 million employers.

Flexible working covers numerous arrangements that deviate from “standard” employment practices, such as part-time work, compressed hours, job shares, flexitime and remote working. UK employees all received a right to ask for such arrangements when the Flexible Working Regulations were extended in 2014. However, this came with substantial restrictions, such as applicants having had to be in post for 26 weeks, so that in practice most workplaces arranged flexible working either informally or outside of the statutory request process.

The new rules may well make the statutory system mainstream. Around 2 million employees a year are currently leaving their jobs due to a lack of flexible working arrangements (albeit informal flexible-working arrangements increased during the pandemic).

Organisations should therefore prepare for an increase in statutory requests. Most employers are expecting this, according to research by work communications platform Slack, which also finds that a majority have not made their workforce aware of their new rights.

So what are the key changes, and what do they mean for employers and workers?

1. The right to a request from day 1

It will be vital that recruitment teams are well equipped to discuss flexible working during job interviews, and also that managers have the skills to design jobs that reflect the needs of their staff.

The government’s intention is that by encouraging a more diverse range of job applicants, organisations will have a wider talent pool from which to recruit. Many employees, women in particular, stay in posts where they have secured a flexible working arrangement, knowing it might be difficult to obtain a similar arrangement elsewhere.

In many cases this hampers their career progress, which can have lifelong financial consequences. This helps to explain why a survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that 57% of HR professionals favour the new day 1 right to a request.

2. How requests work

Employers must now respond to requests within two months, whereas previously they were allowed three, which can be too long in a crisis situation. Employees under the old system could only submit one request a year, but can now submit two.

The idea is that those with changing circumstances will be supported to work flexibly in different ways over the course of a year. For example, someone supporting their partner through cancer treatment may want to vary their working patterns around anticipated care demands. Employers might find these shifting arrangements challenging, but it will hopefully help them to retain valued staff.

Equally, employees whose first application has been turned down can now make a new request without having to wait too long. For example, they might come back with a new proposal that demonstrates an understanding of their employer’s constraints and proposes a more mutually beneficial arrangement.

Meeting between three people in an office
The new system aims to improve dialogue between both sides. Fizkes

It will be incumbent on employers to make sure their decision-making process is as transparent as possible, since this will help employees to tailor future requests and ensure that there’s a constructive and efficient dialogue.

3. Rejecting requests

In another change to the 2014 rules, employers must not reject a request without first consulting the employee. This is essential to make sure employers understand the circumstances behind requests, particularly given that these are often motivated by rapidly changing, unavoidable things like family health crises. The starting position for employers should always be to consider what may be possible, and to identify viable alternatives if the employee’s request isn’t workable.

4. Applicant requirements

Employees submitting requests are no longer required to explain how their proposed arrangement would affect their employer and how it could be dealt with. This means that line managers will need to have a central role in making decisions about requests, since they will usually have the greatest knowledge about job roles and will have to implement any new arrangement. Employers will accordingly need to train and support their line managers around managing flexible working.

For anyone needing more information, national employment-relations adviser Acas’ code of practice helps to explain what the changes mean for employers and employees.

The case for more flexible working

We recently conducted research for Acas, for publication this summer, looking at how organisations in different sectors have been using flexible working since the pandemic. We found that only a small minority of the huge range of today’s flexible working practices have been organised through the statutory right to request process.

Statutory requests have mostly been restricted to more complicated cases. This might include situations where a line manager is known to be unsympathetic to flexible working, or where a request would run contrary to normal shift patterns, such as in a supermarket or hospital.

Supermarket worker pushing a trolley
Most statutory requests since 2014 have been unusual cases. Michael JP

The large volume of informal flexible working in organisations provides some indication of employee demand for these arrangements. An informal set-up can be fine for everyday demands like needing to take time off to look after a sick family member. But where a flexible arrangement has become more routine, such as working longer or shorter hours on different days, employees might benefit from the enhanced security of having it written into their contracts rather than relying on a verbal agreement.

While some employers will probably regard the legislation as a major shakeup, the government’s impact assessment highlighted business benefits such as improved productivity, more motivated employees and reduced absenteeism. We would also argue that the legislation offers employers a unique opportunity to take stock of how their employees’ needs for flexible working have changed since the pandemic.

Such an approach can enable them to gain a deeper understanding of their employees’ circumstances, and take a more inclusive and fair approach to supporting requests.

Jane Parry has received funding from various government departments and research councils. She is a member of the Labour Party.

Michalis Veliziotis has received funding from UKRI/ESRC and Acas.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Behind Today’s Stellar Jobs Print: It Was Literally ALL Part-Time Jobs (And Illegals)

Behind Today’s Stellar Jobs Print: It Was Literally ALL Part-Time Jobs (And Illegals)

First things first: unlike the last two months when…

Published

on

Behind Today's Stellar Jobs Print: It Was Literally ALL Part-Time Jobs (And Illegals)

First things first: unlike the last two months when both the January and February jobs prints were beyond ridiculously manipulated and goalseeked to pass a terrible number as a strong one, the March print was not a complete disaster.

To be sure, superficially the March report was another artificially goalseeked blowout that guaranteed it would have zero credibility: with 303K payrolls added which was a 4 sigma beat to the median estimate of 214K and above the highest Wall Street forecast. There is just one problem: the number of multiple-sigma beats in recent months has been so high, the entire concept of "beats" has become laughable.

Consider this: January was a 5-sigma beat to expectations; February was a 3-sigma beat and March, we just learned, beat the median estimate by 4-sigma. Not only that, but in every of the last 3 months, the actual payrolls number (at least before it was revised lower the next month), has come in higher than the highest Wall Street estimate! We kinda feel bad for Biden trying so hard to manipulate the economy and population into liking Bidenomics and approving of his disastrous economic policies. Maybe he should just report one month that jobs rose by 10,000,000 and sit back and wait for his approval rating to hit 100... or something.

The silver lining, is that unlike previous months when the Household Survey reported sharp drops in the number of actually employed workers, in March, employment finally rose by 498K to 161.466 million, the first monthly increase in the past 4 months.

Still, despite the modest rebound in employment, it still lags payrolls by almost 9 million jobs since the covid trough.

However, that's where the mitigating factors end, because while there was some improvement in the quantitative aspect of the March report, when it comes to the qualitative aspect, it was another disaster for one simple reason: all the job gains were part time jobs!

Here is exhibit A: in March, the number of part-time jobs soared by 691K to 28.632 million, up from 27.941 million while full-time jobs dropped by 6,000, to 132.940 million from 132.946 million.

This number only gets scarier when we extend the period to the past year: as shown in the next chart, since March 2023, the number of full-time workers has collapsed by 1.347 million while the number of part-time workers exploded by 1.888 million!

There's more.

Regular readers are aware that all the job gains since 2018 have gone to immigrants, mostly illegal immigrants, something we spent last month's jobs post discussing in detail.

So what happened in March? It will come as no surprise that there was more of the same, and after the collapse in native-born workers in the last three months when nearly 2.5 million native-born workers lost their jobs, March saw some pick up, and 929K native-born workers were added. Meanwhile, after last month's record increase in foreign-born workers, in March illegal immigrants added another 112K jobs, pushing the total number of foreign-born workers to a new record high of 31.114 million.

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since July 2018!

This, as we have been saying for months now, is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

To this point, we are delighted to observe that after everyone had been ignoring what we have been saying for months, namely that all job growth has gone to illegals...

... overnight none other than Goldman admitted that not only has all job growth in recent years gone to illegal immigrants, but that America is now being invaded. Below we excerpt from the note from Goldman economist Elsie Peng, who amusingly calls illegal aliens "unauthorized immigrants" in her note (available to pro subs in the usual place):

Net US immigration surged in 2023. Recent reports from the Congressional Budget Office and border encounter data from the Office of Homeland Security suggest that net US immigration was running above the estimate implied by the change in the foreign-born population in the household survey over the last couple of years. We estimate that net US immigration surged to roughly 2.5 million in 2023, the highest level in the last two decades (Exhibit 1). In today’s note, we look at where recent immigrants are coming from, what parts of the US they are heading to, and how they compare to the rest of the US labor force.

Unauthorized immigrants from South America, Central America, and Mexico have accounted for most of the recent surge in immigration. Using immigration court case data, we estimate that the number of unauthorized immigrants from these three regions likely tripled in 2023 from its pre-pandemic average (left side of Exhibit 2). We note that these estimates of unauthorized immigration inflow carry some degree of uncertainty because some immigration court cases also reflect visa overstays. In contrast, the overall level and origin composition of authorized immigrants is similar to pre-pandemic trends (right side of Exhibit 2).

Where are they going? According to Goldman, the most popular destination states for new immigrants are Florida, California, Texas, and New York, which together have received over 50% of recent immigrants.

And the punchline, or how the establishment is trying to spin the flood of illegals into a positive feature for the US economy: apparently all these illegals are little gifts from god, keeping wages low and taking jobs that nobody else would ever want.

Data from the 2023 Current Population Survey suggest that recent adult immigrants are more likely to be young or prime age (90%) than the native-born adult population (62%) or adult immigrants who arrived earlier (64%). Recent immigrants have a higher labor force participation rate than the native-born population but a lower rate than immigrants who have been in the US for longer, have a higher unemployment rate than either group, are more likely to work in construction and food services and accommodations, and earn significantly lower wages on average.

This is hardly a surprise: none other than Fed Chair Powell fired the starting gun one month ago when in his 60 Minutes interview he effectively said Americans are lazy and that it was the illegals that have been critical in keep wages lower even as jobs have grown substantially in the past year (at least according to the Establishment survey). Recall this exchange from the interview:

PELLEY: Why was immigration important?

POWELL: Because, you know, immigrants come in, and they tend to work at a rate that is at or above that for non-immigrants. Immigrants who come to the country tend to be in the workforce at a slightly higher level than native Americans do. But that's largely because of the age difference. They tend to skew younger.

PELLEY: Why is immigration so important to the economy?

POWELL: Well, first of all, immigration policy is not the Fed's job. The immigration policy of the United States is really important and really much under discussion right now, and that's none of our business. We don't set immigration policy. We don't comment on it.

I will say, over time, though, the U.S. economy has benefited from immigration. And, frankly, just in the last, year a big part of the story of the labor market coming back into better balance is immigration returning to levels that were more typical of the pre-pandemic era.

PELLEY: The country needed the workers.

POWELL: It did. And so, that's what's been happening.

But that's not all: just in case praising illegal immigration wasn't enough to keeping wage growth low (completely ignoring that all these millions in illegals will require trillions in additional welfare spending, and are the primary beneficiaries of the latest explosion in US debt), there has been a second angle this time courtesy of the CBO which recently hilarious "calculated" that illegal immigrants will boost US GDP by $7 trillion in the next decade.

This is how CBO Director Phill Swagel summarized it: "as a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenue will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise."

And there you have it: yes, the US hasn't added any jobs to native-born Americans in six years, as instead all jobs have gone to immigrants, mostly the illegal variety, but that's good news you see, because if it wasn't for these lovely creatures flooding into the US, wages would be higher (that's a bad thing according to the Fed), and the US economy would not grow by $9 trillion. Just please ignore that that $9 trillion in "growth" will come only thanks to $20 trillion in debt, almost all of it soaked up by these same illegals, and of course, a handful of corrupt, embezzling politicians.

And so the scene has been set: if and when Trump or Republicans finally get their act together and halt the flood of illegals, then and only then, will the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis admit just how ugly the US economy, the labor market and inflation truly are... and then they will blame Trump for pushing the US into a stagflationary recession because he halted the record inflow of immigrants without which the US is - drumroll - doomed.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/05/2024 - 12:05

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending