Just hearing that JP Morgan has a $13 billion fine $4billion for restitution, BoA is admitting to fraud, SAC losing it's license and forfeits US portfolio and indictments on individuals are coming down as well.Any restitution could take years, better late than never.I guess we will see how hard the executives of the housing bubble get slapped.Anyone hear of anything else on the regulatory front?

We are getting many investors north of the border of the U.S. and I'm clueless of the differences between the two countries as to regulatory issues and laws.It is important to know or have a basic understanding as many issues, such as tenant/management, financing or flipping advice given is often anchored in the underlying regulatory environment.

Due to some regulatory issues it is initially only available to Georgia investors for Georgia projects.

Then I typically get as a response, "But I figured if I contacted the bank directly, I could cut out the middle man and save us both time and money", and while on the surface that may sound good, any perceived time and money savings is all but gone when I have to spend time and money explaining to my examiners, regulatory agencies, auditors, CRA agencies, Compliance Departments and so many other entities why I sold a home through direct contact and negotiation with a buyer, instead of listing it with an agent and maintaining that "Arms Length" relationship.

Regulatory Law versus Contract LawLegal advice from a competent attorney is important.

I have a vast knowledge within the insurance industry, as I was in claims for many years; worked in regulatory compliance, and even managed in collections of premium audits in a Finance division, so I pretty much have a 360 degree viewpoint of the insurance industry.

To say that IRS Code would or could be a determining factor in a mortgage financing violation that is governed by specific law under another federal agency having jurisdiction is not going to be the guiding factor nor applicable as we'd be talking apples and oranges.The reason I'm pointing this out is because we certainly don't need to commingle laws by different agencies that have two different regulatory goals, creating duplicate and perhaps contradicting definitions in compliance .I'm pretty sure that if a lender is charged with a violation under the SAFE Act they will be judged under applicable law, under the SAFE Act as to the specific charges and those definitions Act shall govern.Now, if you end up in tax court, those issues mentioned above by Bill W. will be the governing law and definitions to be used, without a doubt.

In doing so I read state statutes and reviewed federal law surrounding mortgage lending.When I read something that was contrary to my plans I considered ways to avoid violations or ways to circumvent the issue steering clear of prohibited activities.I devised my plans and then I sought letters of opinion from regulatory offices, from federal down to local authorities.So, I really do understand the tendency of people with vested interests in doing something and reading statutes to look for ways to avoid or circumvent laws or road blocks to their goal.The SAFE Act, is the first federal regulation that stresses "intent" and compliance being required.

All regulatory policies, accounting and finance contracts in mortgages use an APR are based on 360 days to accrue interest.

For examples 10 years from now the debt service you can get for loan, regulatory control, the economics of the area you are planning to buy in, rent rates, saturation rates, your life circumstances will all be different.