I believe that much of the negative press that Mr. Sitzer and London Securities have garnered has been based on the following:

Most brokers and their clients do not understand the leasing process and believe that they will be able to cash the bank instrument or security, pay the leasing fee and invest the balance Most clients do not have a strong relationship with their bank and turn to so-called "asset providers" who completely mislead them For those clients who have a relationship with a major bank, they fail to disclose the true nature of the transaction. Much has been made on this site of the deposit which is sent to a third party escrow agent without any acknowledgement that this deposit is made only AFTER the client has read and agreed to the complete contract as outlined by London Securities Also, it may not be well known that the Escrow Agent used has been in business for more than 20 years without a single claim being brought against that company.

I find it remarkable that this negative press would have been generated by those individuals who believe that London Securities should reserve bank instruments and pay the associated costs while the brokers and their clients move on to the next broker dream (or is it broker scheme?) without paying the freight.

Minnesota AG files suit against 6 foreclosure rescue 'consultants" The following press release the Minnesota Attorney General, Lori Swanson, announced the filing of six new lawsuits in Hennepin County District Court against foreclosure consulting companies that charged Minnesota homeowners up to $2,375 to save their homes but failed to provide promised assistance that would help them retain home ownership.

“We do not tolerate mortgage foreclosure consultants taking advantage of struggling homeowners who are already between a rock and a hard place in the worsening mortgage meltdown,” Swanson said.

The lawsuits filed today are against: (1) National Foreclosure Relief, Inc., a Nevada corporation with a California business address; (2) Lewis Loss Mitigation, Inc. of Alabama, which also does business as Stop Foreclosure Center and Lewis and Associates Consulting; (3) D.R. Financial Services Corp. of California, which also does business as D.R. Financial and Superior Home Loans; (4) American Foreclosure Specialists, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; (5) Mortgage Default Assistance, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and (6) Home Assure, LLC, a Florida limited liability company that claims it has offices in the Empire State Building.

The suits allege that these companies used websites, targeted mailings, and/or the telephone to solicit homeowners by assuring that the companies could stop the foreclosure process. Consumers who contacted these companies were charged an immediate fee before any services were performed, in violation of Minnesota law. Homeowners have complained that these companies failed to deliver on promises of assistance after collecting these up-front fees.

The suits allege that these companies violated a 2004 Minnesota law barring “foreclosure consultants” from charging any compensation until after the foreclosure consultant has “fully performed each and every service the foreclosure consultant contracted to perform or represented he or she would perform.” The law also requires entities that charge borrowers fees to assist in stopping, avoiding, or postponing a foreclosure, to have a written contract containing certain safeguards. All six lawsuits seek injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, and attorneys fees.

The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office has published a consumer guide, entitled “Facing Mortgage Foreclosure,” which offers tips for borrowers facing mortgage default or foreclosure, and warns homeowners to be on the lookout for potential scams. Among other things, Swanson provides the following guidance to homeowners facing default:

Take immediate action to contact the lender if you are having trouble paying a loan. The lender may be willing to work out a repayment plan, loan modification, forbearance, reinstatement, etc. Don’t wait to contact the lender, as delays may jeopardize your options. Contact a reputable mortgage counselor. Borrowers may find legitimate counselors by contacting the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (“MHFA”) or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). Don’t agree to pay money in advance to a “foreclosure consultant.” Minnesota law bans foreclosure consultants from collecting a fee until after they deliver their services. In December of 2007, Attorney General Swanson filed lawsuits against Foreclosure Assistance Solutions, LLC and American Housing Authority, Inc./American Housing Financial, Inc. over similar allegations. Prior to her inauguration, Swanson created a predatory lending study group that proposed legislation to reform predatory lending practices such as loans made without regard to a borrower’s ability to repay the loan and issuing adjustable rate mortgages without verifying that the borrower can pay not just the initial teaser rate, but also the fully amortized rate after the teaser period expires. The recommendations of the study group became law in 2007. Swanson has advocated for similar regulation at the federal level, testifying before the United States House of Representatives Financial Services Committee and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

I have a real job, it is in the finance sector and you well I guess you just like typing crap and appearing important but you still like to hide behind anonimity which is typical of your type, I guess we would all have a good laugh if we knew how little you know and what your experience is.

I am certain that the funding you refer to is listed on the OLC web site as associate funding and that appropriate notes to that effect plus additional notes on caution are published.

Imagine the time wasted reading through screeds of executive summaries, sending out emails etc asking for business plan which once received where no better than the original executive summary.

I the mean time others where charging to receive this rubbish and guess what, they did not get it, they only received submissions from people who had taken the time to prepare quality exec summaries and comprehensive business plan, documentation packages etc that real lending calls could be made on.

After nearly sending myself bankrupt I decided that strategies had to change. I was no longer going to work on pipe dreams unpaid and un appreciated. My time and experience are worth something and if I have to charge fees to cover that time then so be it. Now I find that the flow of applications has dried up considerably, no more enquiries from people wanting 100% loans of USD100M+ with pathetic summaries and even more pathetic business plans. Guess what though, the people I now deal with I have more time for, the deals they submit are worth something to them and they are happy to do what they can to get a deal funded. Now I once again enjoy working becuase I can see that the lenders and investors are more positive about the submissions, the clients are far more co-operative and the quality of information is not in the same league as it was before, it is miles better.

I do not care what people think about upfront fees, I care about my clients and feeding my family. I no longer work for free nor will I ever do it again. The truth to me is that if a project is not worth USD10K to you then why send it to me.

The only service I do not charge for is the Hard Money applications and that is because I have little or no work to do other than send a simple application form and pass on emails between the parties which lets face it take seconds not hours.

When a client is preparing a business plan they often go to their accountant and they pay them without an issue at a high hourly rate, if they use a consultant to prepare a business plan they pay them at a high hourly rate. When they send submissions to the OLC we have to read through them, make sense of them, select the best funding options, approach lenders or investors, give advice on updating executive summaries, teasers and business plans to make them more acceptable, issue application forms and then check them for completion, check the supporting information and undertake some due diligence. This is time consuming to say the least, why would you expect to get this for free? Sure you pay at the end when you close the loan and of course the initial fee is deducted. Once a deal goes to a lender especially if it is international with the project in one country and the lender in another, you have to cover the cost of the due diligence, legal opinions, site visits, appraisals etc etc, this is often paid for on issue of a letter of offer which in reality has no contractual value but the lenders will not cover these costs, lets face it and I have said this time and time again, they would be bankrupt themselves very quickly as a large number of submissions are at best ill conceived and at worse fraudulent.

Reality bites home quickly, sure you get called names because you charge an upfront fee but you are more likely to get the deal closed if the client is prepared to put their money where their business plan is.

I have lost count of the number of free deals I placed with lenders who came back with a quote for due diligence only to have the applicant pull out because they did not have a cent to their name.

The world of finance is not run on free work and free due diligence and just maybe when people realise this they will stop wasting everyones time.

Glad to get that off my chest.