These earlier Ethics Advisory Opinions made clear and declared that "Unethical Advertising expressly violates the NRMLA Codes of Ethics," and added: "There is no place in NRMLA for NRMLA Members who engage in Unethical Advertising." Through its issuance of this Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010‐02 (Additional Ethical Advertising Practice Requirements), the Committee expressly re‐affirms the interpretations published in Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008‐01 and Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009‐2, and re‐iterates its view that the Values and Rules of the NRMLA Code of Ethics are violated by NRMLA Members who engage in Unethical Advertising. The purpose of this Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010‐02 is to provide additional explicit guidance to NRMLA Members about such Ethical and Unethical advertising practices, and through the Appendix attached to this Opinion, additional important related information. In Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008‐01, the Committee cited and described six specific acts and practices that it concluded violated the NRMLA Code of Ethics because they constituted Unethical Advertising. In Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009‐2, the Committee effectively required that NRMLA Members complying with the NRMLA Code of Ethics assure that Lead Generation Providers with which they work be duly licensed under applicable state law. In both Ethics Advisory Opinions, the Committee also made clear that indirect violations of its Code of Ethics also are subject to sanctions under its Code of Ethics. As the Committee intends vigorously to continue to enforce the NRMLA Code of Ethics relating to Ethical and Unethical Advertising, it urges NRMLA Members to review those prior Opinions, and the Code of Ethics, and to assure that their advertising practices, and those of their vendors, fully conform to these requirements. Additionally, through this Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010‐02, the Committee makes clear that the following six additional specific advertising acts and practices not only violate the NRMLA Code of Ethics, but that they also may violate applicable federal and state law requirements that are described in the Appendix to the Opinion that follows. No Cost Loans It has been reported to NRMLA that some reverse mortgage lenders are touting some reverse mortgage programs as “no cost loans.” While lenders may be waiving origination fees, paying borrowers closing costs and even paying for some or all of the up‐front FHA mortgage insurance premium due to the FHA (which sums may more usually be paid by the borrower), reverse mortgage loans, nevertheless, are not cost free, due to the obligation to repay interest, among others. As further described below, such claims of “no cost” also may violate several provisions of federal and state law, and federal regulatory guidance with respect to reverse mortgage marketing in that such claims can be and often are misleading if not downright false, and typically do not present fair and balanced information regarding reverse mortgages. 30
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ1MzY1