This 'requirement' is poorly written at best and at worst, ludicrous. I daresay it is like telling a PhD in Finance that they are over (meaning somehow not) qualified to work as a bank teller. Why, after all that education and building up of ones professional credentials and expertise, should one be forced to choose? I just got off the phone with you Molly - you know my horror story - and we spoke at some length about this counterproductive and misapplied regulation.

As long as the dual licensee is not working both sides of the same  transaction, where exactly is the harm? If one were serving as both the loan officer and the single agent on the SAME property, this regulation would make sense.

As it is, it is too vague and stalls the productivity of the already stagnated financial sector, exacerbating contraction on both the lender and borrower sides of the equation and practically guaranteeing that we remain mired in our SHARED miserable state of economic affairs.

In the state where I reside - Florida - dual agency is forbidden. That of course makes sense - you can't very well be loyal in your fiduciary capacity to both the seller and the buyer. The closest you get to 'the best of both worlds' is a transaction brokerage relationship; "...get 'er done."

When you obtain favorable loan terms and help a couple or single woman or man achieve their dream of owning a home, what can possibly be wrong with that? Mortgage brokers now have a cap on their fees. If one is competent, licensed, willing and able to help a client with multiple challenges, I feel all stops should be pulled.

This is not a question of greed or monopolizing a market. Good or poor service speaks for itself - resulting volumes of referrals, or clients running the other way to find a competent professional, respectively.

Greed is bad - competition is good.