According to Elizabeth Warren's article in the October 2, 2007 printing of the Boston Globe, mortgage brokers are making a profit! Oh no! You, the borrower, should be outraged that when you borrow money, the mortgage broker earns a fee from the lender. Mortgage brokers should be doing this for free, really. Banks and other lenders should earn a living, but the brokers are bad, bad, bad.It is really a shame that a Harvard law professor has such little understanding of the real estate purchasing world. It is even more shocking that as a law professor she fails to disclose in her article that mortgage brokers are required BY LAW to disclose the fee paid to them by the lender (in her mind, the evil Yield Spread Premium which she calls a "bribe"). This is the fee which the lender pays to the mortgage broker for finding a client for them.Other lending institutions, such as banks, don't have to disclose a dime that they're earning on mortgage loans. Yet, Warren would love to have you believe that mortgage brokers are the most unregulated financial institution existing in North America. Ms. Warren, you are wrong, and you know it.In her article, she states that, "The additional costs for the bribe are slipped into the closing document as part of the closing costs." Her statement insinuates that mortgage brokers are pulling a fast one! You will never discover their fee. The settlement statement must contain information about the Yield Spread Premium. The client is shown the statement. They either sign it or they don't. No one forces them. Not only is this disclosure required by law nationally, most states go even further and have the broker disclose it on Good Faith Estimates as well, which are shown well in advance of closing.Why does Warren use misleading information in her article? Only she can answer that, but it appears that she is crying for more government regulation in an already heavily regulated business.The article continues to hurl accusations that mortgage brokers push people into sub-prime markets when they could really qualify for a conventional loan. In addition, she gives statistics that point to 1 in 9 of middle income families refinanced with a sub-prime mortgages that carry higher interest rates.What she does not disclose in her article are the conditions for those individual families. Some borrowers actually choose sub-prime mortgages because they are using them to invest in real estate. Some sub prime lenders have very little red tape. Other borrowers have to pay higher rates because they have shaky credit and are considered a risky borrower. Really, Warren should know this is basic economics.Mortgage brokers have undergone attacks before from liberal economists. These folks would love to see brokers just go away and minimize the competition. It is interesting to note that these same "consumer experts" were the ones ten years ago crying for restrictions to be eased up so more people that could not qualify before could become homeowners.I wonder if Elizabeth Warren is going to go after discount chains. Using her ideology, they too are receiving kickbacks if they can buy goods at a cheaper wholesaler and sale them to the public for a profit. Maybe its time for them to show on paper (like Mortgage Brokers have to do again and again) the profit they receive product by product.Meanwhile, I'll service my clients, find them the best deal available, and disclose everything the bank down the street doesn't have to disclose to their clients. Nothing will change in my mortgage brokerage because every fee we earned has always been and will always be disclosed to the client....it already IS the law.