Guild’s Jim Cory on Bayview deal and reverse mortgage trends

As consolidation reshapes the mortgage landscape, Bayview Asset Management’s acquisition of Guild Mortgage is emerging as a case study in how to scale without disruption, particularly in the often-misunderstood reverse mortgage space.

In a conversation with HousingWire‘s Reverse Mortgage Daily, Jim Cory, managing director of reverse mortgages at Guild Mortgage and co-chair of the board for the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association (NRMLA), shared details on how the transition has unfolded, why the deal is viewed as a “massive net positive,” and how broader shifts like product innovation and growing participation by large independent mortgage banks are redefining the trajectory of reverse mortgage lending.

Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Sarah Wolak: Has Bayview’s acquisition changed or enhanced Guild’s reverse division?

Jim Cory: The acquisition went very smoothly. Bayview basically said, “We want Guild to run as Guild” and kept all the management in place. So as far as that goes, it’s the same group overall at Guild, including on the reverse side.

Bayview is excellent at developing products, and we see this as a benefit. It brings a lot of capital to the table, so we’ll see what changes happen going forward, but we’re seeing this as a massive net positive.

Wolak: That’s interesting, since acquisitions can involve companies deciding to clear house and start from scratch. How has the transition been?

Cory: Not easy, but it hasn’t been disruptive. That’s the best way to put it. It’s a massive net positive.

Wolak: Shifting to the state of reverse, many stories over the past few months have centered on concerns about the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program. Are there any concerns or emerging trends that you’re noticing?

Cory: I’d point to no concerns; I see the reverse business being stronger than ever. I see two major trends going on, though. One is the development of new products. People look at HECM and say there aren’t as many being made and it doesn’t seem like it’s growing.

But what is growing is the sheer number of products, and usage is really taking off. It’s easy to find HECM numbers but much harder to track proprietary reverse products or loans being sold as retirement mortgage solutions. We’re seeing a significant increase in the usage of reverse mortgages and retirement loan strategies. It’s very healthy.

The second trend is the inclusion of large forward independent mortgage bankers, like Guild. All the major IMBs not just sell reverse but have thriving reverse departments. They’re doing things like underwriting and funding their own reverses, and really growing in the space.

Wolak: Are there specific strategies that are gaining traction?

Cory: One of the latest is second-mortgage strategies — whether it’s a HELOC or a HELOAN. It could be a reverse, meaning no payment and age-based, or something similar to a reverse.

Also, when people express concern about HECM, I think some of the concern is when you only look at HECMs. I look at it differently. I’m thankful the current administration wants more proprietary lending. It’s not necessarily less FHA, but it’s a better balance between FHA and proprietary lending. That’s exactly what we’re seeing and it’s a good thing for the industry.

Wolak: Does the growth of larger lenders in the space help address stigmas and preconceived notions borrowers have about reverse mortgages?

Cory: Yes. We’re seeing a lot of growth, and it goes hand in hand with product. At Guild, the goal isn’t just to sell reverse. It’s to present an option to someone. If someone is purchasing or looking for a cash-out refi, we’ll give them multiple options. If they’re an elderly American, we’ll present reverse or reverse-like products. 

Wolak: What is most critical heading into 2026 from a policy standpoint, particularly through your work with NRMLA?

Cory: As co-chair of NRMLA, I’d say a lot of this stems from HUD’s request for information last year. NRMLA answered the RFI, a lot of other groups did too, and many of the answers seemed to be the same. 

Changes are needed to the mortgage insurance premium structure, especially the upfront MIP, which has stayed the same while lending amounts have declined due to higher rates. People are paying more upfront for less. There’s probably a better structure out there.

NRMLA also reinforced the importance of counseling. There’s been some turbulence in that area, and we think that counseling with HECMs and reverse mortgages overall, all of the different products require the borrower to be counseled. We think that is just absolutely important — and for a protected class, that’s really needed.

NRMLA also talked about indexing to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) instead of the Constant Maturity Treasury (CMT). We also mentioned servicing reform: HUD is currently in the servicing business due to loan assignments, and NRMLA offered HUD a way to get out of the servicing business and keep that servicing with the servicer, which would be less disruptive for the client and would alleviate some of those concerns.

Modernizing the second appraisal process is also a big one. On the forward side, you use a collateral underwriter, which analyzes the appraisal and has a couple of different things that basically forces a lender to do, at a minimum, running some automated valuation models (AVMs) and compare it with the collateral underwriter score.

It could involve a desk review. It could involve a second appraisal, but we find that a second physical appraisal is unnecessary, and is really disruptive and confusing for our senior clients.

Wolak: What’s the justification for the second appraisal process?

Cory: The original goal was to address overvaluation. The simplest solution was to require a second appraisal. Well, the confusion is now the borrower has two different appraisers come to their house. What if they have totally different opinions of the value? What if they have different opinions as to what repairs are required? It just causes concern and confusion for everyone involved. 

We did not recommend eliminating it but modernizing it to be similar to the forward side. For example, using a collateral underwriter score or a desk review instead of a second full appraisal.

Wolak: Are there other areas where reverse could be modernized?

Cory: Modernizing financial assessment. For example, you can’t pay off unsecured debt at closing to help a borrower qualify, which we do all day, every day on the forward side. It’s a key component of mortgage lending and it’s not allowed for HECMs.

In fact, in the 2017 HECM Final Rule, it said the FHA commissioner has the authority to allow the payoff of unsecured debt as a mandatory obligation paid at closing, and they never chose to do it. It’s unclear why that isn’t allowed.

The concern has been that borrowers might run debt back up. I don’t like that argument, because they could do the same thing on the forward side — and on the forward side, they’ve got a payment to make.

In reality, reverse borrowers often improve their credit. They get the reverse mortgage, they get cash at closing and they start paying down debt. They get rid of high-interest credit card debt. They pay off high-interest installment debt.