Mortgage bankers have a big enough job monitoring the social media use of their loan originators without having their efforts complicated by dumb mistakes. Despite lenders’ social media policy guidelines, these message misfires still crop up:

1. Posting public comments about how little work the loan originator did while still earning big bucks. Industry platforms are full of comments like, “I did no work, but I still got X number of deals,” and “my origination fees increased by 3000% in one month.” In residential mortgage loan brokerage, there’s a general prohibition on fees for services not actually performed, and there are also rules requiring loan origination fees to be reasonable in the market. Posts about doing little or no work for outsized fees just attracts regulatory attention and diminishes the industry’s reputation.

2. Giving financial advice outside the scope of the job. This would include recommendations like, “it’s a great time to buy a home,” “now is the right time to refinance your loan,” “investment in a vacation place offers a better return than your 401K plan,” and, “you’d be wise to refinance your credit card and student loans with a home-equity loan.” Generally, mortgage brokers are not financial fiduciaries of their borrower-clients, but when they offer financial advice beyond the scope of the loan involved, they open themselves up to claims for breach of fiduciary duty and/or acting in roles they’re not licensed to perform.

3. Reposting or retweeting the content of others without verifying its accuracy or source. Frauds and hoaxes occur on the Internet and on social media. A loan officer (LO) who promotes fraudulent content becomes an unwitting party to it and harms the public.

4. Talking about “standard” loan origination fees and rates. Competitors will gladly forward these conversations to regulators for investigation on antitrust grounds.

5. Using discriminatory terms or slang suggesting a focus on an applicant’s age, gender, race, religion, family status, etc. Any hint of discrimination will attract regulatory attention and possible enforcement. Acronyms like SWF (single White female) or 4NR (foreigner) are immediately suspect in the mortgage application process, as are other descriptions suggesting borrowers’ personal characteristics.

6. Using language that suggests the loan officer is not really working for the customer. Referring to a loan application as CWOT (complete waste of time) or to the job as ADIL (another day in hell) doesn’t impress your employer or your clients. The agency that issues your license is not likely to be happy with this kind of talk either.

7. Disparaging your customers or competition. Did you really say a loan applicant is IWIAM (an idiot wrapped in a moron)? Likewise, disparaging your competition is not only bad form, but could be deemed an unfair advertising practice.

8. Posts signaling sneakiness, hiding, or deception. Strike comments like “don’t quote me on this,” “leave my name out,” or “not safe for work.” It should go without saying that “delete after reading” isn’t a good word choice, but I’ll say it anyway.

9. Placing customers’ personal or financial data where it can be seen by others. Financial and mortgage transactions are private—or they should be, at least. Inadvertent disclosure of customer financial information can lead to identity theft and claims against the LO and lender. This kind of claim, not surprisingly, usually leads to job loss.

10. Getting on social media platforms, and then not using them. If an LO is trying to generate business and doesn’t respond to inquiries, he’s lost more than the prospective borrower. If the borrower posts comments about her LOs unresponsiveness, he’ll lose her social community, too. In the same vein, infrequently updated social pages with outdated loan terms or unavailable products may be considered deceptive, or lead to legal claims of unfair practices or false advertising.

It’s easy to find examples of all these mistakes on social platforms. Lenders should monitor LO social activity for problem messages. Lenders with archived social data may find it worthwhile to review the archive for problems and institute retraining based on the results.