we registered some of our non-mlo commercial loan officers when the safe act first came out - abundance of caution.
Since these guys wouldn't ever do a home loan, can we not not include them on our safe act list that we have in the bank.

Are you going to let their registrations expire--that is, not renew them at the end of 2014?

no - I we are going to keep them up.

I guess my question then is why don't you want to include them on your list?

One reason not to include them (I'm guessing at the bank's purpose) is to avoid advocating the use of those individuals when a consumer comes in and asks to see the list (in case they want to pick an MLO). Chances are the bank keeps them registered just in case one of them does do something to trigger the MLO definition.

yes John, that is why they are registered, but we don't want to advocate their use so maybe we should let them keep their number and just remove them from our internal list that we show customers.

Why keep them registered? Even if they do a one-off mortgage loan, they would still fall under the deminimus exception. It is a waste of time and effort, plus you are going to have to make sure they meet all the training requirements under Regulation Z. You can't argue, if they are registered, that they are not mortgage originators.

^^^ That's a good point.

Unless there is the concern they will do more than the one-off.

So, the loan originator training would be required for anyone regestered under the SAFE act - even if they are not making these type of loans? I didn't think the safe act registration was the trigger, I thought they would be exempt from the training because they were not making these type of loans.

The training is required of Loan Originators as defined in section 1026.36 of Regulation Z, regardless of whether the Loan Originator is also a Mortgage Loan Originator as defined under the SAFE Act and CFPB Regulation G (12 CFR Part 1007). The training trigger is whether or not the individual is within the Regulation Z definition, and there is no de minimis exception under that rule.

AS practical matter, if they aren't going to be filling the MLO role (under Regulation G/SAFE Act), there's a good argument for letting their registrations lapse. And my cynical side suggests that if they know they are not registered, they are less likely to be tempted to become part time MLOs.