I've looked high and low and can't find an answer to this question, so I'm hoping I can get an answer here.

We are an FDIC regulated bank. Jane Doe, left ABC Bank - another Federally regulated bank, to come work for us. Jane was registered with the NMLS. Jane's fingerprints on file with the NMLS are more than 3 years old, so she has to get new fingerprints. I feel confident that we may not allow her to perform "NMLS functions" with the public until that is complete and we get the all clear from the NMLS.

HOWEVER - may we go ahead and feature Jane Doe - with her NMLS number - in advertisements? OR - must we wait until the fingerprint results are in and the NMLS has blessed her?

Thanks in advance.

I would not promote her in advertisements as an MLO until you have her registration reactivated, since she cannot act in that capacity until then.

As an aside, I don't think there's an explicit requirement that NMLS numbers be included in ads.

We have a similar situation in which marketing has a TV add going out featuring the MLO who gives her name. Wouldn't you consider this "Before acting as an MLO"? The reason I ask is the radio ad from QuickenLoans where the announcer talks really fast and spews out their NMLS # in a half a second or less. Annoying, but got me to thinking maybe it's required. Can't find anything in the reg, except "Before acting as an MLO", which is what this advertisement fits into in my opinion.

I don't think appearing on a TV ad would trigger the requirement. "Before acting as an MLO" to me means with an individual (or individuals) who are trying to apply for a mortgage loan. Watching a TV ad wouldn't start that ball rolling IMO. Not to say i see any issue if you 'want' to give their NMLS number, but i don't think it's required.

Could be a State law issue also, but not Federally required.

I had always had the impression that they cannot act in that capacity until it has officially been transferred - but was looking at 1007.103 today and felt it read differently. Has it just been a long week and I am misinterpreting? This sounds to me like as long as they previously met the registration requirements and they are in the process of updating employment coverage with NMLS then they are considered to registered during this "interim" period.

(4) Employees previously registered or licensed through the Registry —(i) In general. If an employee of a covered financial institution was registered or licensed through, and obtained a unique identifier from, the Registry and has maintained this registration or license before the employee becomes subject to this part at the current covered financial institution, then the registration requirements of the S.A.F.E. Act and this part are deemed to be met, provided that:

(A) The employment information in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(C) and (d)(1)(ii) of this section is updated and the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of this section are met;

(B) New fingerprints of the employee are submitted to the Registry for a background check, as required by paragraph (d)(1)(ix) of this section, unless the employee has fingerprints on file with the Registry that are less than 3 years old;

(C) The covered financial institution information required in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) (to the extent the covered financial institution has not previously met these requirements) and (e)(2)(i) of this section is submitted to the Registry; and

(D) The registration is maintained pursuant to paragraphs (b) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section, as of the date that the employee becomes subject to this part.

The OP stated "Jane's fingerprints on file with the NMLS are more than 3 years old"

She would not meet the requirements you just posted.

It still sounds to me like this section indicates as long as they have submitted them and are in the process of updating with the registry then they can go ahead and act in this capacity for their new employer (i.e., don't have to wait for it to be completed but just must have submitted them). Do you read this differently? Thanks

(B) New fingerprints of the employee are submitted to the Registry for a background check, as required by paragraph (d)(1)(ix) of this section, unless the employee has fingerprints on file with the Registry that are less than 3 years old;

Bumping this topic as this came up again and want to see if anyone has a different interpretation of my read above (even if fingerprints have expired as long as they are in the process of updating)?

Has the background check been completed?? "New fingerprints of the employee are submitted to the Registry for a background check." It's the background check - not the fingerprints that are the issue.


I'm not sure what the hang up is. It usually is a pretty fast process.