In order to trigger initial disclosures you need to collect 6 pieces of information. A clients current policy is to always leave the address as TBD in a scenario where a borrower wants some early information but is not ready to complete an application.

My question is on refinances do you think this will hold up in an audit as not collecting the 6 pieces? They don't collect it but it is obvious we are only doing that to not trigger disclosures as it's a refi and the property address is known to the borrower.

Opinions?

Sounds like you answered your own question. I would have a hard time defending that policy

examiners are going to be all over this as a pattern and practice that is a violation of the basic precepts of the Reg.
How do you not know the address on a refi?!

I think you are setting yourself up for failure there. I don't see that standing up with an auditor.

I received the same question recently at my bank, and squashed the idea. On a refi, that would be the same as putting the customer's name as TBD. If we know the information, then we have the information. If we have all six, it's an application.

Simple as that.

Thanks for all the feedback, that's what i figured I would hear.

There are some in my shop who suggest leaving the income blank to avert the 6-piece trigger. I want to slam my head against my desk! I guess with MLO's where there is a will, there is a way!