We are a community bank that offers both portfolio and secondary market loans. If a borrower states that they would like to obtain a loan and keep it with us so it isn't sold, serviced by another lender, etc., do we have to provide options on the Anti-Steering Disclosure?

I assume the "Anti-Steering Disclosure" is one that your LOS has available for you to use as there isn't a regulatory requirement for such form. That said, the point of such disclosure is to reduce steering risk by "proving" that the customer directed the product selection and wasn't unjustly led to a product that is less beneficial for them. So, if you are using the disclosure in some cases, I'm not sure why you wouldn't use the disclosure in a case where you aren't putting the customer in a secondary market product, which often has a lower rate and more flexible terms than portfolio loans.

What about 1026.36(e)(2)?

Well, the prohibition is there, but I don't recall mandatory use of a specific model form. I could have been more clear in my reply, so thanks for the clarification, Randy.

We use a form provided by our LOS. I just need clarification if we have to provide the various options if the borrower stated they want to keep the loan with us.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see a disclosure requirement in 1026.36(e)(2). Based upon a strict reading of the regulation, a consumer can be "presented" with various oral options and still meet the requirements.

Yup - if you are in a position that you are required to "present" various loan options to the borrower, I would want to rely and to prove that your loan officers did such orally in each and every case. No written disclosure required - I agree. But not documenting the presentation in writing - not a wise choice IMHO.

If someone is only interested in a 30 year fixed rate loan, we only have one option for them. I understand (e)(4) to be that we would be in compliance if that is the only option we present.

My original question really was trying to ascertain if we would be in compliance by only presenting a portfolio option if someone stated they wanted a portfolio loan. Portfolio vs. Secondary is not one of the examples in (e)(2) Permissible Transactions, but it has the same spirit. However, it seems it would not technically meet the requirement.