If an officer originates a loan that would fall under the SAFE Act, but is not registered, say because they don't make these types of loans but once or twice a year. What are the requirements for providing a NMLS ID#? Or is it not required as long as that originator has 5 or less in the rolling 12 months?


Obviously being registered would be best, but if not...then what?

The five or less would apply. It's not in their normal course of business so they're not required to be registered.

That is what I thought.

So when an officer makes a loan, is it okay to put someone else (that they work with and is registered) NMLS ID# on docs even if the registered officer had nothing to do with that particular loan? Or does it even matter?

Registered MLOs are required to give their NMLS#. If your unregistered MLO is dealing with a mortgage loan under the de minimus exception, there would be no requirement to give any number, since a registered MLO isn't dealing with it.

I would say if the person acting as originator for the loan is not registered, then the field is left blank. The other person isn't involved, so putting their number on would be misleading.

If I were a MLO, I wouldn't want my number on a loan I didn't due. If something goes wrong down the line, I could be on the hook for it.

Don't forget that in some cases, some secondary market purchasers won't purchase a loan without an NMLS#. This may limit your bank's options down the line.

Ensure to track the loan officers mortgage loans for registration if (when) they no longer meet the de minimus threshold.

Along those same lines, what if you have a couple of different MLOs working on a loan. Which ID do you use?

Preferably you really only want one lender to tie the loan back to right? Is it a regulatory issue if somehow one lender is named, but the other lender they were working with, their NMLS ID is used on docs? Or is this more a bank policy/procedure/system issue that needs to be worked out?

I'd say procedural mostly. In the case that a loan officer takes an app and is working with them on the loan, then say is out sick or something on a day when the borrower is in with questions or closing, anyone else filling in would likely be wanting/needing to provide the borrower with their information, but I would still go with the original LO's number for closing docs in that case.

The reg is not about tying the loan back to an MLO. It is about MLO disclosing their qualifications to a consumer so that consumer can make an informed decision about who they want workin gon their mortgage loan. The act states that the unique identifier needs to be disclosed before acting as an MLO, upon request, or in the first written communication. SAFE does NOT require that number to be on loan docs (that's coming down the road under Dodd-Frank--rules have not been written yet). All registered MLOs who touch the loan need to give out their unique identifier. From an operation standpoint on loan docs, I would put the number of the officer of record on the loan docs (if you are doing that). BUT make sure that all MLOs acting as MLOs on that loan are disclosing their number (it's as easy as giving out their business card with their number written on it).

The requirement to have it on docs is just a secondary market (or internal) requirement right now, so that's likely the source of your question. I think the investors would be a little curious if the numbers switched from initial to final docs and might issue additional conditions as a result.