CRAM ARCADE Open App

A state legislature is considering whether to require all MLOs operating in the state to either maintain a surety bond of at least $50,000 or contribute to a state-administered recovery fund. An industry lobbyist argues this requirement exceeds the state's authority under the SAFE Act framework. Which of the following most accurately evaluates this argument?

Uniform State Test (UST) · 11% of the SAFE examhard

Show the answer and explanation

Correct answer: The lobbyist is incorrect; state agencies are expressly authorized under the SAFE Act framework to establish bonding or recovery fund requirements to protect consumers

The SAFE Act framework and the CSBS/AARMR model state law expressly contemplate that state agencies will have the authority to require MLOs to maintain surety bonds or contribute to recovery funds. These mechanisms exist specifically to ensure that consumers who are harmed by MLO misconduct have a financial remedy. This is not an exclusively federal function, and states can establish their own bond amounts and fund structures. The SAFE Act does not mandate a specific federal minimum bond amount of $25,000 for state-licensed MLOs — such requirements are set at the state level within the bounds of the SAFE Act framework.

Drill 2,078 more questions like this, free

CRAM ARCADE has the full NMLS question bank, timed practice exams, focus drills on your weakest category, flashcards and spaced repetition. No credit card.

Start studying free