U.S. President Donald Trump has instructed his economic advisers and political representatives to prepare for a sweeping plan to purchase as much as $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities in 2026, signaling a renewed willingness to use federal market intervention to support the U.S. housing sector. The directive, confirmed by people familiar with the matter, represents one of the most aggressive housing finance proposals floated in recent years and underscores the growing political focus on affordability and mortgage rate pressures.
A proposed increase to mortgage fees tied to the Department of Veterans Affairs home loan program has been temporarily put on hold after industry groups raised concerns about its potential impact on veteran borrowers. Lawmakers on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee delayed a planned markup of legislation that would have raised VA loan fees, signaling a willingness to reassess the proposal amid warnings that higher costs could undermine affordability for those the program is designed to serve.
Mortgage industry advocates are renewing calls for the Federal Housing Administration to eliminate its long-standing requirement that many borrowers pay mortgage insurance premiums for the life of their loan, arguing that the policy has become an unnecessary barrier to sustainable homeownership. The National Association of Mortgage Brokers has formally urged FHA officials to revisit the rule, contending that lifetime mortgage insurance premiums increase costs for borrowers long after the original risk has diminished.
The idea of introducing 50-year mortgages as a potential tool to address housing affordability has hit a pause, as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development signals that more research is needed before pursuing such a significant change to federal housing policy. HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge recently indicated that while extended-term mortgages have been discussed as a way to lower monthly payments, the agency is not prepared to move forward without a deeper understanding of the long-term implications for borrowers and the housing market.
As the Federal Reserve signals that interest rate cuts are likely ahead, many prospective homebuyers are wondering what those changes could mean for mortgage rates and housing affordability in 2026. After years of elevated borrowing costs that reshaped the housing market, economists and housing experts say rate cuts may offer some relief — but not the dramatic reset many buyers are hoping for.
I have said it before and I will say it again and that is, do not believe everything you hear or read for that matter. In this particular instance I am referring to AUS Findings. I have had countless conversations with processors and loan officer who want to know why I am asking for documentation that the AUS findings have clearly stated wasn’t needed or worse, they can’t believe I am turning a loan down that has an Approve/Eligible. So here it is again and pay particular attention to the details because just because you have an Approve/Eligible or Accept doesn’t necessarily mean you have a done deal.
Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.
From a mortgage approval standpoint I still find that most mortgage professionals are still stuck in the wonderful world of AUS. As in bygone days, they believe that if a case receives an automated underwriting approval then the case will be approved, no questions asked, no additional documentation required. Well, I am here to tell you, that’s just not the case.
Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.
The current underwriting manuals HUD 4155.1 and HUD 4155.2 are being replaced by HUD’s Single Family Handbook (SFH) 4000.1. There are approximately 100 changes from the old books to the new book. There are parts of the SFH in effect now and all of the book will be in effect with cases issued on or after September 14, 2015. There are parts of the SFH in effect already with lion share in effect in September 2015.
Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.
On August 15, 2013 HUD issued three new Mortgagee Letters numbered ML 2013 – 24, 2013 – 25, and 2013 – 26 which moved FHA underwriting back to manual underwriting under certain scenarios.
Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.
The post-closing audit is usually associated with an underwriting function, but it has been my experience as a post-closing Underwriter that many of the issues that arise from failed audits can be caught at the loan processing level.
Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.
As underwriters, many of us spend our days reviewing guidelines, interpreting guidelines, answering questions with regard to guidelines and applying the now never ending overlays from our investors with regard to guidelines. Underwriting guidelines apply to every loan product and differ depending on which type of product you are underwriting however there are many common sense areas that apply to underwriting that are not addressed in handbooks.
Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.
A few days ago a friend and I were laughing over the fact that most people, including mortgage industry professionals, wonder if underwriters really exist. I myself have had staff from various brokers offices (which I do visit from time to time) say to me, “We have heard about underwriters but have never really seen one.
Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.
As I was going through some of my old paperwork the other day, getting ready to move my office, I came across this old gem. Dating before credit scores, these Scales of Justice are just as important today and so I thought I’d share them with you.
Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.
Over the past couple of months, I have a few conversations with underwriters who have conveyed to me that they have been getting their buts kicked during post endorsement technical reviews.
Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.
I was recently discussing an article published in Business Week with an FHA rooster appraiser who personally agreed that mortgage fraud was on the rise. He was concerned that many less than above board brokers and lenders refuse to use honest appraisers in lieu of appraisers that will get them the value they request regardless of what the property is actually worth.
Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.
Written By: Bonnie Wildt
I have said it before and I will say it again and that is, do not believe everything you hear or read for that matter. In this particular instance I am referring to AUS Findings. I have had countless conversations with processors and loan officer who want to know why I am asking for documentation that the AUS findings have clearly stated wasn’t needed or worse, they can’t believe I am turning a loan down that has an Approve/Eligible. So here it is again and pay particular attention to the details because just because you have an Approve/Eligible or Accept doesn’t necessarily mean you have a done deal.