FICO has reached an agreement with Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to release the historical datasets for its newer credit‑score model, FICO 10T, paving the way for broader adoption by the major government‑sponsored enterprises (GSEs). In a corporate announcement, FICO said the three national credit bureaus will deliver 10T data connected to single‑family loan‑level records to the GSEs.
Mortgage lenders are seeing better per‑loan revenue in 2025 than in recent years, yet the cost to originate those loans remains stubbornly high, creating a squeeze even as overall profitability improves. According to a new update from Freddie Mac, the average cost to produce a mortgage in the second quarter of 2025 was about $11,800 per loan — a modest improvement from the first quarter’s roughly $13,400 for retail‑only lenders, but still slightly above where costs stood in late 2023.
The price of Fannie Mae shares has climbed sharply in the past months — a dramatic upswing that’s drawing attention from investors and analysts alike. Many are asking what is really driving this surge and whether the valuation gains reflect underlying business improvements or speculative optimism.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) recently increased the year‑over‑year multifamily lending caps for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by 4%, highlighting the agencies’ robust support for apartment financing even as talk intensifies around a potential public offering. Industry leaders note that this bump in lending capacity comes amid signs that the pair are approaching their statutory limits for the year—a development that insiders say may accelerate structural changes, including a possible IPO or re‑privatization down the line.
President Donald Trump’s proposal to permit 50‑year fixed‑rate mortgages has stirred strong interest among younger home‑buyers, particularly millennials, though experts caution the long‑term trade‑offs may outweigh the immediate savings. According to a survey of 1,000 Americans conducted by BadCredit.org, 45% of respondents would consider a 50‑year mortgage if it became available—and support is highest among millennials at 54%, and Gen Z at 46%.
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.