Five-year mortgage rates have surged past the 5% threshold as geopolitical tensions tied to a major international conflict continue to ripple through global financial markets. The sharp rise in borrowing costs has created new challenges for homeowners and prospective buyers, underscoring how quickly geopolitical developments can influence domestic housing affordability.
A recent strategy involving mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac produced a brief decline in mortgage rates, but the improvement proved short-lived as questions about implementation dampened market momentum. The episode underscores how sensitive mortgage pricing is to both policy signals and execution clarity in a housing market already facing affordability strain.
A proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is drawing intense concern from housing advocates, public housing authorities, and families living in mixed-status households, who argue that the change could destabilize thousands of families and increase the risk of homelessness. The proposal would tighten eligibility standards for federally assisted housing in a way that critics believe would effectively bar households containing any ineligible members from receiving rental assistance, even if other members qualify.
Fannie Mae has announced a tender offer for certain outstanding Connecticut Avenue Securities (CAS) notes, signaling another step in its ongoing effort to actively manage credit risk transfer exposure and optimize its capital structure. The move reflects the government-sponsored enterprise’s continued use of capital markets tools to reduce retained credit risk while maintaining flexibility in its funding strategy.
The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a sweeping bipartisan housing package aimed at increasing housing supply, easing affordability pressures, and updating key federal housing programs. The vote reflects growing agreement across party lines that rising housing costs have become a national economic issue requiring federal action, not just a local or regional concern.
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.