The U.S. single-family rental market regained some momentum during the summer, but the latest data shows that higher-priced homes are driving much of the improvement while rent growth at the more affordable end of the market remains subdued.
The cost of protecting a home is becoming an increasingly significant part of America's housing affordability problem, with homeowners insurance rates climbing sharply across the country. Once viewed primarily as a challenge in hurricane-prone Florida or wildfire-exposed California, rising premiums are now affecting homeowners throughout the Midwest, Mountain West, and other parts of the nation.
The U.S. housing market experienced another setback in July as sales of newly built single-family homes fell sharply, highlighting the continued impact of elevated mortgage rates and affordability pressures on prospective buyers. Despite builders offering incentives and home prices moving lower, many consumers remain reluctant or unable to purchase as borrowing costs continue to strain household budgets.
The U.S. housing market lost additional momentum in July as rising mortgage rates and stubbornly high home prices discouraged prospective buyers from moving forward with purchases. Existing-home sales declined for the second consecutive month, reinforcing concerns that affordability continues to prevent a stronger housing recovery even as demand remains present in many parts of the country.
American consumers are once again feeling the effects of rising living costs as higher gasoline prices and climbing mortgage rates place additional strain on household finances. After several months of modest improvements in affordability, renewed increases in energy prices are creating ripple effects throughout the economy, making everything from commuting to purchasing a home more expensive.
In his first time to testify before Congress since taking over his post last July, HUD Secretary Julian Castro on Wednesday defended the decision to lower Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance premiums and predicted that the agency's Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund would exceed the required 2 percent ratio within two years.
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 government forced lenders to offer and grant Qualified Mortgages (QM) which eliminated what was called ‘subprime” mortgages. The QM mortgage applies strictly to the conforming loan amount. Lenders have found a loophole in the law and are offering non – qualified mortgages (NQM) to borrowers that require jumbo mortgage financing and loans for borrowers with investment properties regardless of the loan amount.
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 have testified at several mortgage fraud trials at the request of the federal government due to receiving subpoenas to appear in court as an expert witness for the government. The one thing I have learned is that no one has enough money and time to fight the government. One of the trials that I testified at was held in Chicago, IL.
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.
This week I would like to talk about something a little different that many of us have to face in the workplace. Day in and day out we get up and go to work knowing what we have to deal with each day. Being a mortgage processor or an underwriter is not an easy job to have.
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.