The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), under the direction of Bill Pulte, is charting a new course for its 2026–2030 strategic plan—one that shifts its focus from broad housing access and equity initiatives to a more risk-based supervisory framework. This pivot comes in direct response to recent executive orders issued by President Donald Trump, which have reprioritized regulatory approaches across federal agencies.
The Federal Reserve is increasingly sounding the alarm about growing risks in the U.S. housing and labor markets. In its latest meeting minutes, officials emphasized that a “more substantial deterioration in the housing market” could spill over into broader economic weakening, with particular concern for employment.
Mortgage industry data reveal signals pointing toward an uptick in home‑sales activity in 2026, driven largely by shifts in borrower behavior, equity patterns, and the unwinding of the “rate‑lock” effect. While affordability remains a headwind, the evolving mortgage landscape suggests increased turnover and sales opportunities on the horizon.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has unveiled its proposed housing goals for the 2026–2028 cycle, revealing a shift toward easing affordable housing mandates on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The changes reflect growing concerns that current benchmarks may be distorting market behavior and placing undue strain on lenders.
President Donald Trump has publicly challenged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to catalyze a surge in homebuilding activity, asserting that developers are sitting on a record number of vacant lots. His remarks, made on October 5, signal renewed pressure on the government‑backed mortgage firms to play a more active role in alleviating housing shortages.
Since the mortgage melt down the big push has been the Qualifying Mortgage (QM). Loans that fit the QM were most government mortgage programs (FHA, VA, and USDA) and most agency loans provided by Fannie Mae and by Freddie Mac.
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.
Are you a QM lender? Will you do non – QM loans? One of the most important regulatory changes facing everyone is what the characteristics are of and how to define a “Qualified Mortgage.” This decision will have an enormous impact on the mortgage markets, and will ultimately determine the types of mortgages generally available in the United States, and the minimum qualifications for those seeking to obtain a home loan.
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 long-awaited "qualified mortgage" rules were released last week by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The new QM rules have set forth guidelines to protect borrowers from predatory lending while shielding lenders who follow the rules from litigation. Many types of high-risk loans that were implicated in the collapse of the housing bubble, such as interest-only mortgages, stated income loans, mortgages with balloon payments, negative amortization loans, etc., are now effectively banned. I have outlined below some of the significant changes that we should be aware of.
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.