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.
I know, it doesn’t sound like something that any self respecting processor would engage in but it is happening all around us, it being meatball processing. Defining it is easy enough as well, just think processing on the fly and the end results as you can well imagine is a loan approval or more often, suspense, that resembles the collective works of Shakespeare, at least in page length and as we get busier, the items overlooked during processing continues to grow.
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.
Seems there have been a few issues lately with regard to Total Scorecard findings and validity as well as misconceptions with validity periods for both appraisals and credit documents (credit reports) on FHA insured mortgage types so I thought it not a bad idea to clear a couple of things up.
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.
Call it portfolio retention or risk management, but as of Wednesday, I had several of my investors pull out of the market where non-credit qualifying (streamline’s without appraisal) FHA streamline refinance transactions were concerned. Several have said they would only purchase them if they were currently servicing the loan and I now have one other who has changed guidelines on credit qualifying streamline refinance transaction to require a minimum median credit score of 700 for loan amounts less than 417,000 and 720 for loan amounts greater than 417. All of this just as everyone rev’s up for the reduction in UFMIP to .01%.
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.
Residential mortgage underwriting is defined as the overall credit and valuation analysis of a particular borrower or borrowers with regard to overall financial health as well as the evaluation of collateral that might be used to secure the mortgage and as underwriters we relate this particular evaluation to calculation of housing to income and debt to income ratio’s, the evaluation of a borrower’s credit history as well as the review of a property appraisal.
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 5 years I have had many conversations with people regarding the housing market which invariably becomes a discussion as to who is at fault for the collapse in 2007. Depending on who you are talking too, the blame is laid at the feet of big banks or mortgage brokers, Wall Street, FNMA or FHLMC and of course the diagnosis is generally that one or all of the aforementioned groups did it out of greed.
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.
FHA issued a bulletin on April 18, 2012 informing the industry about HUD approved nonprofit participation in FHA loan financing. Basically HUD allows approved nonprofit agencies to act as a mortgagor utilizing FHA insured financing to purchase homes which will be designated for resale to low to moderate income families or in some instances rented to low moderate income families and as you can imagine where the affordable housing program concerned as it pertains to the rental units, the nonprofits may actually have more than one FHA insured mortgage.
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.