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.
Recent increases in mortgage-backed securities purchases by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are renewing debate over the future of housing finance reform, highlighting the ongoing tension between short-term market support and long-term structural change. While the renewed buying activity has helped stabilize mortgage markets, it also underscores how central the government-sponsored enterprises remain to the system — a reality that continues to complicate reform efforts.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has updated its procedures for handling consumer complaints related to credit report disputes, marking a significant change in how complaints are routed, reviewed, and addressed across the credit reporting system. The revisions are intended to improve transparency, accountability, and responsiveness when consumers challenge inaccuracies on their credit reports, an issue that continues to affect access to credit, housing, and financial stability.
The Federal Reserve is widely expected to leave interest rates unchanged at its upcoming policy meeting, as central bank officials assess recent progress on inflation while remaining cautious about easing policy too quickly. With borrowing costs already at restrictive levels and economic signals sending mixed messages, policymakers appear inclined to maintain their wait-and-see approach rather than commit to immediate rate cuts.
Signs of stress in the non-qualified mortgage sector continued to surface toward the end of 2025, as an increase in loan impairments that emerged in November persisted into December. While overall non-QM performance remains far from crisis levels, industry analysts say the trend reflects a market that is adjusting to prolonged higher interest rates, tighter liquidity, and borrower payment sensitivity rather than one experiencing sudden deterioration.
Last week I received a file to underwrite where the borrower’s tax return indicated that he earned more than 1.6 million in income. The Mortgage Loan Officer and the mortgage loan processor calculated the ratios based on the same income. The ratios were 2% over 4% and it was a slam dunk deal.as far as they were concerned.
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.
My previous article explained how HUD (FHA) wanted underwriters to review and to come up with an income trend using the borrower’s personal tax returns. There are many borrowers that self-employed and these borrowers use other forms to demonstrate their income trend.
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.
Underwriters from time to time have difficulty in determining the income to use when they receive a complicated or very involved tax return.
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 way we can handle both business and personal tax returns is pretty much same. The key to the right analysis is to opt for right direction. We can divide the analysis procedure in 3 steps.
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.