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.
After several years of rapid appreciation that strained household budgets and sidelined many potential buyers, the U.S. housing market is expected to enter a period of slower home price growth that could gradually improve affordability by 2026. Economists and housing analysts say cooling price trends, combined with stabilizing interest rates and modest income growth, may help restore balance to a market that has remained stubbornly out of reach for many would-be homeowners.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has released its annual update to Federal Housing Administration loan limits for 2026, increasing both forward mortgage ceiling amounts and the maximum claim amount for Home Equity Conversion Mortgages. The adjustment reflects continued home price growth across much of the country and is intended to preserve access to FHA-insured financing for borrowers in a wide range of housing markets while keeping federal programs aligned with current market realities.
In a much-anticipated move late this week, the Federal Reserve lowered its benchmark interest rate by a quarter of a percentage point for the third time this year, a decision that financial markets, loan officers and households have been watching closely. The Federal Open Market Committee’s action, which reduced the federal funds rate to a range of roughly 3.5 %–3.75 %, was aimed at supporting a slowing economy and easing borrowing costs.
It seems to me that each day I find another reason to practice prudent underwriting principals. I mean old school stuff that reaches beyond the world of automated underwriting. As we all know, we have the ability to reduce documentation requirements when we have the Approve/Eligible or the Accept and in some cases it makes sense but I find more and more that I keep reaching back to documentation requirements of the past.
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.
Just when you think you got it nailed, they go and change everything. For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about, I am talking about RESPA. I recently experienced what I would call a deep satisfaction while thinking that I had the concept of RESPA down to art, but it was short lived.
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 hosting a seminar and during a question and answer session, I had an individual ask me what was the greatest deficiency I was seeing in files submitted for underwriting. At the time my answer was incorrect loan amounts due to the changing of rules where the UFMIP was concerned. But after several days of underwriting files, I have changed my mind. The correct answer should have been that the files are simply not processed.
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 recently had some questions regarding maximum Loan to Value guidelines where FHA cash out refinances are concerned. It seems that most people believe that 95% is the rule regardless of the loan parameters so I thought today would be a good day to set the record straight.
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 FHA volume has increased (ours to about 90% of total originations), there seems to be more and more games being played with FHA Connection, particularly where wholesale originations are 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.
As we have seen the end of seller funding down payment assistance, I thought today would be a good day to discuss other available grant programs that might be of use to potential borrowers. Based on what I have found, most appear to be geared to first time homebuyers, which seems to be where the greatest need it.
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.
It’s here all, the Hope for Homeownership program. Mortgagee letter 2008-29 issued October 1, 2008 has set forth all of the guidance that we as lenders need in order to successfully administer this program. Please do not confuse it as an extension to FHA Secure because it is definitely not.
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 we see a shift towards a more conservative attitude towards mortgage lending, not to mention a greater involvement of federal agencies, I thought today would be a good time to talk compliance. For those of us who grew up originating, processing and underwriting for banks and thrifts, compliance is second nature, something you handle when requesting a 2nd pay stub from the borrower.
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 we are all aware, FHA has seen many changes this year regarding the overall program. Much of these changes were implemented to assist with the ongoing housing crisis and have actually been quite effective, however, the overall changes to the program have not been designed to elevate the newest credit crunch, but to revamp the overall program.
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.
In the days of subprime lending, alternative credit products and expanded criteria loan programs, a processor need only to look at a product matrix to determine if the case was approvable under a certain program. A product matrix not to mention Automated Underwriting Systems did most of work not to mention the thinking for originators, processors and underwriters alike.
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.