The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has introduced proposed housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would cover the 2026–2028 period, prompting a sharp divide in reaction among industry leaders and housing advocates. Under the new proposal, the FHFA plans to significantly lower key benchmarks tied to affordable lending.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two cornerstone institutions of the U.S. housing finance system, are once again drawing Wall Street’s attention amid growing speculation that both could return to public markets by the end of 2025. A potential initial public offering (IPO) for either entity would mark a seismic shift in the mortgage industry—and one not seen since they were placed under federal conservatorship during the 2008 financial crisis.
The Federal Reserve’s move toward ending quantitative tightening (QT)—its large‑scale reduction of Treasury and mortgage‑backed security holdings—is sparking interest in how the housing finance market might respond. According to commentary in the industry, the conclusion of QT could potentially pave the way for lower mortgage rates, though timing and magnitude remain uncertain.
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.
Appraiser regulations keep evolving, RESPA keeps reinventing itself, loan officer compensation is bringing forth major changes, FACTA has added what I consider to be ridiculous new disclosure requirements nobody really seems to fully grasp, licensing requirements continue expanding and evolving, credit rules continue to tighten, … when does it all end?
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.
When a credit account owner permits another person, typically a family member who is managing credit for the first time, to have access to and use of an account, the user is referred to as an authorized user of the account. This practice is intended to assist related individuals in legitimately establishing a credit history and credit score based on the account and payment history of the account owner, even though the authorized user is not the account owner.
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 203k is a great program for any individual who wants to buy a handy man special or property being sold at foreclosure and fix it up, or a current homeowner who would like to complete some updates to their existing home however many lenders are still unwilling to offer the 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.
I was in the kitchen this morning having a conversation with a coworker. We were reminiscing about the good old days of HUD field offices, case number assignment lines and of course processing and underwriting without the benefit of fax machines, AUS or even the internet for that matter.
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 ran across a blog while I was I was doing some research on a regulatory interpretation this evening and it really got me fired up. It never ceases to amaze me how badly some of the people in our industry answer questions for people who wouldn’t be asking if they truly knew anything about mortgages.
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 recent mess with the foreclosure paperwork (or lack thereof) can serve as a reminder to all of us about the importance of due diligence and complete and accurate loan files and not to let automation make us complacent.
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.
We’re all familiar with many of the components of LQI because most of them have been effective for quite some time now. We’ve become accustomed to checking interested parties against various exclusionary lists, validating each borrower’s social security number, assuring we’re including unit numbers in property addresses for condominium units, rounding the LTV calculations properly, following policies to detect and uncover undisclosed debts etc.
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.
Yes, I’m still receiving the rare refinance inquiry from my loyal past clients and referrals. These calls generally start like this – Hi Theresa, I’ve been seeing ads everywhere that interest rates are at record lows and I should refinance my mortgage now...or...I got a phone call saying I could get a great refinance deal and it won’t cost me anything and will lower my rate as low as 3.5%.
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.
Very recently, while teaching an FHA Underwriting class for FHA Online University, the history segment of the training made me stop and think. It was unusual really, because I have taught this particular class at least once a month for the past four years and honestly, other than an occasional joke as to how students need to take notes because the historic information pertaining to the agency was on the “big” test, I never really thought much about 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.
If you blinked you probably missed it but HUD recently issued another major change in the body of an outgoing email from Jerrold Mayer’s email subscription list.
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.