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.
One of the most significant operational changes of the government-sponsored enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since the federal government assumed ownership is the strategic transfer of credit risk.
A program that started five years ago has quickly evolved into a significant market for credit risk transfer securities.
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 news from Fannie Mae’s fourth-quarter and full-year results for 2016 was mostly positive. But the mortgage giant’s earnings report released last week indicated that several risks could prevent it from paying future dividends to the U.S. Treasury.
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.
Will mortgage processors and underwriters see less volume without FHA insurance rate cut? On the day he took office, President Donald Trump rescinded a cut on the insurance premiums charged on Federal Housing Administration mortgages. Opinions vary on how much the reversal will impact mortgage processing and mortgage underwriting.
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 professionals who review the final mortgage loan documents, close loans and disburse funds can expect to earn an average salary in the...
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.
Like with any job, the amount a person earns will also depend on the location, the company employing the processor, the amount of experience possessed...
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 underwriting FHA mortgage loans you must first determine what “effective” income is. FHA requires all borrowers to show a minimum of two years of employment. There are exceptions to the rule.
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.
Living on an island, long but still an island, there are still restorations of various types going on. If you lived in the New York Tri – state metropolitan area there is a good chance that you are restoring your property and/or infrastructure near you.
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.
2016 has seen numerous changes in guidelines for reviewing student loan qualifying payments. In this two part series, N.A.M.P. and N.A.M.U. will provide tools for processors and underwriters to use when determining which calculation should be used for qualifying student loan payments. Part I reviewed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s guidelines. We continue this series by exploring USDA, FHA and VA rules.
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.
2016 has seen numerous changes in guidelines for reviewing student loan qualifying payments. In this two part series, N.A.M.P. and N.A.M.U. will provide tools for processors and underwriters to use when determining which calculation should be used for qualifying student loan payments. We will begin with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s rules on this topic. Part II will explore USDA, FHA, and VA rules.
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.
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.
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.