The Trump administration’s revived plan to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is stoking fresh debate in Washington and on Wall Street, with experts warning that such a move could push mortgage rates higher and pose new challenges for homebuyers across the country. At the heart of the discussion lies a pivotal question: Can the U.S. housing market handle a shift away from government-backed mortgage guarantees?
The U.S. homebuilding sector found a modest silver lining in former President Donald Trump’s latest wave of tariff announcements. While much of the construction industry braces for higher costs, one crucial material—Canadian lumber—was notably spared from additional duties. That exemption, however, isn’t enough to ease broader concerns across the housing market, where rising costs and slowing demand are already testing builders' limits.
The U.S. homebuilding sector is feeling the heat as fresh tariff threats from former President Donald Trump’s policy platform stir up anxiety over rising construction costs, casting a shadow over what was shaping up to be a fragile housing market recovery. Shares of major homebuilders—like D.R. Horton, Lennar, PulteGroup, Toll Brothers, KB Home, Taylor Morrison, and Meritage Homes—have slid noticeably in recent days as investors weigh the potential financial fallout from escalating trade measures.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has rescinded a number of appraisal policies instituted during the Biden Administration. In a Mortgagee Letter released last week, FHA rescinded three previous Mortgagee Letters released during the previous administration, effectively restoring the policies in place prior to these three letters.
Mortgage professionals can now access FICO’s Score Mortgage Simulator on the Xactus360 Verification Platform, the companies announced earlier this month. FICO announced the tool in October. It’s designed to simulate potential impacts to a consumer’s FICO score with hypothetical changes in credit report data. Examples include a potential borrower reducing their credit card balance or getting rid of a collection account.
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.
The current underwriting manuals HUD 4155.1 and HUD 4155.2 are being replaced by HUD’s Single Family Handbook (SFH) 4000.1. There are approximately 100 changes from the old books to the new book. There are parts of the SFH in effect now and all of the book will be in effect with cases issued on or after September 14, 2015. There are parts of the SFH in effect already with lion share in effect in September 2015.
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.
On August 15, 2013 HUD issued three new Mortgagee Letters numbered ML 2013 – 24, 2013 – 25, and 2013 – 26 which moved FHA underwriting back to manual underwriting under certain scenarios.
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 post-closing audit is usually associated with an underwriting function, but it has been my experience as a post-closing Underwriter that many of the issues that arise from failed audits can be caught at the loan processing level.
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.
As I was going through some of my old paperwork the other day, getting ready to move my office, I came across this old gem. Dating before credit scores, these Scales of Justice are just as important today and so I thought I’d share them with 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.
Over the past couple of months, I have a few conversations with underwriters who have conveyed to me that they have been getting their buts kicked during post endorsement technical reviews.
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 discussing an article published in Business Week with an FHA rooster appraiser who personally agreed that mortgage fraud was on the rise. He was concerned that many less than above board brokers and lenders refuse to use honest appraisers in lieu of appraisers that will get them the value they request regardless of what the property is actually worth.
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.