Real Estate (Page 2)

Alternative asset manager Fidelis Investors announced on Thursday the closing of its fourth rated residential transition loan (RTL) securitization, FIDL 2026-RTL2, a two-year revolving, $191.5 million securitization backed by 381 residential transition loans across 24 lenders.

The closing comes amid growing demand for private lending solutions aimed at increased housing supply. The transaction is led by Unitas Funding LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fidelis.

Rated by Morningstar DBRS and KBRA, the securitization marks several milestones for the residential transition loan market. Fidelis said it is the first manager to launch a second rated RTL securitization in 2026 and the first to close a transaction backed by KBRA-rated bonds.

Residential transition loans are typically used by real estate investors to finance the purchase and rehabilitation of properties, including fix-and-flip projects. Fidelis said the loans provide financing for housing rehabilitation projects that traditional lenders often do not support.

“From playing a major role in establishing the secondary market in residential transition lending to now bringing KBRA-rated bonds to market, Fidelis continues to drive the institutionalization of private real estate lending,” Brian Tortorella, managing partner at Fidelis, said in a statement.

“As the nation continues to contend with an intense housing affordability problem, investors are eager to support solutions that put more homes on the market while delivering strong opportunities for returns.”

Fidelis said investors are increasingly looking to private real estate lending as an opportunity to support housing rehabilitation while generating returns.

“The closing of our second rated RTL this year is a testament to the fact that, even as headlines repeatedly stress the private credit sector’s woes, investors remain deeply committed to private mortgage lending as an asset class,” Michael Tessitore, managing partner at Fidelis, said in a statement.

Jefferies served as sole bookrunner for the transaction.

“Fidelis’ continued growth is a testament to the company’s strong execution and best-in-class approach to the RTL sector,” said Jordan Rothstein, head of ABS trading and distribution at Jefferies.

Chris Schmidt, managing director at Jefferies, said the transaction was the first RTL securitization rated by two agencies and the first RTL transaction rated by KBRA.

Additional eligible residential transition loans may be added to the portfolio during future transfer periods, subject to the transaction’s eligibility criteria, Fidelis said.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

You can sit any man down at a piano. Most can bang out the same three songs they learned in middle school, a few can tune it, and almost nobody can sit there and compose something worth listening to. That piano is AI.

The way highly systemized public homebuilders are approaching AI right now tells you everything you need to know about the next decade of competition in residential land and development.

Process vs. people: Who’s really playing the piano?

Public homebuilders are designed from the ground up to be process machines, not talent incubators.

They are extremely impressive organizations, especially on paper. They track every KPI you can imagine, standardize underwriting across markets, and run thick decks through committees with military precision. They’ve built layers of analysts to ingest data, managers to interpret it and executives to present it in language that Wall Street likes.

It is rational, scalable, and relatively safe.

But it comes with a quiet cost: those organizations don’t accumulate much true, native land intelligence. The business model presumes that you can take any person of average competence, plug them into a system and get consistent results. Rather than spend decades growing a small bench of people who deeply understand counties, corridors and infrastructure, public builders spend decades refining the scorecard – what to measure, how to report it and which hurdle rates to hit.

To go back to the piano, they don’t invest in people who can compose. They invest in sheet music, metronomes and rules about which keys you’re allowed to press.

That bias makes sense in a capital markets context. Analysts and managers are interchangeable parts. If one leaves, you slide another into the process and keep the machine running. The institution doesn’t depend on any single human’s intuition about a piece of land, because in theory the model and the committee will catch whatever matters.

But land in places like Texas has a nasty habit of refusing to behave like a spreadsheet. Counties don’t grow in straight lines. Infrastructure doesn’t arrive to match the PowerPoint timeline. Household formation, school dynamics, and migration waves move in ways that feel more like improvisation than execution.

The organizations that win in that environment aren’t the ones with the prettiest sheet music. They’re the ones with people who’ve been listening to the song for a long time.

What AI actually does inside a public builder

Into that structure walks AI. If you listen to the marketing, you’d think AI is going to make every builder smarter, faster and more efficient. There’s some truth to that. AI is good at grinding through repetitive cognitive labor: cleaning data, drafting memos, summarizing legal documents, building simple models and organizing notes. Inside a public homebuilder, that means AI will mostly attach itself to the analyst layer:

• Analysts use AI to compile market reports, scrape data and produce executive summaries.
• Finance teams use it to build sensitivity tables or stress-test assumptions more quickly.
• Strategy teams use it to draft presentations and “thought leadership” that advances the corporate story.

On the surface, this looks like progress. The same number of people can now process more information. The decks look sharper. The memos read cleaner. The volume of deal flow in the machine increases. In some cases, headcount in back-office roles even gets reduced because one analyst with good AI tools can replace two without them.

Take note, however, of what is not happening.

The organization’s true exposure to the dirt, the days spent walking sites, the time invested in understanding how a given county really works, the patience required to develop a feel for a specific corridor does not naturally increase just because the reports get easier to generate. In fact, the temptation is to reduce that exposure because AI makes it feel like the data is “good enough” on its own.

The public company becomes even more reliant on processed information:

• Deals are presented as pre-digested, risk-scored and model-validated.
• Narrative around each market is polished into a tight story that fits the brand.
• Confidence comes from the volume and cleanliness of the analysis, not from a hard-earned understanding of the place.

AI strengthens the existing bias toward process. Instead of asking “who here really understands this county,” leadership tends to ask “do the numbers look right and does the memo match our framework?” The organization does not get more curious about land; instead, it gets more comfortable with the illusion that business strategists can discern what they need to about land from behind a keyboard. Crucially, AI does not replace the need for analysts and managers in that environment. It just changes the tools they use. You still need people to frame questions, review outputs, make committees feel safe and keep the machine running.

The overhead does not disappear; it just looks more digital and slightly more efficient.

From a distance, it is easy to misread this as a leap in competitiveness. It’s a cosmetic upgrade. The builders who were already dependent on processed deal flow simply get better at processing. They don’t get better at finding the land.

The private developer’s asymmetry

Now look at another side of the table: the private, knowledge-rich land developer. This is usually a small group of principals and a tight team. They do not have the luxury of 10 analysts and five layers of management. What they do have, if they are any good, is native knowledge. They know their counties. They know which school districts matter and why. They know when a “planned” infrastructure project is genuine versus political theatre. They know who pulls the levers on zoning and utilities.

For years, the trade-off has been obvious: publics win on capital and scale; privates win on knowledge and speed. The publics can afford overhead; the privates often cannot. So the private developer spends more time doing analysis, building pro formas, preparing memos and packaging deals for lenders, partners or builders.

Their edge is the fact that they are composing the song, not just playing it, but composition is expensive in hours.

AI changes that equation far more for the private operator than for the public company. A principal who genuinely understands Parker County, Collin County, or any other Texas growth node can now use AI to offload much of the mechanical work that used to require staff:

• Drafting financial models and adjusting assumptions.
• Generating market summaries and competitive sets.
• Writing lender packages, investment memos, and municipal narratives.
• Cleaning and structuring data from public sources.

The knowledge stays with the principal. The grunt work moves to AI. That’s the inverse of the public model, where the knowledge is shallow and distributed and the process is deep and formalized. For a private developer, AI effectively acts as an overhead killer. They no longer need to hire as many analysts as possible just to keep up with paperwork.

They can keep the organization flatter, with decision-making closer to the ground.
Business leaders can put more capital into land positions, entitlement strategies and patient holding power rather than office headcount.

The result is a structural advantage:

The public builder uses AI to make its existing processes more efficient. The private developer uses AI to get rid of processes they never wanted in the first place. And because their edge is native knowledge, not process, they are able to interpret and direct AI output in ways that a process-driven organization simply cannot. AI becomes an instrument in the hands of someone who can already compose. They do not ask the tool to tell them where to buy land; they use the tool to test and package decisions they are already skilled at making.

Why this weakens public builders over time

Put these threads together and the asymmetry becomes clear.

Public homebuilders:

• Still depend on analysts and managers to surface, scrub, and present deals.
• Use AI primarily to polish those layers rather than to deepen their field understanding.
• Grow more confident in processed outputs even as their direct contact with the land stays limited.
• Become more susceptible to narrative traps – believing their own AI-generated stories about markets they don’t viscerally know.

Private, knowledge-rich developers use AI to shrink back-office cost and compress time-to-analysis. Keep judgment in the hands of people with real local experience. Allocate more capital to land and relationships, less to bureaucracy. Move faster on the right land, not just more land.

In that environment, AI becomes a net negative for highly systemized public builders relative to private competitors. It encourages them to double-down on process and distance from the ground. It does not materially reduce their need for analysts and managers, because leadership, compliance, and governance still demand human layers.

It makes their deal packages look more professional while doing nothing to improve the underlying intuition about where to plant stakes.

Meanwhile, the private developer who knows the market can show up with tighter packages, more conviction, lower overhead and better timing.

It is like giving everyone in the orchestra a metronome and sheet music upgrade, while one person quietly gets a Steinway, a quiet room, and more hours to write.

The publics will use AI. They will talk about it on earnings calls. Their decks will be cleaner and their risk matrices more detailed. But in the parts of the business where real value is created, reading counties, calling corridors, predicting infrastructure and getting ahead of migration, they will still be sitting at the piano playing other people’s songs. The people who can really compose will simply have fewer distractions, lower overhead, and better tools.

In Texas terms, AI hands the public builder a fancier clipboard, a drone and a better traffic study. It hands the private land guy a pickup truck, an extra five hours a day and someone to handle the paperwork while he walks another site.

If you are deciding where to place your next dollar in residential land, it is worth asking: Who here is using AI to help them play the piano and who is using it to tune the instrument they already know how to play?

This post was originally published on here. 

The Community Home Lenders of America (CHLA) concluded that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) could use direct payments to lenders as the primary tool in a forthcoming small-dollar mortgage pilot program, arguing it is the only approach likely to meaningfully increase originations of mortgages below $100,000.

In a comment letter dated July 16 and addressed to acting FHA Commissioner Joseph Gormley, the trade group said lenders generally lose money originating small-balance mortgages because fixed origination costs outweigh the revenue generated from lower loan amounts.

The suggestions address the implementation of Section 105 of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which authorizes FHA to establish a pilot program aimed at expanding access to mortgages below $100,000. The law gives the agency authority to provide direct payments to loan originators, adjust FHA loan terms and costs, and offer grants to borrowers for expenses such as down payments, closing costs, appraisals and title insurance.

Higher rates of denials

The proposal comes as policymakers continue to examine the shrinking availability of small mortgages despite the continued presence of lower-cost homes in many markets.

An Urban Institute analysis from 2022 found that about 600,000 U.S. homes — 13.1% of all home sales in 2020 — sold for less than $100,000. Yet only about one-third of these homes were purchased with a mortgage, compared with more than 80% of homes selling for at least $100,000.

The report also found that applications for mortgages under $100,000 were significantly more likely to be denied than larger loans, with researchers citing lender economics, fixed origination costs and servicing challenges as contributing factors.

The Urban Institute noted that small-dollar borrowers are often lower-income, first-time or minority homebuyers, and said expanded access would likely require policies that improve the economics of originating smaller loans.

CHLA said its member lenders have concluded that direct payments to lenders are “the most effective — if not the only way” to measurably increase the origination of FHA small-dollar mortgages.

According to the organization, independent mortgage banks originated about 90% of FHA loans in 2025.

Borrower subsidies unlikely to move the needle

CHLA said subsidies for borrowers would help reduce upfront costs but would be unlikely to significantly increase loan volume because FHA’s low down payment requirements already keep borrower contributions relatively small on lower-priced homes.

CHLA also believes that FHA has sufficient financial capacity to support incentive payments. Citing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s fiscal 2027 budget estimates, the group said each FHA Title II mortgage generates a negative credit subsidy of 3.14%, meaning the agency earns more than it expects to pay in losses.

Based on these estimates, CHLA said FHA could provide combined payments to lenders and borrowers totaling as much as 3% of the loan amount while remaining profitable.

The association said direct payments of up to 1.75% of the loan amount could be administered operationally by withholding the upfront FHA mortgage insurance premium that is normally collected and remitted to the agency.

The letter said CHLA did not identify any FHA loan terms or costs that substantially discourage small-dollar lending. It noted that changing underwriting standards could compromise the safety and soundness of the loans.

The group also believes that federal loan originator compensation rules could limit the effectiveness of any lender incentives. Current compensation requirements generally require loan officers employed by lenders to receive the same percentage-based compensation across all loans, preventing employers from paying higher commissions for small-dollar mortgages.

CHLA also pointed to the federal Qualified Mortgage points-and-fees cap as another obstacle to small-dollar FHA lending. It noted that Section 402 of the ROAD to Housing Act directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and FHA to examine the issue.

The trade group said expanded access to small-dollar FHA mortgages is particularly important for borrowers in rural and underserved communities — and for low- and moderate-income homebuyers who purchase lower-priced homes.

This article was written by Sarah Wolak and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

REMAX president and chief growth officer Chris Lim created a stir late last month when the American Real Estate Association (ARA) announced his appointment to the fledgling trade group’s board of directors. 

“I’ve always believed real estate is an industry where people should be working together,” Lim told HousingWire via email regarding his decision to join the board, “ARA stood out to me as it’s an organization focused on practical issues facing agents today but also on where the industry is headed, and I want to be part of those conversations.”

According to Lim, as he has watched ARA grow over the past few years, it became clear to him that the Mauricio Umansky and Jason Haber-founded association was one he wanted to be involved in. In practical terms, ARA is part of a broader push to give agents and brokerages more choices in professional representation — especially as MLS access becomes less closely tied to mandatory Realtor association membership. According to ARA, it is less NAR replacement and more an emerging challenger with ambitions.

“With more than 20 years as an agent and now working closely with a large network of real estate professionals, I know about and see firsthand the challenges, opportunities and changes shaping the business,” he said. “This felt like the right time to step in and help ensure those perspectives are part of the conversation as real estate continues to evolve while being part of any decisions that may impact agents and our industry.”

Focus on education 

In announcing his appointment to the board of directors, ARA said Lim would be focused on helping to shape an educational framework for ARA members. Lim told HousingWire he is looking to build “something practical and accessible that helps real estate agents operate at an even higher level in today’s market.” 

“Whether it’s an initiative on communication, negotiation or how to position themselves as trusted advisors, I would like to provide tools they can immediately put into practice for their clients,” Lim said. 

In addition to his work on member education initiatives, Lim said he will also be focused on “supporting the organization’s advocacy work and helping advance initiatives that strengthen the real estate profession.” 

“That means making sure agents are represented, that their value is clearly understood and that the work they do is protected and elevated. If we can create an environment where agents are better supported and better positioned for the future, that’s a meaningful outcome,” Lim said. 

According to Lim, one of the greatest challenges facing agents right now is staying on top of “evolving policies, practices and market dynamics while also helping consumers understand what those changes mean for them.”

“There is a lot of change happening across the industry right now, and it is happening quickly,” he said. “Advocacy that helps bring clarity to the process, supports agents through that change, and reinforces the value of professional guidance for consumers navigating an increasingly complex process is critical.”

More options for REMAX agents

In conjunction with Lim’s appointment to the board, ARA also announced that it will provide all REMAX agents in the United States with a complimentary first-year membership to the association. Lim said this is a wonderful opportunity for REMAX agents to explore the growing association and the benefits it offers members at no additional cost. 

“For those who choose to participate, I hope they gain access to meaningful advocacy, valuable educational resources and opportunities to connect with other professionals who are committed to strengthening the industry,” Lim said. 

The future of ARA

Looking ahead, Lim said he would feel like success for ARA in the next few years would be for the association to be “recognized as a trusted voice within the industry and as a valuable resource to members.” It is through this that he says ARA would have a meaningful impact on the industry and the consumers that interact with it. 

“It would mean ARA is seen as a place where real collaboration happens, between agents, between brokerages, and throughout the business, all working toward making the industry stronger.”

While some may view ARA as a competitor to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), Lim sees it as providing another opportunity for agents. 

“Having another choice where real estate professionals can access resources, education and advocacy is ultimately a good thing. ARA is creating space for modern, agent-focused advocacy, and it’s another option for agents who are looking for an emphasis on collaboration and innovation in a shifting market,” he said. “There is a real opportunity to strengthen the profession and support the real estate professionals who help consumers navigate one of life’s most important financial decisions. I’m looking forward to contributing to an organization that is focused on helping agents adapt to an evolving industry.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Retail activist investment firm Randian Capital is urging loanDepot’s board of directors to launch a formal review of strategic alternatives, including a potential sale, amid falling share prices and ongoing losses.

In an open letter to the board on Wednesday, Randian and its affiliates said they have economic exposure to more than 250,000 shares of loanDepot through common stock and options. The stock has been in free fall since the company went public in February 2021 at $14 per share and recently traded around $1.12 — a decline of more than 90% based on Tuesday’s closing price.

A spokesperson said loanDepot had no comment on the letter.

The push comes as loanDepot continues to struggle with profitability in a difficult mortgage market. In the first quarter of 2026, the Irvine, Calif.-based lender posted a net loss of $54.9 million, wider than the $32.8 million loss in the fourth quarter of 2025 and the $40.7 million loss a year earlier.

In its letter, Randian said macroeconomic headwinds alone do not explain loanDepot’s “prolonged underperformance,” arguing that peers have adjusted cost structures and strategies to the higher-rate, lower-volume environment.

“loanDepot has yet to demonstrate a sustainable path to restoring shareholder value,” the investor wrote.

Scale may be a “competitive disadvantage”

Randian also pointed to loanDepot’s relative scale, saying it is becoming a “competitive disadvantage” as the mortgage industry consolidates through mergers, servicing sales and exits from origination. “This can be exacerbated if reduced origination volumes persist longer than anticipated,” it added.

loanDepot originated $7.7 billion in loans during the quarter, down 5% from the fourth quarter but up from $5.2 billion a year earlier. The company’s pull-through weighted gain-on-sale margin declined to 2.71% from 3.24% in the fourth quarter of 2025. Management cited market volatility, higher rates and a shift toward lower-margin conventional loans as key factors.

loanDepot’s leadership has framed 2025 and 2026 as a multiquarter rebuild. Founder and CEO Anthony Hsieh, who returned to the chief executive role, has emphasized digital transformation, expansion of the wholesale channel the company reentered in early 2026, increasing loan officer headcount and applying automation across origination and servicing.

Hsieh has said the company is gaining market share and investing in long-term initiatives, including a partnership with Figure Technology Solutions that is expected to lower production costs, improve the customer experience and speed up loan closings.

Randian said strategic acquirers could unlock value not reflected in the current share price, particularly through cost and operational synergies.

Randian highlighted loanDepot’s mortgage servicing rights portfolio — $123 billion as of the first quarter, the 20th largest owned MSR portfolio in the country, according to Inside Mortgage Finance — as a key asset that might command a premium valuation in a transaction.

It cited the recent Mr. Cooper Group deal as evidence that strategic buyers remain willing to pay meaningful premiums for what they perceive as high-quality servicing and production platforms. In November, Rocket Companies completed its acquisition of Mr. Cooper for $14.2 billion, paying 51% more than the valuation initially announced.

Randian also pressed the board to reassess whether the current leadership structure is “best positioned to maximize shareholder value,” saying the board should be open to changes if needed to ensure the company’s needs receive sufficient time and attention from management.

“A successful sale of the company may be the best way for shareholders to finally realize fair value, and Mr. Hsieh to free up his time for the open water,” the letter states. “After years of significant value destruction, the Board owes shareholders a clear plan to maximize shareholder value, whatever path forward it ultimately chooses.”

This article was written by Flávia Furlan Nunes and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Uplist has launched Homebuyer Intelligence, a listing-connected tool that lets homebuyers see mortgage lender-specific payment estimates and affordability strategies while they are viewing a property in person or online, the company announced Thursday.

The Washington state-based mortgage technology firm said in its announcement that Homebuyer Intelligence is designed to plug loan officer expertise directly into listing flyers, open houses and online property marketing.

Loan officers generate a single Uplist link or QR code that can be added to any flyer or digital asset, taking buyers to a personalized listing page powered by the lender’s live pricing.

Once on the page, buyers can explore an estimated monthly payment with principal, interest, taxes and insurance; compare multiple financing paths; and test affordability tactics without creating an account, filling out a contact form or triggering a credit pull, according to the announcement.

“Loan officers can’t be at every open house, but their expertise can be,” Jeff Bell, founder and president at Uplist, said in a statement. “Homebuyer Intelligence gives buyers real answers the moment affordability questions come up and keeps the loan officer part of that conversation.”

The product aims to turn static listing collateral into an interactive financing resource for real estate agents and homebuilders while giving loan officers a presence at every showing.

Buyers can view options such as mortgage rate changes, home price adjustments, down payment scenarios and temporary buydowns, then share the full scenario by text, email or directly with the loan officer.

Homebuyer Intelligence also surfaces common seller-paid buydown structures, including estimated seller credits and year-by-year payment schedules. For builders, that can help quantify how seller-paid financing may affect payments in the early years of homeownership before a prospect leaves the model home.

Each listing experience carries the loan officer’s branding and required disclosures.

Uplist said the pages are built to be discoverable by AI-powered search assistants. When a consumer uses an AI tool to research affordability for a specific listing, the assistants can direct the buyer to a lender-verified resource that reflects live pricing from a lender already working with the listing agent.

In a high-rate, low-inventory market, affordability questions often determine whether a showing converts into a serious application. Homebuyer Intelligence is one of a growing number of tools that try to answer these questions earlier in the sales funnel, at the listing level, with lender-specific numbers rather than generic calculators.

For mortgage companies and loan officers, this type of integration can increase lead quality and keep them attached to the transaction even when they are not present at an open house. For agents and builders, it offers a way to handle payment objections in real time using scenarios that reflect an actual partner lender’s pricing and buydown options.

Homebuyer Intelligence is available now to Uplist subscribers, and lenders can request a demo from the company.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Point on Thursday announced the completion of a $508.6 million rated securitization backed by home equity investment (HEI) assets, marking what the company says is the largest transaction in the HEI market to date.

The transaction, which closed July 15, is Point‘s eighth rated securitization and its second of 2026. More than 30 institutional investors participated in the offering, including eight first-time investors on the company’s platform.

According to Point, the deal reflects continued growth in institutional demand for HEI-backed securities. The company said funding costs declined significantly from its previous securitization completed in February, with spreads on the BB (low) (sf) bonds narrowing by more than 220 basis points.

“Closing the largest securitization in the HEI asset class to date reaffirms the investment community’s confidence in this asset class and in the quality of the assets Point is originating,” Eddie Lim, co-founder and CEO of Point, said in a statement.

“Since pioneering the category in 2015, we’ve worked with our partners to build a durable, institutional-quality capital markets platform. That platform lets us access capital at scale, enhance liquidity and transparency in the market, and ultimately make home equity a more accessible financial tool for homeowners.”

The securities were issued through Point Securitization Trust 2026-2 and received ratings from Morningstar DBRS. The issuance included $328.6 million in senior Class A-1 notes rated A (low) (sf); $70.7 million in Class A-2 notes rated BBB (low) (sf); $44.5 million in Class B-1 notes rated BB (low) (sf); and $64.8 million in retained Class B-2 notes rated B (sf).

The securitization includes collateral contributed by eight purchasers on Point’s platform, including Tacora Capital Management and Deer Park Road Management. Point originated all of the HEIs included in the transaction and will continue servicing the assets.

Tacora Capital Management CEO Keri Findley said the transaction demonstrates the scale of Point’s origination platform and growing institutional interest in the asset class.

“The strength of institutional demand speaks for itself, and we’re excited to grow alongside Point as HEIs reach a broader base of homeowners,” Findley said.

Scott Burg, chief investment officer at Deer Park Road Management, said the investor base participating in Point’s securitization program has expanded considerably since his firm’s initial investment.

“The evolution of more participants at every rating level is the clearest sign that this asset class has matured,” Burg said.

Barclays Capital served as the sole structuring agent for the transaction. Barclays, Nomura Securities International and Cantor Fitzgerald were joint bookrunners, while East West Markets and StoneX Financial served as co-managers.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Builders can no longer rely on rising home prices to offset unexpected costs, scheduled delays and development inefficiencies. After years of home price appreciation that helped cushion operational inefficiencies, today’s market demands greater precision. Builder confidence fell to 37 in May, according to the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index, marking the 25th consecutive month below the break-even threshold of 50.

Meanwhile, single-family construction timelines remain roughly two months longer than they were a decade ago, keeping capital tied up before homes can be delivered. As margins tighten, improving visibility in land development is becoming just as critical as improving efficiency during vertical construction.

The homebuilding industry has spent years optimizing vertical construction processes. Production builders have standardized floor plans, optimized construction schedules and developed sophisticated systems for tracking the process from foundation to closing. Yet one critical phase of development remains far less predictable: the horizontal construction process that transforms raw land into build-ready lots.

As builders face mounting pressure to protect margins, improve horizontal cycle times and navigate a more challenging housing market, attention is increasingly shifting toward land development. The ability to understand site conditions, track progress and forecast lot delivery with greater accuracy is emerging as a competitive advantage.

For many builders, the next major opportunity for operational improvement may not be found in the home itself, but in the land beneath it.

Why has horizontal construction lagged behind

The vertical construction process benefits from standardization and repetition. Production builders often construct hundreds of homes using a limited number of floor plans, creating highly standardized workflows and predictable milestones.

Horizontal construction operates differently. Every site introduces unique variables, including soil conditions, topography, drainage requirements, weather events, regulatory requirements and contractor coordination challenges. Even projects within the same region can experience dramatically different development conditions.

Because of this variability, land development has historically been viewed as difficult to standardize and benchmark. Many builders have invested heavily in improving vertical construction performance, driving cycle times lower and optimizing nearly every stage of the homebuilding process. Horizontal operations, however, have remained comparatively difficult to measure.

The cost of that uncertainty continues to grow. According to the Home Builders Institute, the skilled labor shortage now costs the single-family homebuilding industry an estimated $10.8 billion annually, including $2.7 billion in additional carrying costs tied to longer construction schedules. When projects take longer and labor remains scarce, delays during land development become increasingly expensive to absorb.

The hidden cost of uncertainty in land acquisition and development

Land acquisition and development decisions are often made long before construction begins. During those early stages, builders must estimate earthwork volumes, utility installation requirements, lot yields and development timelines using incomplete and often outdated information. While development teams rely on engineering studies, site plans and historical experience, uncertainty in the site conditions remains a constant factor after construction begins.

Earthwork represents one of the most challenging examples. Soil conditions can vary dramatically across a site, especially sites under tree cover, making it difficult to accurately predict cut-and-fill requirements, road lengths, or overall lot yield. Unexpected conditions discovered during grading can introduce delays and additional expenses that ripple throughout the entire project.

The challenge is not simply estimating costs. Builders must also understand how development activities progress over time. A site may appear active, with equipment operating and contractors working daily, but activity alone does not necessarily indicate meaningful progress toward completed lots.

Without clear visibility into site performance, unexpected change orders and delays may remain hidden until they become difficult or expensive to address. According to the NAHB Cost of Doing Business Study in 2024, builders averaged a 11% of the sales price. On a $5 million land development budget, horizontal cost overrun of just 2% to 3% can consume $100,000 to $150,000 in profit, leaving builders with less margin to absorb additional risk. By the time problems are identified, valuable time and capital may already be lost.In today’s market, builders cannot simply offset unexpected costs through higher home prices.

Activity is not the same as progress for the horizontal cycle time

One of the most important distinctions in land development is the difference between activity and measurable progress. A busy construction site can create the impression that work is advancing according to plan. However, builders ultimately need answers to more specific questions:

• How much dirt has moved?
• How many lots are upgraded or nearing completion?
• How many linear feet of utilities are installed?
• Which activities are ahead or behind schedule?
• How will current progress affect future lot readiness?

These questions become increasingly important as projects grow larger and more complex.

Modern site intelligence platforms help answer these questions by providing a comprehensive view of development activity across entire communities. Rather than relying solely on site visits, reports or individual contractor updates, builders can measure physical progress directly and compare performance against project goals.

This shift transforms horizontal land development from a largely observational process into a measurable production system.

Turning land development into a measurable production system

While homebuilders have historically utilized production metrics to optimize vertical construction, these same frameworks are now being extended to the horizontal phase. In vertical workflows, enterprise resource planning (ERP) and accounting systems provide granular tracking. The industry is now shifting toward applying this same logic to land development, transforming a once-opaque process into a measurable production system. The goal is not to eliminate variability. Every site will remain unique.

Instead, the objective is to normalize key factors such as acreage, lot count, earthwork volumes, utility installation, drainage infrastructure and overall site complexity. Once those variables are measured consistently, builders can begin establishing benchmarks and identifying patterns that drive better decision-making.

This approach is giving rise to a new concept: horizontal cycle time. Just as builders closely monitor cycle times during vertical construction, where standardized production metrics became essential management tools, they are beginning to apply similar measurement frameworks to land development. By tracking the duration and performance of critical development activities, organizations can better forecast lot releases, identify emerging delays and improve planning accuracy.

Rather than treating horizontal construction as an unavoidable black box, builders can begin managing it as a predictable production process.

How data and AI are improving predictability

Advances in geospatial intelligence, aerial data collection and artificial intelligence are accelerating this transition. Large builders now have access to years of historical site performance data across multiple geographies and project types. When combined with modern analytics, that information creates new opportunities to identify relationships between site characteristics and development outcomes.

AI does not eliminate the complexity of land development. Human expertise remains essential. However, data-driven models can help builders assign greater weight to critical variables, identify performance trends, spot risks earlier and improve forecasting accuracy. Over time, these insights can help organizations develop increasingly reliable methods for predicting horizontal cycle times and project outcomes.

The result is earlier visibility into potential challenges and more proactive decision-making.

Why capital efficiency is becoming the defining metric

Land development requires significant upfront capital investment long before homes can be sold. Every delay extends the period between capital deployment and revenue generation.

When builders can identify issues earlier, resequence work more effectively and forecast lot deliveries with greater confidence, they shorten the timeline between development spending and vertical construction starts. That acceleration improves cash flow, reduces risk and enhances overall project economics.

In today’s market, where margins are under pressure from rising costs and affordability challenges, these improvements can have a meaningful impact on profitability. More importantly, delays in horizontal construction rarely stay isolated. Every setback in land development ultimately affects homebuilding operations, creating cascading impacts throughout the project lifecycle.

Looking ahead: A new era of land development visibility

The future of homebuilding may be defined as much by land development performance as by vertical construction efficiency.

As builders continue seeking new ways to improve margins, reduce risk and scale operations, real-time site visibility into horizontal construction is becoming increasingly valuable. The organizations that successfully measure, benchmark and optimize land development performance will be better positioned to forecast outcomes, improve capital efficiency and respond more quickly to changing market conditions.

TraceAir is helping drive this transformation by providing builders with greater visibility into site conditions, progress and performance throughout the development process. By turning land development into a measurable production framework, the company is helping builders move beyond intuition and toward more data-driven decision-making.

In an industry built on continuous improvement, the next major breakthrough may come from finally bringing the same level of visibility and control to the horizontal phase that builders have already achieved in the vertical phase.

Click Here

This post was originally published on here. 

A Bloomberg op-ed published this week makes a provocative argument: houses are no longer the best place for your money. I’m not here to defend housing. I’m here to defend fact and data over narrative — and in this case, the analysis doesn’t hold up. 

I promise I’m not here to pick apart another publication’s article — but I’m here to say I disagree with core components of the argument. And I feel the obligation to share the knowledge I’ve gained through years and years of leading HousingWire. 

Let’s start with math. The author compares a $500,000 Nantucket home purchased in 1995 to $500,000 invested in the S&P 500. But very few people buy a primary home with cash. The relevant comparison is what happens to your down payment. 

Twenty percent down in 1995 is $100,000. That same $100,000 in the S&P 500 with dividends reinvested grows to roughly $2.5 million by 2025. That’s a real return worth acknowledging. 

The Nantucket home, meanwhile, went from $500,000 to approximately $4 million. The $100,000 down payment became $4.0 million in equity — a 40x return. But we know that there were principal and interest payments, which assuming a blended average rate of 7%, resulted in $958,000 in P&I paid over 30 years. We could factor in taxes and insurance, but let’s call that a (really cheap) rent equivalent and ignore for these purposes. The Nantucket homeowner’s $100,000 downpayment would turn into over $3.0 million over 30 years after paying P&I on the mortgage. The person is paying for shelter one way or another, so if we were to net out real rent, the argument gets even stronger.

Real estate wins on her own example, and it isn’t particularly close. 

Then there’s the benchmark problem. The median home value in Nantucket today is nearly $4 million. Using Nantucket to make a broader point about whether Americans should buy homes is like using Amazon stock to argue everyone should invest in equities. Technically defensible. Practically useless.

But the deeper issue is the framing itself.

A home is not an investment vehicle competing with the S&P 500. It’s shelter — one of a few options, alongside renting or living with family or friends or strangers (I guess). People choose ownership because they value stability, privacy and the ability to build a life without asking permission from a landlord. Those things don’t appear in a return calculation, and they shouldn’t have to.

The real question isn’t whether a house beats the stock market. It’s what kind of life someone is trying to build. Renting is a legitimate choice with real advantages depending on the season of life. But that’s not the comparison the article set up. The frame was shelter versus stocks, and on that question the analysis starts from a broken foundation.

The author may go on to make observations worth considering about shifting cultural priorities and how younger generations think about ownership. That conversation is worth having. Homeownership may be harder to access today for aspiring first-time homebuyers than it was in 1995. Surveys may show that young people don’t think housing is a good investment (a belief furthered by sloppy frames). The American Dream may be less clear today than it was for generations that came before us. But when the opening argument rests on bad math and a misleading benchmark, everything that follows is on unstable ground.

What concerns me most is the consumer impact. The person who reads this piece and decides not to buy based on a poorly constructed narrative. The downstream effects on financial stability and community that follow from that decision. Housing professionals have an obligation to stand for what we know to be true — not to win an argument, but because the stakes are real.

Shelter matters. Community matters. And the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage remains one of the most powerful wealth-building instruments available to ordinary Americans. That story deserves better than a Nantucket comp and a broken benchmark. 

This post was originally published on here. 

ONE Sotheby’s International Realty announced the South Florida expansion of TFG International, the luxury real estate group co-founded by Tomer Fridman. The team’s entry into the region, led by Matthew Perrye, establishes a bi-coastal connection for the brand’s global clientele.

ONE Sotheby’s said the team brings approximately $9 billion in combined career sales experience.

“Tomer and Matthew have built exceptional reputations defined by their intuitive understanding of the ultra-luxury consumer and their ability to navigate the most complex transactions with discretion,” said Daniel de la Vega, president and CEO of ONE Sotheby’s International Realty. “As affluent buyers move fluidly between markets, their expansion from Los Angeles to South Florida is perfectly aligned with the continued growth and global demand we are experiencing here.”

Fridman co-founded TFG International while with Christie’s International Real Estate Southern California and is co-chairman and founder of Israel Sotheby’s International Realty.

He has represented celebrity clients including the Kardashian-Jenner family, Sylvester Stallone, Jennifer Lopez and The Osbournes.

TFG International has handled several notable luxury transactions, including a $115 million estate sale in Holmby Hills, a $32 million sale of the Donhill estate in Beverly Hills and the highest residential sale recorded in California’s San Fernando Valley.

“We have long viewed South Florida and Los Angeles as deeply interconnected markets, with clients who expect a seamless, world-class experience across both coasts,” said Fridman. “Expanding through ONE Sotheby’s International Realty provides the robust platform and global resources necessary to operate at the pinnacle of the industry.”

Last year, Fridman reported $385 million in transaction volume to RealTrends Verified, which ranked No. 27 nationally among agents, No. 8 in California and No. 5 in Beverly Hills.

Perrye joins the brokerage after more than 12 years in luxury real estate, including his most recent role at Carolwood. He has participated in more than $700 million in transactions and will oversee TFG International’s South Florida operations from ONE Sotheby’s Miami Beach office.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Polunsky Beitel Green LLP, one of the nation’s largest transactional residential mortgage lending law firms, has added Jeanine LaMay Kay to its business development team, according to a company announcement.

Based in the firm’s Dallas office, Kay will work with attorneys and client service teams to deepen existing client relationships and support national growth efforts. The move continues the expansion of Polunsky Beitel Green (PBG)’s growth-focused staff following the addition of Kimberly Friesenhahn to the business development team in February.

Kay brings more than 20 years of experience across residential real estate, mortgage lending, title insurance and homebuilding, with a background in strategic growth, channel partnerships and client relationship management.

Most recently, she spent more than a decade at 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty, a division of Frontdoor Inc., where she served as vice president of business development. In that role, she oversaw revenue and growth for the central region and some of the company’s largest national builder accounts. She helped to more than triple the company’s Texas market share over five years from less than 5% to more than 15%, according to the announcement.

Before joining 2-10, Kay held a series of leadership roles at First American Financial Corp. over roughly 10 years, spanning national accounts, sales operations, market intelligence and strategic initiatives.

“Jeanine has a proven track record of building high-performing teams and driving growth in complex, relationship-driven markets,” PBG principal Marty Green said in the announcement. “Her experience across the homebuilder and title insurance industries gives a broad perspective that will serve our clients well as we continue to grow.”

“I’ve watched PBG’s name come up again and again across the homebuilding and lending world as a firm people trust,” Kay said. “Making the move here felt like a natural next step, and I’m excited to help the firm deepen those relationships even further.”

Kay holds an MBA from the Paul Merage School of Business at the University of California at Irvine, and a bachelor’s degree in finance from the University of Idaho. She also holds a Property & Casualty Insurance License from the Texas Department of Insurance, serves on the executive board of HomeAid North Texas and previously served on the board of Professional Women in Building for the Dallas Builders Association.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

An analysis from California-based lender NatEquity Inc. examines the growing range of home equity products available to homeowners ages 62 and older — including traditional reverse mortgages, senior home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), home equity investments (HEIs) and the company’s proprietary HouseMoney product.

The analysis — developed for mortgage industry professionals and shared with HousingWire‘s Reverse Mortgage Daily (RMD) — compares product structures, costs, repayment terms, servicing models, investor considerations and long-term viability.

It comes as lenders and investors continue to explore alternatives to federally insured Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs), which were surpassed by proprietary products in the first quarter of 2026 in terms of funded volume.

According to NatEquity’s analysis, conducted by CEO Peter Mazonas, HECMs remain the most established senior home equity product, having been introduced in the late 1980s through a program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Senior HELOCs and HEIs largely emerged following the 2008 financial crisis as the market developed new ways for homeowners to access housing wealth outside of federally insured programs.

The comparison highlights differences in how each product provides access to equity:

• HECMs generally allow borrowers to access a portion of their home value through a lump sum, monthly payments or a line of credit, with repayment typically deferred until the borrower dies or permanently leaves the home.
• Senior HELOCs provide revolving access to credit, often with variable interest rates.
• HEIs generally provide an upfront payment in exchange for a share of future home price appreciation.
• HouseMoney combines an upfront advance with monthly payments tied to changes in the cost of living, according to NatEquity.

Mazonas said product structures can affect how much equity remains for borrowers and their heirs over time.

“What a senior HELOC does is it starts charging interest at a fairly high rate from the beginning of the loan, and your interest is building up, accumulating and compounding,” Mazonas told RMD. “Basically, you’re eating up the home value on money that was borrowed for a good purpose, but the interest is what catches up to you.”

He added that shared-appreciation products approach costs differently by exchanging future home value growth for access to funds.

The comparison also examines the costs associated with each product. HECMs generally include interest rate charges and annual mortgage insurance premiums, while senior HELOCs carry variable interest costs. HEIs rely on appreciation-sharing arrangements, which can increase costs if home prices rise significantly.

NatEquity’s report also addresses regulatory and legal questions surrounding newer home equity products, including whether some HEI agreements could be considered reverse mortgages under state or federal law.

Mazonas said recent litigation involving HEI providers has centered on whether certain contracts with older homeowners function as loans rather than investments.

“Any loan made to a senior who’s 62 or older is considered by state statute, maybe federal statute, to be a reverse mortgage,” he said, referring to legal challenges involving shared-equity providers.

He pointed to cases involving HEI providers that have settled before courts issued rulings on whether the products should be classified as reverse mortgages subject to additional consumer protections.

The document references court decisions and industry research on these issues, although its conclusions reflect NatEquity’s interpretation of the evolving regulatory environment.

Beyond borrower features, the comparison evaluates how products are serviced and financed. It notes that HECMs are securitized through Ginnie Mae programs, while many HELOCs and HEIs are held through private investment structures.

NatEquity said servicing models can influence borrower experience, particularly for older homeowners who may use home equity products over extended periods.

Mazonas, who has spent more than three decades in the reverse mortgage industry, said the market has increasingly focused on products that are easier to securitize and sell to investors.

“Over the last 35 years, the whole industry has gone to quicker, easier-to-sell, higher-dollar-amount loans which are easier to securitize and sell to private equity,” he said.

NatEquity also pointed to lessons from previous home equity lending cycles, including the senior HELOC expansion of the 2000s. The company said roughly $400 billion in HELOCs eventually reset into short-term amortizing loans that many borrowers were unable to refinance.

The comparison concludes that demand for additional senior home equity options is likely to grow as older homeowners seek ways to access housing wealth. The assessment reflects NatEquity’s views and its positioning of HouseMoney within the broader home equity market.

This article was written by Sarah Wolak and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Last week Kelley Blue Book entered the real estate space by launching Kelley Blue Book Homes, a home valuation platform for consumers and another lead generation tool for real estate professionals. 

While Russ Cofano, a co-founder of Alloy Advisors feels that the industry “needs another lead generation platform like it needs a hole in the head,” he does find the new offering, which is a joint venture between valuation and appraisal technology firm True Footage and Kelley Blue Book parent company Cox Enterprises, to be interesting.

“So far no portal, not even Zillow, has nailed seller lead generation,” Cofano said. “Zillow created the Zestimate as a way of creating a two-sided marketplace with buyers and sellers and a lot of homeowners still go to Zillow to look at the Zestimate on their home, but Zillow has not been able to monetize that in the same way they have monetized buyer leads.” 

Who is the competition? 

One party Cofano believes will be watching Kelley Blue Book Homes closely is Rocket Companies, which purchased Redfin and mortgage servicer Mr. Cooper last year.

“Rocket-Redfin is going to be looking at this and determining whether this type of human-aided, valuation, seller-intent model can actually generate listings and if it does, who is going to have the most sellers coming through their pipeline to really expand something like this? Rocket,” he said.

Like Cofano, Craig McClelland, a partner at McClelland & Hahn Consulting, sees Kelley Blue Book Homes not as competing with Zillow, but with mortgage servicers. 

“The mortgage servicers are out there talking to their database, which are consumers that own homes, telling them how much their property is worth because maybe they are interested in a HELOC or refinancing or maybe even selling,” McClelland said. “For decades now these companies have been creating automated valuation models and putting them in front of their customers’ faces to try to create business, so this is really who Kelley Blue Book is competing against.” 

Up against the big dogs

While Amit Kulkarni, the other co-founder of Alloy Advisors, agrees that this is something mortgage services and especially Rocket will be watching closely to see if it worth putting their own spin on a similar product, he questions why a company would want to enter a space with such established players. 

“I question the viability of the model because why are you different or better than a Lending Tree or Rocket?” Kulkarni said. “It is very hard to come into an established mature category with a product that is not differentiated from those that already exist.” 

Kulkarni said he currently sees the real estate space as an overcrowded watering hole in the Sahara during a drought.

“All the antelope, zebras, lion, giraffes and rhinos are around this tiny little puddle of water trying to suck out the last bit of moisture so they can stay alive — that is what the industry feels like to me,” Kulkarni said. “There are a finite number of transactions and more and more animals coming to this transaction watering hole all trying to drink from this very finite number of transactions. What puzzles me is that everyone is launching these new initiatives, but none of them are going to add a single transaction to the mix, they are just trying to further extract value from what already exists.” 

Citing data from the National Association of Realtors (NAR), Kulkarni said typically two-thirds of sellers find their real estate agent as a referral from a friend or family member. This leaves just 33% of all home sellers available on the open market, which he said greatly limits Kelley Blue Book Homes’ pool of potential seller leads to send to agents who are part of the lead generation platform. 

“It quite honestly just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me especially because I don’t see this product being differentiated enough that people are going to flock to it,” Kulkarni said. 

McClelland added that just because the industry adds 20% more lead sources doesn’t mean that the industry suddenly has 20% more leads. 

“It is just a new delivery system delivering the same lead,” McClelland said. “How many different paths can you take to get to the same lead?” 

However, if Kelley Blue Book Homes can find a way via company or data provider partnerships to make itself the gold standard in property valuations, just like it is in car valuations, Kulkarni could see a path toward success for the venture. 

Making a splash

As Cofano looks to see what impact Kelley Blue Book Homes may have on the future of the real estate industry, his primary question is whether you can take a brand that is highly regarded and trusted outside of the real estate industry and marry it with a seller-intent model and an automated valuation model to create a seller lead generation platform that is better than what is already out there. 

McClelland shares a similar view. 

“Just because you do a great job valuing my 2002 Toyota Sentra, doesn’t mean that you can tell me what my 2017, seven bedroom, four and a half bathroom, 4,500 square foot house is worth,” he said. “Companies entering a new space live and die by their customer acquisition costs, and they are going to war against the mortgage servicers here. I think this is a much bigger play than people are anticipating.” 

Regardless of whether or not Kelley Blue Book Homes succeeds in this endeavor, Kulkarni is excited to see non-traditional real estate firms entering the industry, and he is looking forward to seeing the ideas and innovations players like Kelley Blue Book bring to housing. 

“Everyone is focusing on monetizing the agent and it feels like a lot of the consumer stuff has been forgotten because everyone is out there trying to make the agent the center of the universe when it should be the consumer, because ultimately they are the one that pays the bill,” Kulkarni said. “The newer companies that are coming in that are completely unfettered by relationships or other constraints are going to be able to innovate and do things differently. I’m really hoping that we are going to see some real innovation here over the next 18 to 36 months.”

This post was originally published on here. 

The former executive director of Georgia’s Hinesville Housing Authority and a business partner face federal charges in what prosecutors describe as a $2.5 million scheme that used false invoices, kickbacks and fraudulent payments over a four-year period.

Melanie S. Thompson and Toriono L. Byrd were indicted July 8 on charges including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and making false claims, according to a 20-page indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

The alleged fraud occurred from September 2019 until October 2023 — with Thompson accused of using her position to award contracts to Byrd without following standard bidding procedures.

Byrd operated Southeastern Coastal Property Maintenance Services LLC, a contractor that did business with the agency.

Thompson is accused of creating false invoices on her work computer, sometimes emailing them to herself, and authorizing payments for work that was either never completed or far exceeded the actual value of services rendered.

The indictment alleges Thompson directed repeated payments in amounts of $5,000 or less — a practice prosecutors say was intended to avoid detection by others at the agency. Byrd then allegedly paid kickbacks to Thompson from accounts he controlled.

Prosecutors also allege Thompson and Byrd were involved in a romantic relationship that was never disclosed to the Hinesville Housing Authority.

The Hinesville Housing Authority provides affordable housing to low-income individuals, families, seniors and persons with disabilities. It operates 128 public housing units and other rental assistance programs in Liberty County, Georgia.

The scheme included Thompson incorporating Strategic Logistics Transportation Services LLC in September 2019 and purchasing two semi-trucks for nearly $30,000 soon thereafter.

During roughly the same period, Thompson is accused of directing several fraudulent “bonus” payments to her own Navy Federal Credit Union account — also totaling nearly $30,000.

The trucks were registered to Strategic Logistics Transportation Services LLC, which Thompson controlled, the indictment states.

In September 2020, Thompson issued a $5,000 cashier’s check from her personal account as a security deposit for a commercial lease she held jointly with Byrd, prosecutors said.

The pair also stored the semi-trucks at the same business address as the housing authority, according to the indictment.

The indictment details dozens of fraudulent payments, with checks and wire transfers said to be flowing from Hinesville Housing Authority accounts to ones controlled by Byrd.

On March, 19, 2021, alone, prosecutors allege Thompson authorized 50 fraudulent checks totaling more than $194,000.

She also allegedly authorized a monthly “stipend” coded as LCCHDO — a reference to the Liberty County Community Housing Development Organization — to which she was not entitled.

The government is seeking forfeiture of at least $3,039,516.76, along with a property in Savannah, Georgia, and any jewelry purchased with illicit funds.

This article was written by Jonathan Delozier and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation. It was reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Russell Vought, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), testified before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, arguing that the bureau has exceeded its statutory authority while lawmakers spar over its future.

During the contentious hearing — which marked Vought‘s first appearance before Congress in his role leading the CFPB — Vought defended the Trump administration’s overhaul of the agency and the rollback of the agency that he has overseen.

The hearing was convened to examine the bureau’s Spring 2026 report, which covers its activities from October 2024 through December 2025, as required under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Committee leaders also discussed a draft of the CFPB Reform Act of 2026, which would overhaul the bureau’s structure and authorities. The proposal would increase congressional oversight, revise the CFPB’s funding and governance, expand transparency and accountability requirements for rulemaking and enforcement, and recalibrate its supervisory and enforcement powers.

The proposal also includes an adjustment to the threshold for supervised institutions to $21 billion in assets to account for economic growth, up from the current threshold of $10 billion.

Vought told lawmakers during the hearing that the CFPB had become an agency that operated beyond its congressional mandate and imposed unnecessary costs on consumers and financial institutions. He said the bureau should not continue to exist in its current form and argued that Congress should subject the agency to the annual appropriations process rather than allowing it to receive funding directly from the Federal Reserve.

The hearing came as Vought’s tenure as acting director approaches its Aug. 1 expiration under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. President Donald Trump has nominated former CFPB official Brian Johnson to serve as the agency’s permanent director, although the Senate has not yet scheduled him for a confirmation hearing.

If Johnson is not confirmed before Vought’s acting service expires, acting Deputy Director Mark Paoletta could assume the role.

Vought defends CFPB ‘culture’

Republican lawmakers praised Vought’s efforts to scale back what they described as regulatory overreach under previous administrations. They highlighted the bureau’s move away from “regulation by enforcement,” revisions to rules such as the Section 1071 small-business data collection rule, and efforts to bring more CFPB activities under congressional control.

“We have changed the culture,” Vought said, noting the agency is “about half of what we were when we came into office.” He called on Congress to reduce the bureau director’s discretion by clarifying statutory standards and limiting areas where agency leadership can make broad policy choices.

Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky) defended Vought’s leadership choices. “If my friends on the other side of the aisle have anyone to blame for the actions that you have taken, they need to look in the mirror because they have given you the power that you have exercised here today.”

When asked about bringing the CFPB into the annual appropriations process, Vought said placing the bureau under the process would be the “most important reform lawmakers could make.” He argued that the agency’s current funding structure has contributed to what he called a “cavalier attitude” and a “swagger” at the bureau.

When asked about raising the CFPB’s supervision threshold for financial institutions from $10 billion to $21 billion in assets, Vought said the change would allow the bureau to focus oversight on larger, higher-risk institutions.

Democrats ‘ready for Vought to be gone’

Democrats, meanwhile, criticized Vought’s leadership, arguing that workforce cuts and reduced enforcement activity have weakened the CFPB’s ability to protect consumers. They accused him of undermining the agency’s mission by shrinking staff and limiting investigations.

“You’re not protecting consumers; you’re protecting big businesses,” said Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.)

Democratic lawmakers also raised concerns about the CFPB’s decision to dismiss or settle dozens of enforcement actions, its suspension of nonbank supervision and examinations, and its ongoing legal dispute with the National Treasury Employees Union over proposed workforce reductions.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said previous CFPB actions returned billions of dollars to consumers. He compared the agency’s enforcement role to law enforcement protecting the public from corporate misconduct.

“The only person successful in defunding the police, sir, is you,” Sherman said, arguing that the bureau had been weakened under Vought’s leadership.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y), questioned whether Vought — who has not been confirmed by the Senate — has the authority to make sweeping changes to the agency. Meeks and other Democrats argued that Congress created the CFPB with a mandate for robust supervision and enforcement that cannot be unilaterally scaled back.

“In your testimony, you’ve said, ‘We’ve sought to downscale this agency to the maximum extent possible.’ Then you said you don’t believe that the CFPB should exist in its current form, which is the form of which Congress created, not you, or the Dodd-Frank Act, which is still the law,” Meeks said. “You may not like it, but it is what Congress set forth.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, criticized Vought for “hiding while unlawfully trying, and thankfully failing, to dismantle the nation’s top consumer watchdog.”

“You’ve directed CFPB to drop enforcement actions even when the bad actor offered to compensate victims,” Waters said. “You’ve blocked billions of dollars from being returned to harmed American consumers. You’ve even been terrible for the financial services industry, denying or throwing out basic guidance and safeguards [the] industry had asked for.”

Waters also said that consumer complaints about financial practices have “exploded” under Vought’s tenure.

Consumer complaints

Lawmakers also questioned Vought about the CFPB’s approach to crypto-related consumer complaints and allegations of losses tied to digital assets. Vought defended the administration’s conduct and said the agency was focused on its statutory responsibilities.

The hearing also touched on the bureau’s handling of credit repair complaints. Sherman said credit repair companies have overwhelmed the CFPB’s complaint system with automated filings. Vought said the agency has added verification requirements, including confirmed email addresses and mobile phone numbers, to improve the integrity of its complaint process.

Vought confirmed during the testimony that the agency is nearing completion of a long-awaited open banking rule, but that the timing of the proposal will depend on the Senate confirmation process for Johnson

“It is one of those things that I would like a newly confirmed director to be able to finalize,” Vought said. “We are supportive of open banking as a concept, and we’re working hard on that rule.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Fairway Home Mortgage has launched Fairway SAFE (Senior Advocacy & Financial Education), a nonprofit initiative focused on helping seniors and their families recognize, prevent and respond to financial scams and exploitation, the company announced Wednesday.

Fairway SAFE is positioned as an education and advocacy arm that will offer free programming, resources and partnerships aimed at senior homeowners, caregivers and financial professionals. The launch comes as elder financial exploitation continues to climb, with federal and state regulators warning that social engineering, impersonation schemes, investment pitches and romance scams are increasingly targeting older adults.

“Financial security is about more than protecting assets — it’s about protecting confidence, independence and peace of mind,” Janet Koopman, president of Fairway SAFE, said in a statement. “Our mission is to give seniors and their families the knowledge and resources they need to recognize potential threats, ask questions without fear, and make informed financial decisions.”

To mark the launch, Fairway will host a free national webinar, “Stay Safe: Protecting Yourself from Scams & Financial Abuse,” on July 29. The one-hour session will feature attorney and fraud prevention expert Steven J. J. Weisman. It’s designed to provide practical steps attendees can apply immediately to better protect themselves and their families.

The webinar, open to seniors, caregivers and financial professionals, including reverse mortgage professionals, will cover:

• The scope of financial scams and elder exploitation
• Common tactics scammers use to gain trust and manipulate victims
• Populations that may be most vulnerable and why
• Emerging fraud trends affecting older adults
• Practical steps to protect personal finances and loved ones

“Education remains one of the most effective tools we have in the fight against financial fraud,” Weisman said in the news release. “Helping people recognize the warning signs before they become victims can make an enormous difference.”

The session will be held Wednesday, July 29, beginning at 2 p.m. ET and will be moderated by Koopman. Registration is available here.

Beyond the initial webinar, Fairway SAFE plans to grow its programming with additional webinars, educational materials, community partnerships and advocacy initiatives centered on fraud prevention and financial literacy for seniors.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Economic activity increased at a slight to moderate pace in 11 of 12 Federal Reserve districts during late May and June — matching the previous period’s pace.

Latest Federal Reserve Beige Book data shows consumer spending edging up, but higher fuel prices are dampening discretionary sales and pushing many households to seek cheaper goods.

Construction and real estate activity increased slightly overall, with several districts specifically highlighting growth in data center building.

Financial conditions held steady on balance, with commercial and consumer loan volumes both up modestly. Commercial loan quality was stable but consumer quality ticked down.

Beige Book respondents generally expect continued economic expansion, though several districts flagged elevated uncertainty around future fuel costs.

Regional real estate, construction trends vary

Boston reported slight expansion, with consumer spending buoyed by the World Cup but discretionary spending softening among lower-income households.

New York saw modest growth, with service sector activity finally picking up after a long weakness. Philadelphia rose slightly after a prior decrease — while Cleveland posted modest growth with robust selling price increases.

Richmond expanded moderately, with consumer spending holding up despite shifts in behavior — even among higher-income consumers.

Atlanta grew modestly, though residential and commercial real estate were little changed.

Chicago activity increased modestly, with construction and real estate up slightly.

Dallas rose moderately, with the real estate sector mixed, and San Francisco reported stable but muted activity amid steady conditions in real estate and financial services.

Employment gains widen, skilled labor remains scarce

Employment rose on balance, with five districts reporting modest, moderate or solid gains — up sharply from only one district in the prior period.

The remaining seven districts saw little to no change. Hiring occurred across manufacturing, construction and retail.

Skilled workers — especially technicians and tradespeople — remained difficult to find. A couple of districts reported small employment declines. Wage growth was modest to moderate in most districts, with two reporting only slight increases.

Some wage gains reflected heightened competition for skilled labor. A few districts noted that firms had increased use of artificial intelligence, both in hiring and screening processes and to boost worker productivity.

Prices still going up in some regions

Prices increased moderately overall, with nine districts reporting moderate growth, two robust growth and one slight growth. Compared with the prior period, price growth was the same or slower in all districts.

Non-labor input costs rose across services, construction and manufacturing — driven by higher energy, transportation and raw material expenses. Some contacts tied these increases to the Middle East conflict, while others pointed to tariffs.

Consumer prices continued to climb and a few districts noted greater price sensitivity among customers. In a couple of districts, selling prices grew less than input costs, crimping margins.

Expectations for future price growth varied. Some contacts see inflation persisting at its current pace, while others anticipate a slowdown — partly due to falling fuel prices.

This article was written by Jonathan Delozier and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation. It was reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

The build-to-rent (BTR) industry can finally breathe a collective sigh of relief after the passage of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act ended months of legislative uncertainty. 

This development is a win for the industry. But questions remain about how much uncertainty still looms over future legislation and implementation, how quickly BTR can recover the ground it lost, and where investment and demand go from here. 

The final bill removed provisions from an earlier Senate version that would have denied BTR communities an exemption from the institutional investor ban. It also would have imposed a seven-year sell-off requirement on new BTR developments. 

These provisions, added at the last minute to an earlier Senate version of the bill in March, largely froze capital investment in new BTR projects. That’s because the regulations would have made it difficult for investors to generate a return on their investment. 

“It really completely shut down the market, and most of the pipeline basically stopped. As a developer, it was difficult, because if you’re going to buy land, you have a certain timeline by which you have to buy that land,” Alex Chalmers, managing partner at Material Capital Partners, told HousingWire‘s TBD. 

“The land sellers aren’t going to extend it. They just want to sell their land, right? They don’t care if it goes to a BTR community or whatever else. So that was a real pinch point, I think, for a lot of people, and it really cut off a lot of the new project pipeline.”

Now that this legislative uncertainty is largely resolved, capital is now beginning to flow back into BTR projects. But questions persist over how quickly the industry can make up lost ground, how the Department of the Treasury will interpret the law’s exemptions and what the future outlook holds for the industry.

Renewed optimism

With the potentially harmful provisions stripped from the final text of the bill, investors feel comfortable placing capital in BTR communities once again, Chalmers said.

In his experience, investor sentiment remained mixed until the Senate passed the bill on June 23. Since then, investment has started flowing back into the sector as investors became more confident in the bill’s fate. While it could take a few months for the industry to make up for lost ground, Material Capital Partners can already feel the positive effects of the bill’s passage. 

“At least for Material Capital Partners, we have a number of projects — probably at least five — that are able to go forward now, and that’ll create close to 1,200 new housing units just in the next 18 to 24 months.”

Tony Julianelle, CEO of Atlas Real Estate, a company that purchases and manages BTR communities, argued that investors never abandoned the sector. Instead, capital simply sat on the sidelines until there was more certainty. 

“I think everybody anticipated that this would get resolved,” Julianelle said. “I don’t think there are a lot of investors who just said, ‘Oh, you know what? No more built-to-rent, no more single-family, we’re just going to go buy self-storage.’ I don’t think there were a lot of people who said, ‘Let’s fully reallocate.’ I think it was more, ‘All right, hold on a minute, let’s see what happens.’”

Now, with the wait-and-see period over, many investors, developers and operators are working with restored confidence. 

“Build to rent is here to stay. It’s going to be a meaningful way to meet housing demand, and the capital is now in play, for sure,” Julianelle added. 

Lingering uncertainty

While the bill’s passage introduced short-term clarity, it may have introduced new questions. To understand why, it’s worth examining how the institutional investor ban is worded.

Section 1001 of the bill, titled “Home-ownership for Main Street America,” defines single-family as traditional detached and attached single-family properties, as well as duplexes. Manufactured housing is omitted from the definition.

The section explicitly states that “no large institutional investor may purchase, or enter into a contract to directly or indirectly purchase, any single-family home” that aligns with this definition. 

The law’s exemptions largely pertain to new supply while banning the acquisition of existing homes. Purchases exempt from the ban include newly built, renovated or converted homes sold outright by an investor; homes built or bought under build-to-rent or renovate-to-rent programs; homes tied to homeownership or rent-to-own programs; and homes in 55-and-older communities. Purchases from another compliant institutional investor are also exempt. 

Section 1001 mainly targets individual purchases in for-sale communities, a practice that is not very common. As a result, the ban generates far more headlines than it does actual market impact.

“Most of the institutional investors have frankly gotten out of the market of buying up existing homes that they can rent. … At least with the folks that I work with day in and day out, I don’t think this really has an adverse impact on them,” said Cameron Cosby, a partner at Sullivan & Worcester and a tax attorney who works with large institutional investors and real estate investment trusts (REITs). 

But to discourage firms that already own at least 350 single-family homes from buying more nonexempt properties, the legislation would levy a “civil penalty in an amount that is not more than $1,000,000 per violation, or 3 times the purchase price of the property involved, whichever is greater.”

The Secretary of the Treasury, or the Attorney General at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury, is permitted to levy this penalty on a large institutional investor that violates this provision. 

Giving Treasury this power may not seem like a big deal in and of itself, since BTR is exempt. But there is also a risk that Treasury’s regulatory authority could broaden over time, or that the federal agency could choose to interpret and apply the bill’s language in a manner that departs from Congress‘s original intent.

“The fact that there’s now an act in place that empowers Treasury to broadly make rules means that your industry can now be impacted by each administration’s desire to do rulemaking,” Julianelle explained. “Treasury now gets to make rules. Well, they can adjust those rules whenever they see fit, so you have to keep in mind that there’s some risk around that.”

Advocacy efforts continue

On July 14, a coalition of trade organizations — including the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), National Apartment Association (NAA), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), National Rental Housing Coalition (NRHC) and Nareit — submitted a letter to the Treasury to request clarification on this very concern. 

The coalition is concerned that ambiguous statutory language could be misread to also sweep BTR communities into the ban, even though they argue that BTR was clearly exempt. The letter requested that the Treasury quickly clarify that it will uphold the intent of the legislation, which is to ensure that BTR isn’t adversely affected. 

“To ensure BTR investments can move forward and help spur housing supply, we request that Treasury signal its intention to issue regulations consistent with this view and subsequently issue such regulations. This will unlock and unleash the BTR market so that it can continue to play an integral role in fostering housing supply and ensuring all Americans have a safe and decent place to call home,” the letter read. 

Owen Caine, NAA’s assistant vice president of federal legislative affairs Vice President of Federal Legislative Affairs, said in an interview that the letter is aimed at giving the BTR industry some much-needed clarity. 

“[The bill] did still leave some discretionary work for the regulatory space, specifically in Treasury, to make certain definitional determinations. You can argue whether it’s easier to make those definitions in Congress or in regulatory actions, right? It’s all the same work and the same conversation,” Caine said. 

While there is still work to be done, NAA and other rental housing groups indicated that they are pleased with the final version of the bill. 

“If no one is completely happy, that’s a sign of a good piece of legislation in my mind. There’s always a give and take, and there are always things that have to be worked out post-mortem on these things,” Caine added. 

The future of BTR

On one hand, some industry insiders argue that the months-long uncertainty generated by the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act — and the threat of future legislative uncertainty — could keep some investors away from the industry. 

There’s also the fact that the bill added in some extra layers of compliance, including the establishment of a Renter Outreach Resource for tenants living in single-family homes owned by institutional landlords.

Under this federal program, renters of institutional investor-owned homes can report federal violations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the federal agency is then required to investigate them. Institutional investors, in turn, must inform their renters about the program and maintain a dedicated website, among other requirements. 

“It doesn’t necessarily restrict what institutional investors can do, but it’s just an additional bureaucratic headache for them to have to deal with,” Cosby explained. 

But others in the industry argue that restrictions on other forms of single-family rentals could push more institutional capital toward purpose-built BTR communities. 

What’s indisputable, though, is that BTR has been gaining traction for many years, particularly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Estimates from Arbor Realty Trust and Chandan Economics show that BTR accounted for about 4% of all single-family rentals in 2021. By 2024, that share rose to a peak of 9% before sliding down to 7.2% last year. 

Part of this correction stems from the fact that BTR is concentrated most heavily in the Sun Belt, a region that has seen a broader construction slowdown over the past couple years after a post-COVID building boom left an excess of new supply. 

George Ratiu, vice president of research at NAA, noted that despite the recent correction, the sector’s growth trajectory points to continued strong investor demand in the near and long term alike.

“There are people who need housing that is hard to find on the for-sale side, and sometimes if they have kids or they want a different school district, a single-family rental is a much more attractive option,” Ratiu said.

“The economics here speak quite loudly. Demand for the single-family rental home remains viable and quite strong. I expect that … investors, with more clarity that the bill offers, are going to return to the market.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Jeanette Cutler moved to Baird & Warner as chief marketing officer from Beam Suntory, where she served as global vice president of brand and capability.

The Chicago-based brokerage announced her appointment on Monday, saying she will oversee strategic marketing, brand, communications and growth programs for the 170-year-old, family-owned firm.

Cutler brings experience from the consumer packaged goods and luxury sectors, most recently at Beam Suntory, where she worked across a portfolio of internationally recognized spirits brands. Her background includes developing brand platforms intended to support both revenue growth and customer engagement.

At Baird & Warner, she is charged with aligning brand positioning and business performance for the company and its nearly 2,700 broker associates and staff in 30 offices, according to the announcement. Her remit covers marketing, communications and brand development, with a mandate to partner with leadership to support agent productivity and reinforce the firm’s market share in Chicagoland.

“Jeanette is an accomplished marketing leader with expertise in brand strategy, communications and operations that will be a tremendous asset as we continue to grow and innovate,” Steve Baird, president and CEO of Baird & Warner, said in the announcement. “She has a proven track record of building brands, driving business results and creating connections that resonate with consumers.”

Cutler said she was attracted to Baird & Warner’s independent ownership and emphasis on agent support.

“Baird & Warner occupies a unique position as Chicago’s premier independent real estate brokerage,” Cutler said. “I was drawn to the company’s culture of independence and focus on agent-first support through innovation to create better experiences and outcomes for agents and consumers.”

Her hire follows two other leadership moves this year: In May, the company named sixth-generation family member Lucy Baird chief stewardship officer and vice chair of the board, and elevated Laura Ellis to chief revenue officer.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

A bipartisan housing package that includes a proposal by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) to limit large private equity firms and institutional investors from expanding their single-family home portfolios has become law after President Donald Trump neither signed nor vetoed the legislation within the constitutionally required 10-day window.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act took effect July 11 without the president’s signature. Warnock’s office described the measure as the most significant federal housing package in a generation.

“I hear from Georgians across the state who have been clamoring for action from Washington on the affordable housing crisis, and this legislation is proof that when we center the people instead of the politics, we can get good policy done,” Warnock said in a statement. “I’m proud to have contributed to increasing our nation’s housing supply and lowering costs for hardworking Georgia families.”

The law prohibits large institutional investors that own or control at least 350 single-family homes from purchasing additional properties. The prohibition applies broadly to acquisitions — including purchases, transfers, mergers and bulk acquisitions — but does not require companies to sell homes they owned before the law took effect.

The legislation includes several exceptions. Institutional investors may continue to acquire newly constructed homes through build-to-rent developments; substantially rehabilitated homes through renovate-to-rent programs; homes purchased as part of qualifying lease-to-own and homeownership initiatives; properties acquired through foreclosure or other loss-mitigation activities; certain age-restricted housing communities; and transactions involving homes already owned by other institutional investors under specified conditions.

The new law addresses a January executive order issued by Trump that directs federal agencies to limit the role of large institutional investors in the single-family housing market. While the executive order focused on restricting the use of federal housing programs and called for legislation to codify the policy, the ROAD Act package establishes statutory limits on future purchases by covered institutional investors.

The broader housing legislation also includes provisions to increase housing supply; reform rural housing programs; encourage local governments and financial institutions to invest more in housing construction; provide grants and forgivable loans for home repairs and weatherizations; and penalize local governments that fail to meet housing goals.

The housing package also incorporates Warnock’s Appraisal Modernization Act, a measure intended to improve fairness in the home appraisal process.

The law comes as lawmakers and housing advocates continue to debate the role of institutional investors in the housing market. According to Warnock’s office, corporate investors own more than 72,000 single-family rental homes in the Atlanta metro area — more than one in four such properties in the region — and have expanded their presence into other parts of Georgia.

Warnock has argued that large private equity firms have made it more difficult for first-time and other prospective homebuyers to compete by purchasing homes in bulk and treating housing as an investment asset rather than as a place for families to live.

This post was originally published on here. 

Robin Rossmann will become chief financial officer of CoStar Group Inc. on July 31, 2026, moving into the role from his current post as managing director for Europe, the company announced on Monday.

Rossmann succeeds CFO Christian Lown, who is leaving to pursue an opportunity outside the company’s industry, the firm said in the announcement. CoStar said Lown’s departure was not related to any disagreement over its operations, policies or practices.

As CFO, Rossmann will lead CoStar’s global finance organization, overseeing financial and operational performance, capital allocation, financial planning and investor engagement, according to the announcement. He will report to founder and CEO Andy Florance.

Over the past two years, Rossmann has overseen a significant reset of CoStar’s European operations. The company said he eliminated about $51 million in costs — roughly 25% of its European cost structure — while still delivering double-digit revenue growth and launching CoStar in France.

Rossmann joined STR in 2016 to lead its businesses across EMEA, Asia Pacific and Latin America and became part of CoStar Group when it acquired STR in 2019. Over roughly a decade with STR and CoStar, he has helped launch products in global markets, execute and integrate acquisitions, scale international operations and drive strategic initiatives.

“Robin is a rare executive who combines deep financial expertise with proven operating leadership and a demonstrated ability to dramatically reduce costs while accelerating growth,” Florance said in the release, adding that Rossmann has delivered “strong organic revenue growth” and expanded margins across CoStar’s international businesses.

Rossmann, a chartered accountant, previously spent 13 years at Deloitte as a senior director advising global public and private real estate and hospitality companies in the United States, the United Kingdom and other markets. His work there included financial assurance, internal controls and risk management, due diligence, capital markets, debt advisory, valuation and investment appraisal.

“I look forward to partnering with Andy, our leadership team and our employees to drive disciplined capital allocation, enhance operational efficiency, expand margins and support continued profitable growth while delivering long-term value for our shareholders,” Rossmann said.

Florance thanked Lown for his service on behalf of the board and the company.

“We appreciate his service and wish him continued success in his future endeavors,” he added.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Inflation slowed in June amid a now-defunct Middle East ceasefire, casting doubt on a potential Federal Reserve rate hike next week.

The June Consumer Price Index (CPI) fell 0.4% on a seasonally adjusted basis, following a 0.5% rise in May, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was the largest month-over-month decline since April 2020, driven mainly by a 9.7% drop in gas prices when an agreement for a ceasefire in the U.S.-Iran conflict was signed.

First American senior economist Sam Williamson, however, noted that the bigger story was core inflation.

“Stripping out the volatile food and energy categories, core CPI held flat—its weakest reading since May 2020—as prices fell for auto insurance, apparel, and used cars,” Williamson said in a statement. “Even shelter, long the most stubborn component, cooled to a 0.1% gain, its smallest since January 2021.”

Before seasonal adjustments, inflation stood at 3.5% year-over-year in June, down from 4.2% in May, though it remains above the Fed’s 2% target.

Following the CPI data, monetary policy watchers increasingly believe the Fed will once again leave benchmark rates unchanged at their July meeting. This marks a sharp pivot from just one day ago when expectations for a rate hike were rising. As of Tuesday morning, the CME Group FedWatch Tool showed an 85.6% probability that rates will stay in the 3.50%-3.75% range, up from 58.3% on Monday.

“Still, one soft reading does not settle the inflation question, especially with the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge (PCE) still running hot,” Realtor.com senior economist Jake Krimmel said in a statement. “Two data points from May to June don’t constitute a trend for the FOMC. Fed Governor Christopher Waller said yesterday policymakers would need to see a sustained series of cooler readings, especially in core, before concluding elevated inflation is truly behind us.”

For the housing market, falling inflation — combined with a drop in Treasury yields — removes a source of upward pressure on mortgage rates in the near term. Krimmel noted that mortgage rates have hovered around 6.5% for nearly two months.

Williamson added that the data suggests rates aren’t likely headed higher in the near term. “That’s not the catalyst the housing market needs, but it’s one less headwind for a recovery still searching for momentum,” he said.

Looking forward, economists warn that conditions could change rapidly. Renewed hostilities between the U.S. and Iran have already eroded the interim agreement signed in June. On Monday, President Donald Trump said the U.S. would probably take over the Strait of Hormuz, following his declaration last week that the initial ceasefire agreement was over.

“With the Middle East ceasefire fragile and energy prices historically volatile, the durability of today’s relief will depend on whether core inflation keeps cooling in the months ahead, not just this one,” Krimmel said.

This article was written by Flávia Furlan Nunes and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

By now you have seen the headlines. Kelley Blue Book, the name your parents trusted when they shopped for a used car, has entered residential real estate, and the reaction across our industry was instant and familiar. Here comes another outside company trying to take over our business.

I understand the reflex. For two decades we have watched tech firms, portals and iBuyers march into our world, each promising efficiency while quietly angling to slip between us and the client. Bracing for impact is fair. But take a breath and look again, because I read this one very differently. Kelley Blue Book Homes is not the threat it appears to be. I think it may be one of the better things to happen to working agents in a long time.

Why this is not a company coming for your commission

Start with the model, because the model tells you everything. Kelley Blue Book Homes routes seller leads to agents who pay a monthly membership and clear a quality bar, screened on real performance, not just a signup. In early test markets, more than 17% of homeowners who got a price report listed within 90 days, so these are high-intent sellers, not tire-kickers. Read that carefully. The company is not replacing you. It is handing motivated sellers to you.

This is not a new creature. It is a familiar one in a fresh coat of paint. Agents have paid into portal lead programs for years. A company builds consumer traffic, then sells professionals access to it. Kelley Blue Book is doing the same thing, with one twist that favors you. Instead of surrendering a slice of your commission after a closing, you pay a flat fee up front.

Zillow’s real weapon was never the website. It was one word.

Here is something I have taught for years. Every dominant company owns one distinction nobody else can touch. Not 10 features. One. They plant a flag on a single hill in the consumer’s mind and defend it.

Zillow’s hill was the answer to a question every homeowner eventually asks. What is my home worth? Zillow branded that answer and named it the Zestimate. That word became the most valuable corner lot in the consumer’s mind, and Zillow has held the deed for close to 20 years. Everything else it sells, the leads, the advertising, the agent programs, sits in a house built on that lot. And the foot traffic is staggering. Zillow draws over 230 million page views a month, close to double Realtor.com, most beginning with someone typing their own address to see that number.

Here is what agents miss. Competitors have thrown enormous money at that hill and bounced off. Homes.com spent a fortune, Super Bowl ads and all, and Realtor.com has fought hard too, yet neither dislodged the trusted number. You cannot beat a brand’s core distinction by copying it. You have to already own a stronger version somewhere else.

Why Kelley Blue Book can do what no one else could

Which is exactly what Kelley Blue Book walks in holding. Ask who owned trusted pricing authority in the American mind before Zillow existed. It was Kelley Blue Book. For generations, when people wanted to know what something was worth, they reached for the Blue Book. That was cars, but the mental muscle is already built, and it does not reset when the asset changes. Kelley Blue Book is not asking people to believe something new, only to extend a trust they have carried their whole lives from one thing to another. That is a short walk no other portal can make, because none of them owned that ground to begin with.

And on accuracy, they are not arriving empty-handed. Let me be straight, because you deserve the real picture. Zillow itself publishes that its Zestimate for off-market homes, the number a homeowner sees when just checking, carries a national median error of roughly 7%. On a $500,000 home, that is a $35,000 miss in either direction. Kelley Blue Book Homes says its process is built to land within 3% of the sale price.

That 3% is Kelley Blue Book’s own early claim, and the two numbers are not measured the same way, so hold it loosely. But it is believable for a reason. The off-market Zestimate is passive. Nobody asks the homeowner anything. The Kelley Blue Book number comes after the owner submits photos, confirms condition, and flags renovations, then passes a quality check. It is a more involved number by design, aimed straight at the one spot Zillow has held unchallenged.

Why a working agent should quietly root for this

Here is the payoff, and it is why I am not worried. For nearly 20 years Zillow has held a monopoly on the number consumers care about most, and monopolies do not have to bend. They set the terms and change the rules on the agents who depend on them, because those agents have nowhere else to go. Competition rewrites that math. The moment Zillow faces a real rival for that trusted-number space, a rival with an older, stronger claim to pricing authority, it can no longer take that ground for granted. A company that loses its monopoly gets more flexible, not less. That is not a threat to us. That is leverage sliding, for once, toward the professional.

So no, this is not the barbarian at the gate. It is the first credible challenger to a brand that has held too much power over our industry for far too long, and we should welcome it in.

What agents can do

None of this changes the job. Whether a seller quotes a Zestimate or a Blue Book number, they arrive anchored to a figure a machine handed them, often one they nudged upward with flattering photos. Do not argue with the number. Guide the person holding it.

1.    Thank the number instead of fighting it. The homeowner did their homework, and telling them they are wrong makes you the opponent. Treat the estimate as a starting point, then be the person who turns a starting point into a strategy.

2.   Show them what the algorithm cannot see. No model has walked their street, stood in their kitchen, or weighed the buyer psychology in their price bracket this month. That is where your market analysis, your read on condition, and your sense of timing earn their place.

3.   Trade the role of price-teller for the role of strategist. Anyone can hand a seller a number now. Fewer can build the plan that reaches it. Make your value the plan and the guidance, because that is the part no tool has learned to replace.

Serve, don’t sell. Coach, don’t close.

A machine can hand a homeowner a number in 24 hours. It still cannot sit at their kitchen table and help them make the biggest financial decision of their life.

Darryl Davis, CSP, is a national real estate speaker, coach, and the bestselling author of the McGraw-Hill book How to Become a Power Agent in Real Estate. He is the founder of the POWER AGENT® Program, a coaching community that gives agents 600-plus done-for-you tools, scripts and strategies to list more, serve better, and grow with confidence. Start a free trial or join a weekly coaching webinar at DarrylSpeaks.com.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.

To contact the editor responsible for this piece: tracey@hwmedia.com

This post was originally published on here. 

Closinglock has released payoff statement retrieval and verification capabilities within its escrow management platform, allowing title and settlement teams to request mortgage payoff statements, receive verification and obtain insurance coverage within a single workflow.

The company said the new functionality is designed to reduce delays and errors associated with the payoff process.

Closinglock said payoff statements and verifications can now be returned within its platform and integrated into title production software systems, including SoftPro, RamQuest, Resware and Settlor.

“The handoff between verification and execution is where the real risk has always lived, not the request itself. Closing that gap means connecting the entire process, from request to insured outcome, which is exactly what we’ve built,” said Ben Brooks, vice president of product at Closinglock.

Once a request is submitted, Closinglock automatically contacts the lender or mortgage servicer, retrieves the payoff statement, verifies the information and returns it to the title team.

Leaders said a process that traditionally can take up to 75 minutes can now be initiated in under a minute.

The new capability is the latest expansion of Closinglock’s escrow management platform.

“Payoff retrieval is one piece of a much bigger problem,” said Andy White, CEO of Closinglock. “Every step in a closing where money changes hands, from the first deposit to the final wire, should be verified, insured, and connected. That’s how money should move in real estate and that’s what we’re building.”

Closinglock said its platform has protected more than $600 billion across 2 million transactions, with no reported losses from fraud.

The company said the payoff retrieval and verification release is the first step toward an end-to-end lender payoff workflow that will connect seller authorization, retrieval, verification, review, approval and wire execution within a single process.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Older adults with difficulty living independently are more likely to remain in their homes when states devote a larger share of long-term care spending to home- and community-based services, according to a new study.

Researchers examined whether state investments in home- and community-based services — known as HCBS — were associated with changes in where older adults lived, including whether they moved, lived with adult children or entered group housing settings.

The study, published by JAMA Health Forum, analyzed data from 7.35 million older adults using U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey records from 2009 through 2021.

The findings suggest that expanding access to in-home assistance may help older adults avoid unwanted moves and maintain greater independence.

“Most older adults prefer to remain in their own homes and communities,” researchers wrote. “[They want to] remain autonomous, maintain community-based social ties, and avoid the negative stigma associated with institutional living, (ie, aging in place).

“However, changes in cognitive and functional status during the aging process are associated with an increased risk of dementia and relocating and entering institutional care or living with adult children. These risks may be mitigated through high-quality long-term care.”

Greater HCBS investment tied to fewer residential changes

Among older adults with independent living difficulties, a 20-percentage-point increase in a state’s share of long-term services and support spending directed toward HCBS was associated with a 2.6-percentage-point lower likelihood of living in group quarters, such as institutional or other congregate settings.

The same increase was linked to an 0.8-percentage-point decrease in living with adult children, a 1-percentage-point increase in remaining in the same residence, and lower rates of both in-state and out-of-state moves.

Researchers said the results indicate that stronger HCBS systems may reduce the need for older adults with functional limitations to relocate for care or depend as heavily on family members for housing support.

The study also found some evidence that expanded HCBS availability may increase Medicaid enrollment among some older adults, but researchers described the effect as modest and inconsistent across analyses.

While public programs play a major role in supporting aging in place, many older adults and families also rely on personal resources to pay for modifications and services that allow someone to remain safely at home.

For homeowners with significant equity, reverse mortgages can be one option to help fund aging-in-place expenses, including home accessibility improvements, in-home care costs and other long-term support needs.

Policy focus shifts toward community-based care

The researchers said the findings support continued investment in HCBS programs, workforce development and broader access to noninstitutional care.

The study’s authors noted that the U.S. population is aging rapidly, with older adults expected to make up a growing share of the population in coming decades.

As demand for long-term care rises, policymakers face increasing pressure to expand options that allow people to receive assistance outside nursing homes and other institutional settings.

The researchers concluded that HCBS investments may provide benefits beyond direct services by helping older adults maintain residential stability while reducing disruptions for families and caregivers.

This article was written by Jonathan Delozier and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation. It was reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Shareholders at both The Real Brokerage and REMAX will convene virtually on August 14 to vote on the proposed merger between the two firms, creating the Real REMAX Group.

According to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission late last week, Real’s shareholders will vote on the arrangement of the deal, while REMAX shareholders will vote on the merger as well as share issuance tied to REMAX’s acquisition of REMAX co-founder Dave Liniger’s investment firm RIHI Inc, which he and his family used to hold shares in REMAX. 

In addition to gaining shareholder approval, the merger still needs to clear regulatory and court approvals it is subject to under provincial law in British Columbia, Canada. 

According to the initial terms of the deal published in April, when the merger was announced, Real shareholders would own over 60% of the combined company, while former REMAX shareholders would own roughly 40%. 

The terms of the deal outlined in the recent SEC filings show that Real shareholders would go through a 10-for-1 share consolidation and receive shares in the new holding company, while REMAX Class A stockholders may choose either stock in the new company or $13.80 per share in cash. Between $60 million and $80 million in cash has been allotted to be paid to REMAX stockholders, with a requirement to meet the $60 million minimum. 

If the deal closes, the new holding company is expected to trade on the Nasdaq under Real’s current symbol REAX. The firms had previously announced that they expect the deal to close sometime in the second half of 2026.

This post was originally published on here. 

The Kogevinas Group has left Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices to join Sotheby’s International Realty – Montecito Brokerage, according to an announcement on Monday.

Led by Nancy Kogevinas, the seven-member team was recognized as the No. 36 small team in the nation and the No. 13 small team in California in the 2026 RealTrends Verified rankings, based on 2025 production. The group closed $265.5 million in sales volume in 2025 and 44 transaction sides, according to RealTrends Verified data. 

Over more than three decades in real estate, Kogevinas and her team have represented buyers and sellers across Southern California, from Montecito and Santa Barbara to Los Angeles, Ojai and Santa Ynez.

“Sotheby’s International Realty’s rich heritage, global leadership, and unwavering commitment to excellence have established it as one of the world’s premier luxury brands,” Kogevinas said in a statement.

The team includes Nancy Kogevinas, founder and managing partner; Linos Kogevinas, partner and broker associate; Alex Kogevinas, partner and real estate advisor; Bella Fredericks, partner and real estate advisor; Olivia Ruest, partner and real estate advisor; Charlotte Mueller, marketing director; and Ella Colby, operations manager.

So far in 2026, the team has closed more than $161 million in sales volume, including six transactions above $10 million, according to the release. 

“The Kogevinas Group has built an exceptional reputation through decades of market knowledge, trusted client relationships, and consistent results,” Philip White, president and CEO of Sotheby’s International Realty, said in the announcement. “Their expertise strengthens our presence on California’s Central Coast and further expands the depth of experience available across our global network.”

The Kogevinas Group will be based out of Sotheby’s International Realty – Montecito Brokerage, part of the company’s Southern California operations.

This article was written by Brooklee Han and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is now the law of the land after President Donald Trump allowed a constitutional deadline to pass without signing or vetoing the bipartisan legislation.

Legislation — widely regarded as the most comprehensive federal housing package in decades — cleared the Senate on an 85-5 vote and passed the House on a 358-32 vote before reaching Trump’s desk.

Trump had previously canceled a planned bill signing ceremony and later announced he would not sign the legislation as part of a protest tied to the stalled SAVE America Act, an unrelated elections proposal.

Bill provisions are intended to address the nation’s housing affordability crisis by encouraging more housing production, reducing regulatory barriers, expanding financing opportunities and increasing access to homeownership.

Supporters from both parties said the legislation becoming law marks a significant milestone.

“With or without the president’s signature, the Road to Housing Act becoming law is a win for Virginians and families across the country,” said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. “As housing prices reach near-record highs, this bipartisan legislation will deliver real relief to veterans, renters, first-time homebuyers and rural residents in Virginia and across the country.”

Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., who helped lead the legislation in the House, called the measure a major bipartisan accomplishment.

“I am thrilled that the ’21st Century ROAD to Housing Act’ is now officially law,” Flood said. “While the journey was long and, at times, delicate, we arrived at the right outcome with a meaningful bipartisan housing bill that slashes red tape, lowers housing costs and helps put the American dream of homeownership within reach for more hardworking families.

“Simply put: This is legislation that the American people can be proud of.”

What the law does

The legislation targets one of the biggest drivers of high housing costs — a shortage of available homes.

Its provisions include streamlining portions of the federal review process for qualifying housing developments, promoting manufactured and modular housing, creating an FHA small-dollar mortgage pilot program, increasing FHA multifamily loan limits and authorizing additional housing and community development initiatives.

The law also includes measures designed to limit certain future purchases of single-family homes by large institutional investors.

“The president had every opportunity to sign this bipartisan bill into law, and he refused to, but the housing affordability crisis cannot wait,” Warner added. “This landmark law will boost the housing supply while lowering costs, protect veterans and renters and prevent housing in rural areas from being bought up by corporate investors.

“With the passage of this legislation, American families are one step closer to affording a place to call home.”

Why it matters for real estate agents

For real estate agents, the legislation could improve market conditions over time by increasing housing inventory and creating more opportunities for buyers and sellers.

Many markets have struggled with historically low inventory — limiting transaction volume and making it more difficult for buyers to find homes. If the law succeeds in encouraging additional construction, agents could eventually benefit from more listings, stronger buyer activity and a healthier balance between supply and demand.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) said the legislation reflects years of advocacy focused on expanding housing opportunities.

“This law combines nearly 50 carefully negotiated measures to increase housing supply, improve affordability, expand access to homeownership, strengthen housing finance and support veterans,” NAR said. “For Realtors, this law is more than a legislative victory. It shows what sustained advocacy and bipartisan leadership can accomplish to expand housing opportunities and strengthen communities nationwide.”

The FHA small-dollar mortgage pilot could also expand financing opportunities for lower-priced homes — potentially bringing more first-time buyers into the market.

Meanwhile, provisions supporting manufactured and modular housing could create additional inventory options for consumers who have been priced out of traditional single-family homes, experts say.

What it means for brokerages

Brokerages also stand to benefit if the legislation succeeds in increasing housing production.

More available homes generally translate into more transactions, benefiting residential brokerages as well as affiliated mortgage, title and settlement businesses.

Firms with strong relationships in the new-construction sector could see additional opportunities if builders respond by accelerating development.

The law’s provisions affecting institutional investors may also modestly reduce competition for some single-family homes — although the impact is expected to vary because investor ownership remains concentrated in certain metropolitan markets.

What homebuyers should know

For homebuyers, the legislation is designed to improve affordability over the long term rather than provide immediate financial assistance.

Any increase in available homes is expected to occur gradually as developments move through the construction pipeline.

Buyers should not expect an immediate drop in home prices or a sudden increase in inventory, but the law could eventually expand choices through additional housing production, manufactured housing options and improved financing for lower-cost homes.

The American Land Title Association (ALTA) welcomed the legislation becoming law, saying it represents an important step toward expanding homeownership opportunities.

ALTA CEO Chris Morton said, “This is a big win for the American people. Homeownership is one of the most important ways families build stability, security and generational wealth — and the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is an important step toward helping more Americans achieve that dream.”

While the law is unlikely to solve the nation’s housing affordability crisis on its own, it represents one of the most significant federal housing reforms in decades and could reshape residential real estate markets over the coming years.

This article was written by Jonathan Delozier and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation. It was reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) released updated guidance last week clarifying how office-exclusive listings and pre-marketing options must operate within multiple listing services, reinforcing brokers’ duties to follow local MLS rules and the Clear Cooperation Policy.

The resource, titled “Office Exclusive Listings / Pre-Marketing Guidance,” is aimed at helping agents and brokers explain listing choices to sellers and stay compliant with MLS submission and marketing rules, according to the document.

In the guidance, NAR reiterated that an office-exclusive listing is an option a seller can choose when they want their property listed with limited exposure and no public marketing.

Under the guidance, an office-exclusive listing is filed with the MLS, shared only with agents within the listing firm, as allowed by the listing contract, is not publicly marketed and is not disseminated to MLS participants and subscribers outside the listing firm. 

NAR emphasizes that the choice to use this option “belongs entirely to the seller” and must be based on the seller’s best interests, which can include health, safety, privacy or other factors that outweigh the benefits of broad market exposure and broker cooperation through the MLS.

Pre-marketing options tied to local MLS rules

The guidance also addresses pre-marketing listing options such as “Coming Soon” statuses and delayed marketing exempt listings (DMELs). These options may give sellers and listing brokers more flexibility around timing and exposure, but they must operate within MLS rules.

According to NAR, local pre-marketing options, where offered, must comply with local MLS rules, including submission requirements and deadlines and follow the seller’s informed instructions. Sample use cases cited in the document include early marketing strategies, managing property preparation timelines, generating interest before a full launch and limiting exposure before full launch.

Unlike true office exclusives, many pre-marketing statuses are still considered on-market or partially on-market. NAR notes that when a listing is already filed with the MLS and available to other participants and subscribers, the listing brokerage is in compliance, even if exposure is limited or delayed under a local status.

The guidance points out that some states, including Wisconsin, Washington and Connecticut, have enacted laws or regulatory requirements that affect pre-marketing practices. NAR urges brokers to consult state law and licensing authorities in addition to MLS rules.

Broker responsibilities: informed choice and disclosure

Before using an office-exclusive listing or a pre-marketing option, NAR says listing brokers must explain all listing options to the seller, including how each aligns with the seller’s goals, marketing strategy and best interests; secure the seller’s informed instructions; and complete required disclosures for office-exclusive and delayed marketing exempt listings.

The required disclosures must disclose the professional relationship between the MLS participant and the seller, acknowledge that the seller understands the MLS benefits they are waiving or delaying, such as broad and immediate exposure and confirm that the seller’s decision that their listing will not be publicly marketed and disseminated by the MLS (office exclusive) or will not have immediate public marketing through IDX and syndication (delayed marketing). 

NAR’s guidance notes that local MLSs may impose additional disclosure requirements for “Coming Soon” and other pre-marketing options.

Clear Cooperation: when public marketing triggers MLS submission

The guidance includes a compliance checklist tied to the Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP), which requires MLS participants to submit a listing to the MLS within one business day of public marketing.

If a listing is an office exclusive, NAR’s guidance outlines two scenarios as to when the listing must be submitted to the MLS. This includes if the listing is publicly marketed or if the listing broker wants to tell an outside broker or agent in a way that is not one-to-one, broker-to-broker communication.

Even if the listing broker does market it through one-to-one, broker-to-broker communication, they must obtain a disclosure ensuring that the receiving broker does not market or show the property. Any marketing or showing that reaches beyond true one-to-one contact could trigger Clear Cooperation requirements, NAR said.

Previous NAR guidance outlines one-to-one, broker-to-broker communication as directly telling one other agent or broker either verbally or in writing about a listing.

MLS, VOWs and enforcement

The document also restates NAR’s position on the MLS as a “pro-competitive, pro-consumer” system that benefits buyers, sellers and brokers through transparency and cooperation.

On virtual office websites (VOWs), NAR says that to support cooperation, fair housing and transparency — and based on prior discussions with the U.S. Department of Justice  (DOJ) — all active listings in an MLS must be available through a VOW data feed.

MLSs have discretion to define “active” versus “non-active” listings, but NAR stresses that statuses must accurately represent the property’s availability. Some MLSs treat listings as non-active or off-market if the property cannot be shown, is not tracking days on market or does not have a list price.

Local MLSs are responsible for enforcing their own rules, including Clear Cooperation, and for evaluating potential violations and sanctions. Participants are expected to understand and explain those rules to clients, according to NAR.

This guidance comes as various industry players roll out pre-marketing products and others look to explore private listing networks.

This article was written by Brooklee Han and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Meridian Title Corp. has acquired IN Title Company, expanding its presence in Indiana and growing its network to 43 offices across Indiana and Michigan.

IN Title Company, which serves Delaware and Henry counties, will continue operating with its existing team while gaining access to Meridian’s technology, resources and expanded title service offerings.

According to Jim Smith, co-president and attorney at IN Title Company, “This partnership allows us to continue serving our clients with the same local focus, while gaining access to additional resources and technology to support our growth.”

Jim Trulock, co-president and attorney at IN Title Company, said the decision followed discussions with Meridian’s leadership team.

“After getting to know Randy, Terri and the broader Meridian team, we are confident that this is the right partnership for our employees and our clients,” Trulock said.

IN Title Company is a full-service title agency with offices in Muncie and New Castle, Indiana, handling residential and commercial real estate transactions throughout its service area.

The acquisition increases Meridian’s workforce to more than 230 employees and enables IN Title Company to offer additional services, including 1031 tax-free exchange transactions, tax sale property services and title services in additional states, including Michigan, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

Founded in 1938 and headquartered in South Bend, Indiana, Meridian Title provides title insurance, title research, escrow and closing services, tax sale certification and support for residential, commercial, new construction, land development and default transactions.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Higher mortgage rates will weigh on second-quarter originations and third-quarter guidance for nonbank lenders, even as slower prepayments bolster servicing income, BTIG analysts said in a report issued Monday.

Earnings season will start on Tuesday with Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, giving investors something to chew on before the publicly traded nonbanks deliver their results for the period. BTIG kept its estimates largely unchanged compared to a mid-June update.

“The impact of rates continues to be the biggest driver of the nonbank originators in the near term,” the BTIG analysts wrote. “The more balanced business models will benefit from the positive servicing impact of higher rates.”

Across its coverage universe — loanDepot, PennyMac Financial Services, Rithm Capital, Rocket Companies and United Wholesale Mortgage — BTIG expects second-quarter origination volume to rise about 3% from the prior quarter. The volume forecast is at $154.5 billion for its coverage list, below consensus expectations of $159 billion.

Meanwhile, for the third quarter of 2026, BTIG expects a 3% decline in origination volume for its coverage universe, compared to consensus expectations for a 1% increase. But the analysts added that “we see the risks as being skewed to the downside with 3Q guidance given the current rate environment.”

Company performance

The analysts said profitability will be pressured in the second quarter due to timing differences between rate locks and funded loans. Lock volumes, which drive revenue, are running below funded volumes, which drive expenses, as higher rates suppress new demand. BTIG estimates lock volume for its coverage list will be down 1% in the second quarter.

Gain-on-sale (GOS) margins are expected to be modestly higher in the second quarter, driven largely by a mix shift away from refinances toward second liens, which typically carry higher margins. As a proxy for primary-secondary spreads, BTIG’s coverage-wide GOS dollars as a percentage of locks is projected at 1.70% in Q2.

At a company level, BTIG analysts expect the highest GOS from loanDepot (3.45%), followed by Rocket (2.73%), UWM (1.25%), Rithm (1.04%) and PennyMac (0.79%).

Extended MSR lifespans

On the servicing side, BTIG analysts sees a rebound in second-quarter profitability driven by slower prepayment speeds and seasonally higher escrow earnings. Lower constant prepayment rates (CPRs) extend the life of mortgage servicing rights (MSR) and reduce amortization expenses.

For Q2 2026, conventional CPRs fell 90 basis points to 8.8% while government CPRs dropped 60 basis points to 11.9%, BTIG analysts said, citing Bloomberg data. Among covered originators, UWM and Onity Mortgage saw the largest declines in speeds — down 36% and 17% respectively — consistent with their higher-coupon servicing portfolios, which are more sensitive to rate moves.

BTIG also highlighted the composition of servicing books by coupon. As of June 30, portfolios show varying concentrations in 6% and higher coupons, which carry more prepayment and valuation sensitivity in volatile rate environments. Lenders with a higher share of 6% to 7% and above-7% coupons have more leverage to both rate selloffs and rallies in their MSR marks.

“Interest rates were higher in 2Q which should result in positive MSR marks; we expect more of the marks to come from the impact of higher short-term rates than slower prepay speeds, especially for the lower coupon portfolios,” the analysts wrote.

They added that volatile rates in the quarter could result in elevated hedging costs.

This article was written by Flávia Furlan Nunes and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) wants to drop “reputational harm” as a basis for suspending firms and individuals that do business with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking published Monday in the Federal Register, the agency said removing the reputational-harm standard would “eliminate redundancy” and reinforce that counterparty oversight should rest on “material and measurable risks.”

If finalized, FHFA would issue a suspension order only when covered misconduct is likely to cause significant financial harm to a regulated entity or threaten its safe and sound operations. Comments are due on or before Aug. 12.

The Suspended Counterparty Program requires the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to report when they learn that a counterparty has been convicted of, or administratively sanctioned for, certain types of misconduct tied to mortgages, mortgage securities or other lending products within the past three years.

FHFA can initiate a proposed suspension based on these reports, referrals from the FHFA’s Office of Inspector General or other information. A final suspension order directs the regulated entities to stop doing business with the suspended party, and respondents may appeal to the FHFA director.

Under the current rule, FHFA may issue a final order if the record shows the misconduct is likely to cause “significant financial or reputational harm” to a regulated entity, or otherwise threatens safe and sound operations.

Covered misconduct includes fraud, embezzlement, theft, conversion, forgery, bribery, perjury, false statements or claims, tax evasion, obstruction of justice, and similar offenses when connected to mortgage or other lending activity.

FHFA said its experience, administering the program shows the reputational-harm prong is unnecessary and adds subjectivity. In the agency’s view, misconduct severe enough to qualify as “covered” already implies financial risk or a safety-and-soundness concern—making an additional reputational test duplicative.

The proposal would also bring FHFA’s approach closer to that of other federal banking regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).

FHFA said the change aligns with administration directives to reduce regulatory burdens, focus enforcement on clearly authorized statutory powers, and use public and private resources more prudently.

This article was written by Flávia Furlan Nunes and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

As financial anxiety climbs and Americans accumulate record amounts of home equity, estate planning is becoming a larger part of retirement and housing conversations, with reverse mortgages among the tools that senior homeowners can use to access the wealth tied up in their homes.

Cody Barbo, co-founder and CEO of Trust & Will, said the company’s 2026 Financial Advisor Report found that 54% of Americans are experiencing the highest financial anxiety they’ve ever had, even as many older homeowners have seen their homes appreciate dramatically over decades.

That combination is prompting more consumers to consider both estate planning and ways to leverage home equity for retirement expenses, caregiving, home renovations or helping adult children. In a conversation with HousingWire‘s Reverse Mortgage Daily, Barbo shared how he sees opportunities for mortgage professionals to intersect with estate planning conversations.

Editor’s note: This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Sarah Wolak: Trust & Will’s 2026 Financial Advisor Report goes into how estate planning is becoming a part of a larger financial advice conversation. How does that fit in with reverse mortgages?

Cody Barbo: The statistic that we have at the top of our survey is that 54% of Americans are having the highest financial anxiety they’ve ever had. It’s increased over the last 12 months. Everything’s more expensive; everybody knows this. It’s universal. You go to every pocket of the country and all levels of wealth — low, middle, even high-income earners — are dealing with more financial stress than they’ve ever had before.

When you look at the baby boomer segment, the majority of homeowners have completely paid off their mortgages and own their homes. It’s generally boomers, and the value of those homes has increased exponentially over the last 10, 20, 30 years.

They may have bought it for $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000, and that house might be worth five, 10, 15 times what they originally paid for it. So that’s a huge amount of liquidity for them to do a handful of things. They could use it for home renovations. A lot of older parents help their adult children by taking out a loan or taking out equity in their home to help them buy their first home.

And then, in addition to that, there’s just the cost of living. You have seniors with longer lifespans. Longevity is in mind, so they actually may have dipped too far into their retirement savings and have to dip into their home to get that equity.

I think it’s really consistent with the motivation. As much as people’s financial stress is going up, fortunately, people’s motivation to set up an estate plan is at the highest it’s ever been. People still aren’t doing it, though. That’s still the biggest blocker. They don’t know where to start.

Wolak: When you say that a lot of people haven’t started estate planning yet, do you think it’s because they don’t recognize that they need it? When you hear the phrase “estate planning,” you might think of a different lifestyle because “estate” is a luxurious word. Do you think that holds a lot of people back from taking that step?

Barbo: Yeah, it’s a lack of education. It’s a lack of awareness. We started this business eight years ago [and] we’ve got over a million people who have started their estate planning journey with us. But to be direct, I think they still don’t know where to start, and they need that motivation to get started.

Why this report is interesting is the number we have here — 27% would prefer to build an estate plan with a financial adviser. It’s the trust factor and having someone to sit down with, right? Affording the $3,000 to $5,000 attorney cost — a lot of families can’t afford it, or they don’t want to spend that much, but they’re willing to do it online.

There’s this hand-holding process involved. It’s why we offer really high-touch customer support. We have humans available five days a week. We have an attorney network. We have almost 500 estate attorneys across all 50 states that customers can work with.

But financial advisers — again, parallel to real estate professionals — are trusted individuals. So it’s really special for your audience to hear that the parallel is, if they’re not a financial adviser — which most of them probably are not — but the statistic here that 27% of customers would be willing to build an estate plan with a financial adviser, that same thing would parallel over to a real estate professional.

That real estate professional could say, “Hey, I helped you find your home, helped you sell your home, helped you with this reverse mortgage. I would love to help you protect your legacy and help secure your future with an estate plan.”

Wolak: So if it’s the younger folks who are more trusting of housing professionals, would it be the older folks who want to actually sit down with a financial adviser? Or are they just apprehensive about the whole process?

Barbo: Yeah, the older ones actually trust more like a lawyer. The human piece maps. It’s a very personal process to go through estate planning. It’s not just about assets. It’s things like, “Do you want to be resuscitated or not?” Who can make medical and financial decisions for you if you’re incapacitated?”

And then the most uncomfortable part is you have to think about your own death — burial, cremation. Human composting is legal in seven states now. It’s a wild thought process to go through.

Wolak: You bring up the factor of trust and sitting down with somebody, being comfortable with it, and that very much mirrors the reverse mortgage process.

Barbo: That’s why our platform is built for everybody. It’s a pretty even bell curve of millennials, Gen X and boomers. Our youngest customers are 18. Obviously, they’re setting up things like a health care proxy, or their parents are helping them set it up when they go off to college.

Our oldest customer is 102. Cradle to grave is kind of how we think about it.

When you think of reverse mortgages, it’s going to skew older because they’re thinking, “We’ve run out of cash. We need to tap into the biggest equity we have, which is our home value.” Usually it’s for a specific reason. It’s to renovate the home, help their kids, or cover health care costs if they have major surgeries or a diagnosis.

Usually it’s an urgent need, not “let’s just take out some cash because, why not?” And I think the interest that we have is the human support side.

Gen X, right now, is the most underserved generation of estate planning. That was pretty surprising data, and they’re in the real thick of it as the sandwich generation. Most Gen Xers are mid-40s to late 50s right now; they have kids who are still minors at home, but they also have aging parents that they’re starting to take care of. And Gen Xers are old enough that they may have their home fully paid off.

So when we think of a reverse mortgage, it might be because, “Hey, we need to build a granny flat in the backyard, an ADU in the backyard. We need to extend the second primary master bedroom on the first floor because mom or dad can’t go up and down the stairs anymore. They can’t take care of themselves full time anymore. We need to move them into the house.” This is super common too.

This post was originally published on here. 

Artificial intelligence is unlikely to upend the mortgage industry, but it could make the biggest lenders even stronger by lowering costs, speeding up loan production and accelerating industry consolidation, according to a July 12 report from investment bank Keefe, Bruyette & Woods (KBW).

KBW pushes back against the growing narrative that AI will broadly disrupt financial services. Instead, the firm argues that the industry’s largest players are best positioned to benefit because they have the scale, customer data, regulatory infrastructure and capital needed to deploy AI effectively.

The report looks at several sectors in the financial services industry, including exchanges, consumer finance, traditional banks, mortgage banking and title insurance, among others.

KBW’s broader analysis found that financial sectors with significant regulatory oversight, proprietary data and large technology budgets are expected to benefit the most from AI adoption.

The firm ranked exchanges as the sector least vulnerable to AI disruption, followed by consumer finance and the nation’s largest banks, arguing that these businesses are more likely to use AI to improve efficiency than face displacement.

Mortgage banking fell closer to the middle of KBW’s risk analysis. The company said the industry’s repetitive, rules-based workflows make it well suited for automation, but they expect AI to reinforce the advantages of large lenders rather than fundamentally reshape the business.

Mortgage insurance companies and mortgage real estate investment trusts (REITs) were ranked as carrying somewhat higher AI disruption risk, although KBW said these businesses also benefit from regulatory protections and capital-intensive business models that limit the threat of displacement.

Mortgage banking outlook

In mortgage banking, KBW analysts see AI as a productivity tool rather than a disruptive force, citing that several steps in the mortgage process remain labor-intensive and repetitive. Automating these tasks could shorten loan cycle times, reduce costs and improve accuracy, the report said.

KBW ranked mortgage banking among the financial sectors facing relatively high competitive pressure from AI, assigning it a risk score of 4.65 on a 10-point scale.

Analysts said the greater risk is not that AI replaces mortgage lenders; it’s that larger companies will pull further ahead while smaller competitors struggle to keep up with technology investments. The report points to workflow automation, improved servicing economics, correspondent lending pressure and faster industry consolidation as the biggest trends to watch.

Servicing could be one of the biggest beneficiaries of AI adoption, KBW analysts noted. Because servicing involves large volumes of repetitive, data-driven work, AI could lower servicing costs while helping lenders better identify refinance opportunities and retain existing borrowers.

Among mortgage companies, KBW highlighted Rocket Mortgage as one of the firms best positioned to benefit.

“As one of the largest IMBs, Rocket has the scale, proprietary borrower data, servicing portfolio, and capital to operationalize AI, and we believe disruption across the industry should accrue to the biggest platforms rather than threaten them,” the report said.

Analysts added that they expect Rocket’s investments in AI and machine learning to improve borrower retention, increase refinance recapture rates, and reduce expenses across the origination and servicing channels.

More broadly, KBW expects AI to widen the gap between industry leaders and laggards rather than transform mortgage lending itself.

KBW said it is cautious about smaller regional and community banks because AI is “likely to become ‘table stakes’ rather than a source of durable differentiation.

“These institutions generally lack the technology budgets, internal AI talent, and structured proprietary data needed to build differentiated AI capabilities in-house, leaving them more dependent on third-party vendors and core providers,” the report said.

This article was written by Sarah Wolak and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Keller Williams (KW) has agreed to acquire the Jason Mitchell Group (JMG), a Scottsdale, Arizona-based brokerage that closed nearly $5.9 billion in sales volume across more than 12,300 transaction sides in 2025 — adding one of the industry’s largest lead-conversion platforms to its franchise network.

The deal, announced by KW Monday, is expected to close in the third quarter, subject to customary conditions. Financial terms were not disclosed.

JMG operates in 37 states with more than 1,200 affiliated agents and is ranked among the top U.S. brokerages by RealTrends Verified.

The company has built a referral- and lead-driven model that routes consumer inquiries from mortgage and real estate partners to its agent network.

“One of the most exciting parts here is Jason’s business and JMG is effectively the biggest team-rich entity in the country,” Keller Williams President and CEO Chris Czarnecki told HousingWire in an exclusive interview. “It’s incredibly exciting that he chose KW as as the place where he felt like he could take his business to the next level. That’s just a point of pride — and I’ll brag about it a little bit because I’m really excited about it.”

According to the announcement, JMG’s platform currently processes leads through relationships with major lenders and real estate brands including Rocket Mortgage, Mr. Cooper, New American Funding, Veterans United, Redfin and Zillow.

Founder Jason Mitchell will continue to lead the business as president of the JMG Division and will join Keller Williams’ executive team. JMG chief revenue officer Jake Kraft and vice president of operations Ken Friedlander will also move to Keller Williams as part of the transaction.

“We’ve spent years building a network designed to connect motivated buyers and sellers with great agents and deliver an exceptional experience for both,” Mitchell said. “When it came time to select a partner for the next phase of growth, my choice was clear. KW offers the culture, people and opportunity to be part of the most connected real estate platform in the world.”

Czarnecki said the acquisition is intended to create “an engine for further growth by providing a worldwide platform for JMG to continue to expand.”

Why this matters for brokerages and lenders

The deal underscores how large franchise brands are leaning into centralized lead-generation and referral ecosystems as transaction volume remains below peak levels and customer acquisition costs rise.

For Keller Williams’ existing franchise owners and teams, integrating a high-volume referral and lead-conversion business could influence how online and lender-generated leads are distributed and serviced inside the network.

“I think [JMG] will build on that value at KW over time and the the plan is that his future growth comes in partnership with KW, and it’s not a standalone acquisition,” said Czarnecki. “It’s an opportunity for us to grow together, so the value that he’s built across his 70-plus referral relationships and and the ability to help our agents be more productive — that’s really the value add. That can be great for our franchisees and others in our ecosystem as we go.”

Housing professionals should watch how Keller Williams structures referral economics, training and technology support around the JMG Division, and whether similar teamerage-style units emerge inside other national brokerages.

For mortgage lenders and referral partners, the transaction signals continued consolidation of lead channels into scaled, technology-enabled brokerage platforms.

“We’ve maintained a good relationship with the portals, and we’ve been part of the Zillow Preview program, which was one that we thought was another value add for our agent base,” said Czarnecki. “JMG is doing a lot with lenders, as well, so we expect JMG will continue to grow and will continue to expand with lenders.

“I’d also point out that JMG isn’t just a lender distribution platform. They work with other leading companies to help agents and to link up consumers with incredible agents. They do a lot in the relocation space. There’s some other areas that are a little bit more nascent that Jason’s excited about exploring as well, potentially.”

Relationships with JMG — which historically has been independent — will now sit inside one of the world’s largest real estate franchises, potentially affecting national account strategies, geographic coverage and co-marketing approaches.

“I think Jason has a really wonderful diversity of partnerships that he’s built over the years, and the expectation is that those continue going forward,” said Czarnecki. “We’re excited to work with them, and we expect it to grow. Frankly, he’s been amazing at finding new ways to pair agents with opportunities, and it’s been an incredible growth journey.”

Citizens Capital Markets & Advisory and Buchalter represented JMG in the transaction. Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer served as legal advisor to Keller Williams.

This article was written by Jonathan Delozier and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation. It was reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

AD Mortgage announced Monday that it completed its fifth non-QM residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transaction of 2026, issuing a $432.4 million securitization backed by more than 1,000 residential mortgages.

The transaction, known as AD Mortgage Trust 2026-NQM5, is backed by a pool of 1,008 residential loans, with 99% of the mortgages originated by AD Mortgage or its qualified correspondent lenders, the company said.

The transaction, which is expected to close July 15, is supported by loans with an aggregate balance of $432.4 million as of the cutoff date, according to Fitch Ratings. The deal marks the 20th AD Mortgage Trust transaction rated by Fitch and the fourth Fitch-rated ADMT transaction of 2026.

The underlying collateral features a weighted average borrower credit score of 754 and a weighted average combined loan-to-value (CLTV) ratio of 69.1%. The securities include credit enhancement through excess spread and subordination designed to provide additional protection for senior certificate holders.

Florida properties account for the largest share of the loan pool at 24.89%, although the company said the transaction reflects its efforts to reduce geographic concentration by expanding loan originations into additional markets through its broker and correspondent network.

“The investor participation in the ADMT 2026-NQM5 transaction reflects the established cadence of our programmatic issuance platform,” said Dmitri Batsev, managing director at Imperial Fund Asset Management. “The consistent demand from a diversified institutional investor base is indicative of the underwriting standards applied to the underlying collateral and our regular presence in the market.

“Furthermore, this transaction demonstrates the ongoing execution of our strategy to reduce geographic concentration across our portfolio this year. By expanding our origination footprint regionally, we have broadened the credit profile of the pool, which has supported heightened investor engagement in this offering.”

The securitization follows AD Mortgage’s $407 million ADMT 2026-NQM4 transaction, which priced in May. The latest deal continues the company’s regular issuance schedule for non-QM mortgage-backed securities in 2026.

AD Mortgage will service all of the loans included in the ADMT 2026-NQM5 transaction.

This article was written by Sarah Wolak and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Samara, a California builder known for its accessory dwelling unit (ADU) models, has launched Locale by Samara, an expansion into small-scale single-family infill developments, the company announced. The builder will design and construct clusters of detached homes in existing neighborhoods in Sonoma, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Los Angeles counties.

Each Locale project will consist of a small group of homes — typically between two and 10 — tailored to the surrounding streetscape. The homes will be precision-built with higher-end materials and laid out around contemporary living patterns for families and remote or hybrid workers.

Many Locale projects are expected to rely on California’s Starter Home Revitalization Act (SB 1123), which streamlines approvals to allow eligible parcels to be subdivided for up to 10 small-footprint homes. The law is viewed by housing advocates and planners as one of the most significant supply-side measures California has adopted in recent years. Samara is among the early builders lining up projects under the new framework.

California jurisdictions face mounting pressure to meet state housing targets, particularly in job-rich coastal counties that have added far fewer homes than required. Santa Clara County, with 1.9 million residents, needs more than 100,000 additional homes by 2031 to meet current and projected demand. But fewer than 4,000 homes were built there in 2024, including less than 400 detached single-family units, according to the company.

Local governments often struggle to add single-family supply because land and construction costs favor large, high-priced homes. Samara’s model instead centers on smaller infill clusters with higher-quality, rightsized homes on compact lots located in high-demand neighborhoods. Its prices aim to broaden access compared with traditional new construction.

“Our homes are part of a movement to ensure California remains a place where families can dream about their futures,” Mike McNamara, CEO and co-founder of Samara, said in a statement. “This expansion is about making more homes possible, closer to where people want to live, work, and build their lives.”

The first Locale project, in Healdsburg in Sonoma County, includes two single-family homes, each paired with an accessory dwelling unit. The company said the design reflects buyer preference for smaller, design-forward homes in prime locations rather than larger homes in outlying areas.

McNamara said neighborhoods that stop building new homes risk losing the population growth that supports schools, local retailers and community institutions. Locale by Samara is aimed at adding modest amounts of new housing in built-out areas so price growth and scarcity do not gradually push out the very households that sustain those communities, he said.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

MetroTex MLS will match monetary rewards paid to its broker participants under the new North Texas Real Estate Information Systems, Inc. (NTREIS) Rewards-2025 Program, doubling financial incentives for brokers who provide high-quality listing data to the North Texas real estate marketplace, the association announced.

The initiative adds a second layer of payouts on top of the NTREIS Rewards-2025 Program, which was recently launched by NTREIS to return value directly to the brokers whose listing content powers the regional multiple listing service. By committing to match those rewards, MetroTex is targeting brokers who participate in MetroTex MLS and contribute listings to NTREIS.

The program comes as MLSs nationwide face increased scrutiny over data quality, transparency and cooperation in a fast-changing regulatory and litigation environment. For brokers, additional incentive dollars tied to data standards could help offset operating costs while reinforcing the business case for full MLS participation.

“Cooperation has always been the foundation of the MLS, and the brokers who contribute their listings are the ones who make that cooperation possible,” said Franceanna Campagna, 2026 chair of the MetroTex Association of Realtors. “By matching the NTREIS Rewards payments, MetroTex is recognizing the tremendous value our broker participants create every day while reaffirming our commitment to a transparent, competitive marketplace that benefits consumers and real estate professionals alike.”

The NTREIS Rewards-2025 Program evaluates broker contributions to the MLS over the 2025 calendar year. According to the announcement, rewards will be based on factors such as listing activity, data completeness, rich media like photos and virtual tours, and successful transaction outcomes. NTREIS also expects future reward cycles to incorporate compliance standards as part of the evaluation criteria, further linking compensation to data integrity and rule adherence.

Every listing entered into the MLS feeds a broad ecosystem of buyers, sellers, real estate agents, appraisers, lenders and technology platforms that rely on accurate, timely information. High-quality listing content supports fair housing enforcement, market analytics and consumer confidence, particularly in high-growth regions like North Texas.

MetroTex said its decision to match the NTREIS rewards is intended to provide “meaningful recognition” for broker participation in that ecosystem.

“As our industry evolves, Realtor associations must continue finding ways to deliver tangible value to the members we serve,” Campagna said. “This initiative recognizes that brokers are more than subscribers. They make the market work. Their investment in accurate, complete listing data benefits every participant in the real estate ecosystem.”

Why it matters

For brokers, the combined NTREIS Rewards and MetroTex matching payments could represent a new, recurring revenue stream tied directly to listing operations and data quality. For MLS executives and association leaders, the move illustrates one strategy for defending the value of organized real estate: pushing more dollars back to the brokerages that supply listing inventory while reinforcing rules around completeness and compliance.

The combined program represents what MetroTex called a “significant investment” in the future of organized real estate by encouraging continued participation in the MLS and reinforcing the value of cooperation at a time of rapid industry change.

Qualifying brokers will hear directly from NTREIS about eligibility, registration requirements and reward distribution. MetroTex said it will provide additional details about its matching program to eligible MetroTex MLS participants in the coming weeks.

The MetroTex Association of REALTORS® owns MetroTex MLS and is a shareholder of NTREIS. The association resells the NTREIS MLS service to more than 70% of NTREIS subscribers across North Texas.

This post was originally published on here. 

The Real Deal just reported that Miami-Dade office rents have entered a new era. Top deals regularly clear $150 a square foot, jewel-box buildings push past $200 per square foot and one tower is finalizing a lease at $250. As one broker put it, tenants are committing to space before they can even walk the floor. They are signing leases at the highest rates in the market’s history for space they haven’t seen.

What are they buying?

Not square footage. They can’t even see it yet. They’re buying a promise about how it will feel to arrive, to host a client, to spend a day there. The most expensive real estate in Miami is being leased on the strength of an experience that hasn’t been delivered yet, only designed, rendered and described.

“Perception becomes reality,” the broker said. He’s right. But perception is fragile, and that’s the part nobody is talking about.

The premium is a promise. The promise has to be kept.

Here is the uncomfortable mechanic underneath these record rents. A building is designed once. The experience is delivered 10,000 times: every morning in the lobby, every interaction with staff, every moment of friction or grace as a person moves through the place. The rent is justified by the promise. The renewal is justified by whether the promise was kept.

And the gap between the two, between the experience that was sold and the one actually delivered day after day, is almost invisible to the people who own these buildings. They see occupancy, the rent roll, work orders, leasing velocity. None of those numbers tell them how the place is actually being experienced until it’s too late, until a tenant paying $230 a foot quietly decides the feeling no longer matches the price.

This isn’t an office story. It’s a real estate story.

Office is where the price signal is loudest right now, because office leases are large, public, and reported by brokers. But the same dynamic runs through every asset class with quieter signals. In multifamily, experience-led buildings command higher rents and see measurably lower turnover, the silent killer of multifamily returns.

In condos, resale value years later rides on the lived experience of the amenities and service.

In retail, the difference between a dying center and a thriving destination is experiential, not locational: two centers a mile apart, same demographics, wildly different outcomes. In mixed-use, the whole bet is that the place is worth more than the sum of its leasable parts.

And in hospitality, the one corner of real estate that has always known this, none of this is news. Hotels understood decades ago that the building is just the stage, that the experience is the asset, and that it has to be measured, managed and governed relentlessly or it decays.

That’s the real shift. Every other category of real estate is becoming more like hospitality, converging on a standard hotels figured out a generation ago: the place is a promise, and the promise is the product.

The owners who treat experience as something to be governed, not just built, will hold their premiums. The ones who treat it as a one-time design decision will watch perception erode, slowly and then suddenly, back toward commodity.

The missing discipline

We govern every other driver of real estate value. Capital with asset management, operations with property management, the physical building with engineering and maintenance, all of it with dashboards, standards and accountability.

For experience, now arguably the single biggest driver of premium, we have almost nothing. No continuous measurement. No defined standard of what the experience is supposed to be. No system that tells an owner, while there’s still time to act, that the gap between promise and delivery is widening. Most owners are flying blind on the exact thing their rents now depend on.

The discipline has three parts. Define the experience the place is meant to deliver, not a vague aspiration but a specific, measurable standard. Measure whether it’s being delivered, continuously, across every signal a place generates. Govern the gap, closing the distance between intent and reality before it shows up in a review, a renewal, or a softening rent.

And there’s a second return hiding inside the first. The same continuous signal that protects the premium also runs the place more efficiently. Most expensive problems in real estate, a vendor underperforming, a building system drifting, a tenant relationship souring, are cheap to fix early and ruinous to fix late. Governing experience means catching them as small signals, months before they surface as large costs. Proactive isn’t just better than reactive. It’s dramatically cheaper. And almost nobody does it: the buildings leasing at record rents have spent fortunes designing the promise and almost nothing ensuring it’s kept.

Why this matters beyond the rent roll

At these rates, experience is the asset, and it should be protected like any other. The owners who govern it will outperform the ones who don’t, on both sides of the ledger.

But there’s a simpler argument underneath. The places we move through every day are not neutral. They shape our focus, our relationships, our work. When a place is intentional, it elevates the people inside it. When it’s incidental, it quietly costs them.

That’s the real reason to govern experience. The financial return and the human return turn out to be the same return. The best-performing places and the best places to be are converging into the same thing.

We started SUMA to build that discipline: to help the people who own and steward places define the experience they’re trying to deliver, measure whether they’re delivering it, and govern the gap. Before long, it becomes simply how serious places are run.

The market just told us what experience is worth. The next question is who’s going to make sure it gets delivered.

Josh Sason is the founder of SUMA, a Miami-based firm building the discipline of experience governance for real estate.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.

To contact the editor responsible for this piece: tracey@hwmedia.com

This post was originally published on here. 

Homebuilders are navigating a market where slower absorption, elevated costs and shifting buyer demand are testing even the most experienced operators. In that environment, capital is more than a funding source. It influences liquidity, production pace and long-term growth.

For regional and mid-sized production builders, the question is not simply whether capital is available. It is whether that capital is durable, flexible and aligned with how builders need to operate in today’s market. Anchor Loans provides private capital for builders facing these decisions, helping them to structure capital that supports growth, preserves liquidity and provides the flexibility to execute through changing market conditions.

Why durable capital matters in uncertain markets

In periods of market uncertainty, the durability of a builder’s financing relationships becomes just as important as the cost of capital.  Most builders aren’t making six-month decisions. They’re making two-, three- and five-year decisions. Communities take time to build, and market conditions rarely stay the same from groundbreaking to final closeout. The question isn’t whether capital is available today. It’s whether that capital partner will still be there when conditions change. That need has become more visible as some traditional financing sources have tightened.

Most builders have experienced some version of this over the last several years: a lending relationship changes, credit standards tighten, concentration limits get hit or priorities shift. None of that has anything to do with the quality of the builder or the project, but it can still impact access to capital.

This is especially important because homebuilding is not a static business. Communities often take multiple phases and market cycles to complete. Demand can shift, product needs can change and builders may need to adjust floor plans, starts or production pace along the way. Experienced builders know how to pull those levers.

The challenge is making sure capital can move with those decisions. A builder may need to slow starts, increase specs, adjust product mix or carry inventory longer than expected. Those aren’t failures. That’s normal homebuilding. The right capital partner understands that and can support the business through it. Builders spend years assembling land positions, teams and trade relationships. Losing momentum because capital becomes constrained can be far more expensive than a modest difference in borrowing cost.

In homebuilding, every cycle eventually turns. The builders that continue gaining share are usually the ones that can keep acquiring lots, starting homes and serving buyers  while others are pulling back. That requires capital that remains available throughout the cycle – not just when conditions are favorable.

Builders need financing that matches how they actually build

Across many markets, builders are seeing slower absorption. Buyers are taking longer to purchase homes, and builders that started homes at a faster pace may now be managing more standing inventory than expected. Most builders aren’t changing their long-term strategy. They’re adjusting execution to match today’s demand while preserving the ability to accelerate when conditions improve.

All of these factors have increased demand for flexible construction financing, particularly around speculative starts. Spec homes are often essential for serving today’s buyer, especially first-time buyers who may need a move-in-ready home that aligns with lease timing, limited deposits and tight affordability constraints.

However, some financing structures limit the number of uncontracted homes a builder can have under construction at any given time. When that happens, builders may be forced to use cash on the balance sheet to start additional homes. While bank capital may appear less expensive on paper, restrictions can make it harder to use in practice.

Private capital for builders can help address that gap by providing qualified builders more flexibility around unsold starts, lot development and project pacing. For builders, the real cost of capital consists of more than just the interest rate. It also includes the cost of tying up equity that could otherwise be used to acquire land, develop lots or fund the next phase of growth.

Builders are rethinking the true cost of capital

Sophisticated builders understand that the cheapest capital isn’t always the most efficient capital. The real question is how financing impacts liquidity, return on equity and the ability to continue growing.

A lower-cost loan that cannot be used when and where builders need it may ultimately create a higher total cost. If a builder has to fund spec construction with equity for several months before a home is sold, that equity is no longer available for other growth opportunities. The business may lose momentum, limit community expansion or delay future lot acquisitions.

The most effective financing strategies look beyond rate and consider how efficiently capital can be deployed across the business, how quickly equity can be recycled and whether the financing structure supports long-term growth.

For builders trying to scale from one production level to the next, that efficiency can be significant. Growth often requires more land, more communities, more staff and more working capital. A capital partner that understands those goals can help structure financing around the builder’s broader business plan rather than a single transaction.

Matching financing to the builder’s operating model

There is no one-size-fits-all construction financing model. Some builders are best served by project-specific loans, while others may benefit from a borrowing base facility.

Project-specific financing is typically designed for a single subdivision, master plan or defined project. It works well for builders who raise equity around individual projects and want financing tied to a specific piece of land or community.

Borrowing base facilities are different. They are programmatic and provide a capital solution at the portfolio level, allowing builders to use a broader pool of collateral across multiple communities. Instead of setting up a new capital stack for each project, builders can recycle capital across the business more efficiently.

For larger or more active production builders, that structure can support significantly higher capital efficiency and stronger return on equity. Equity used in one project may be redeployed to another as collateral, while loan balances shift across the portfolio. For builders still relying on individual project loans despite operating at a more programmatic scale, a borrowing-base structure often provides a more efficient path to scalability.

Private capital strategy starts with the buyer

An effective financing strategy begins with understanding the end buyer. A builder serving move-up or luxury buyers may need a different capital approach than a builder focused on entry-level homes. The buyer’s timeline, product expectations, affordability constraints and need for move-in-ready inventory all influence how the builder should operate.

The best financing structures don’t dictate how builders operate. They support how builders already run their business and adapt as market conditions change.

Anchor works with experienced builders that have proven operating histories, disciplined governance and a clear understanding of their markets. The focus is on delivering reliable capital backed by disciplined underwriting and a long-term commitment to the homebuilding sector.

Looking ahead

The need for housing remains significant, but the path to delivering that supply is becoming more complex. Affordability pressures, supply shortages, changing buyer demographics and regional market differences will continue to shape how builders plan communities and manage production.

As those conditions evolve, financing strategies will need to evolve as well. Builders will increasingly look beyond traditional capital sources and evaluate private capital for builders as part of a broader capital stack strategy.

The future of construction financing will favor capital partners that can listen, adapt and tailor structures to the realities of each builder’s business. For builders looking to protect liquidity, support spec starts, finance land development and scale responsibly, flexible capital is more than a funding tool. It can become a competitive advantage.

Builders have always adapted to changing markets. The question is whether their financing structure gives them the flexibility and confidence to keep executing when conditions change. Increasingly, that’s why many builders are looking beyond rate alone and placing greater value on capital partners with the scale, experience and durability to support long-term growth.

Click Here

This post was originally published on here. 

After months of deliberation, delays and drama, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act has finally crossed the finish line. 

The legislation, aimed at cutting red tape and making homeownership more attainable, is now the law of the land after President Donald Trump declined to sign or veto the bill before the deadline of midnight Eastern time Saturday.

In a Truth Social post on Friday morning, Trump said he withheld his signature “in protest” of the Senate‘s failure to pass the SAVE America Act, a separate bill targeting voter identification and registration. 

The move threw a last-minute twist into what was a drama-filled final few weeks. Trump abruptly canceled a planned signing ceremony for the bill on June 24, demanding Congress prioritize the SAVE America Act, and later dismissed the housing bill as a “big yawn” by comparison. 

The bipartisan package cleared the Senate 85-5 on June 22 and the House of Representatives 358-32 on June 23. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent it back to the White House on June 29. That started a 10-day clock, with Sundays excluded, for Trump to sign, veto or allow the legislation to become law without his signature — which is ultimately what happened.

The dynamic is rare but not unprecedented. In 2016, then-President Barack Obama declined to sign a 10-year renewal of the Iran Sanctions Act, enabling the legislation to become law without taking action. That bill was also overwhelmingly bipartisan, having passed the Senate in a unanimous 99-0 vote.

Recent polling from the American Property Owners Alliance indicates that the general public overwhelmingly backs the main objectives of the ROAD to Housing Act, with 89% of voters voicing their support.

First comprehensive housing package in decades

The final bill includes provisions from more than 60 different bills introduced in Congress, most of which were introduced with bipartisan sponsors. A few of the bills incorporated into the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act include:

• The HOME Reform Act bolstered the HOME Investment Partnerships program by updating program eligibility, streamlining environmental reviews and expanding flexibility for infrastructure and community land trusts. 
• The Rural Housing Service Reform Act modernized U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rural housing programs. Key provisions include the preservation of affordable rentals, the protection of rental assistance, and the strengthening of preservation tools to expand rental and homeownership opportunities in rural communities. 
• The Housing Supply Frameworks Act would direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to produce frameworks to help states and municipalities streamline zoning and regulatory barriers. 

For homebuilders, another key provision is the establishment of $200 million in grant funding, which will reward municipalities that successfully eliminate excessive red tape and burdensome zoning. The removal of the permanent chassis requirement for manufactured homes will also open up opportunities for manufactured homes to compete in densely populated, high-cost markets that have traditionally been reserved for site-built and modular homes. 

Notably, the final version of the bill also omitted prior provisions that build-to-rent (BTR) developers said would largely freeze new investments in BTR projects.

For lenders and mortgage professionals, key provisions include a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan pilot program for small-dollar mortgages below $100,000 and a requirement that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau study how loan originator compensation rules impact the availability of small-dollar mortgages. 

The ROAD to Housing Act also authorizes a three-year Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery Program and raises FHA multifamily statutory loan limits for the first time in more than 20 years. 

Collaborative advocacy effort

On June 10, more than 1,100 members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) met with federal lawmakers to advocate for the passage of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. And in May, more than 3,000 advocates responded to call-to-action alerts from the Mortgage Bankers Association during their MAA Action Week to advocate on behalf of the bill. 

These advocacy efforts didn’t take place in isolation. Thousands of housing industry professionals — including Realtors, homebuilders, mortgage and banking professionals, community developers, rental housing providers and more — spent months advocating on behalf of the most comprehensive federal housing bill in decades. 

While most housing leaders acknowledge that there is more work to be done, the industry’s reaction to the bill’s passing has been overwhelmingly positive. 

“This bill becoming law is a genuine milestone — and I don’t use that word lightly,” said Dennis Shea, executive vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC). “Getting Congress to move on housing supply and affordability has been a long time coming, and the American people made clear they were ready for it.

“But this moment calls for urgency as much as celebration. The hard work of implementation starts now, and there are still many issues to be tackled. BPC will be watching closely, pushing for what’s next, and working hard to increase supply and lower housing costs.”

“The bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is a landmark step toward protecting the American Dream of homeownership,” said Colin Allen, executive director of the American Property Owners Alliance. “By expanding our housing supply and removing barriers to ownership, this legislation will help more Americans achieve their dream, strengthen communities, and build generational wealth.”

“Too many older Americans are struggling to find housing they can afford in the communities they call home,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP‘s executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer. “AARP has consistently pushed for increasing housing availability and affordability, and with the 21st Century Road to Housing Act now law, more older Americans will be able to age where they want to be — at home.”

Scott Olson, executive director for the Community Home Lenders of America (CHLA), praised the bill’s passage while urging further action.

“Enactment of the Road to Housing bill into law is a major bipartisan accomplishment and great news for American home buyers and renters stressed by housing affordability challenges,” Olson said. “CHLA urges Congress next to move on to action on tax changes to make it easier to access the trillions of dollars in stocks and IRAs to use for a down payment on a home.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Fifteen named plaintiffs allege that Veterans United Home Loans — the nation’s largest lender of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mortgages — ran an illegal kickback and steering scheme that funneled borrowers into overpriced loans. The accusations were reiterated Thursday in court filings as the plaintiffs opposed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint that was filed by the lender in June.

The case, which is being overseen by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, began in February when the plaintiffs sued Veterans United and Realty Search Solutions LLC, the lender’s real estate arm that does business as Veterans United Realty.

The original complaint accused Veterans United, a private, for-profit corporation, of misleading homebuyers to believe it’s connected to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Court documents said that multiple real estate agents and loan officers say they often lose business because prospective borrowers believe they must obtain financing through Veterans United due to incorrect assumptions that it’s affiliated with the VA.

Missouri-based Veterans United filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint in April. A company spokesperson said at the time that “this meritless lawsuit gets next to nothing right.” The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman, a law firm that has also been involved in litigation against Zillow and Rocket Companies, following settlements tied to real estate brokerage commissions that totaled more than $1 billion.

In May, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which increased the number of named plaintiffs from three to 15 while doubling the number of claims from four to eight. These included two counts of violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) along with violations of consumer protection laws in Missouri, Illinois, New York, Ohio and Texas.

Last month, Veterans United Home Loans and Veterans United Realty urged the court to dismiss the amended complaint. They characterized the expanded class-action suit as a baseless copycat case driven by anonymous competitor complaints rather than actual consumer harm. The defendants sought dismissal with prejudice, which would preclude the plaintiffs from filing the same claims again.

Opposition to dismissal request

According to Thursday’s court filings, the plaintiffs say the request by Veterans United to dismiss the amended complaint should be denied. They argued that they paid for settlement services covered under RESPA, and that “illegal kickbacks” fostered by the lender and its network of real estate agents inflated the cost of their transactions through higher mortgage rates and fees.

The filings say that Veterans United was founded by three individuals with no military service, yet it deliberately selected a name and branding that allows them to trade on the trust and reputation that veterans associate with the VA. The plaintiffs say the company promotes itself as the nation’s No. 1 VA lender and features a panel of “military advisers” on its website while burying disclaimers about non-affiliation with the VA.

Chad Moller, corporate communications manager for Veterans United Home Loans, issued a statement to HousingWire in which he said the plaintiffs’ attorneys “undermine the foundation of their claims in their brief, abandoning the false assertion in their complaint that Veterans United claimed to be part of the VA.”

Moller pointed to language in the filing that states “Defendants also charge that Plaintiffs did not find any instances in which they ‘held themselves out as the VA’ … but Plaintiffs never claim they expressly did so.”

“We are a private mortgage lender — not a government agency, and we have always been clear about that,” Moller said. “What sets us apart is service: the hands-on guidance and support that gets Veterans and military families, including many first-time buyers, through one of the most important financial decisions of their lives. That commitment shows in hundreds of thousands of reviews from the people we’ve served.”

Steering allegations centered on higher costs

The plaintiffs also reiterated their claims that the companies operate a business model in which agents who receive referrals are required to steer buyers to Veterans United Home Loans for financing. The company uses an app, AgentDash, to ensure agents comply with the steering arrangement, they say. Agents allegedly pay the company about 35% of their commissions — or roughly 1.05% of the home’s sale price — upon closing.

In a documented example provided to the court, the plaintiffs say that a customer was offered a loan with a 6.5% rate but was locked in at 6.75% three days later, even as market rates moved lower. This allegedly cost the borrower more than $6,000 at closing. Testimony given by loan officers say that loans from competitors cost $5,000 to $10,000 less than comparable products from Veterans United.

“Veterans United has a deliberate ‘bait and switch’ policy to lure in clients with enticing terms, only to change the terms as the transaction advances,” the filings state.

The plaintiffs go on to provide more alleged evidence of steering by citing high agent referral rates to a variety of Veterans United loan officers. Three agents cited in the filings used the company to finance more than half of their clients’ transactions. In every instance where Veterans United was chosen, a different LO was utilized.

The plaintiffs say these high referral rates, combined with a rotating group of originators, rule out any legitimate professional relationships and demonstrate widespread steering.

While the amended complaint initially included alleged consumer protection violations in five states, the plaintiffs this week dropped claims in Texas that were time-barred. Additionally, one plaintiff in Ohio was removed from the case due to statutory time restrictions for litigation.

This post was originally published on here. 

Rechat has launched Testimonials, a new feature that enables real estate agents to collect, manage and use client reviews directly within the Rechat platform.

The feature is integrated alongside contacts, transactions and marketing tools, allowing testimonials to automatically populate marketing materials, listing presentations and campaigns without requiring agents to switch between platforms.

The feature is now available at no additional cost to Rechat users.

In a referral-driven industry, online reputation remains a key factor in winning business. According to the National Association of Realtors’ 2025 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers, reputation is the most important factor sellers consider when selecting an agent, while 49% of consumers trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations.

Rechat said many agents currently rely on multiple platforms, leaving reviews scattered across third-party websites or stored as screenshots and emails.

“Buyers and sellers have read your reviews before you ever walk in the door. In this business, reputation decides who gets the listing. And now there’s a new buyer in real estate, and it’s not a person. It’s AI,” said Shayan Hamidi, CEO of Rechat. “AI assistants are already deciding which agents get recommended, and they make that call based on your online reputation. Testimonials exists so that when an AI is choosing who works and who doesn’t, your track record is impossible to miss.”

The company said the growing use of AI assistants to research agents and recommend professionals makes online reviews increasingly important, as those systems rely on ratings, testimonials and other digital signals when generating recommendations.

Once a testimonial is collected, it automatically becomes available in Rechat’s Marketing Center, where it can be incorporated into listing presentations, social media content and marketing campaigns.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

The American Real Estate Association (ARA) is joining the Missouri Association of Realtors and a coalition of organizations opposing Amendments 4 and 5 on Missouri’s Aug. 4 statewide ballot.

Amendment 5 would authorize the state legislature to expand sales taxes to a wide range of goods and services without a public vote.

ARA said the measure could reopen the door to transfer taxes on home sales, impose new taxes on services and lead to combined sales tax rates that opponents warn could exceed 20%.

Results from the legislation would be higher costs for Missouri homeowners, homebuyers and the real estate professionals who serve them, according to ARA.

ARA said Amendment 4 compounds the risk by making it substantially harder for citizens to place initiatives on the ballot — the same process Missouri voters used to enact taxpayer protections in 2010 and 2016.

Taken together, the association said, the two measures would allow lawmakers to raise taxes while limiting the public’s ability to respond. ARA is urging Missourians to vote no on both.

“Missourians didn’t nickname this the ‘Everything Tax’ by accident,” said Jason Haber, c0-founder of ARA. “It would make owning a home more expensive and hand politicians a blank check to keep raising taxes with no vote and no limit. Agents see every day what a home means to a family, and we’re not going to stand by while Jefferson City makes that harder. ARA is proud to stand with Missouri’s Realtors to defeat both.”

According to Mauricio Umansky, co-founder of ARA, “Amendment 4 would make it far harder for citizens to fight back. That is a bad deal for hard-working agents and for every Missouri family trying to buy or keep a home. When Missouri’s Realtors stood up to stop it and asked for a national partner, ARA answered. We urge a no vote on both.”

ARA said its opposition is not a position on income tax policy but a defense of protections Missouri voters have already approved and of their right to decide future tax questions at the ballot box.

“We are thrilled to have the American Real Estate Association stand with us in this critical statewide effort,” Missouri Association of Realtors President Brian Jared added. “I have sold real estate in Missouri my entire career, and I know what Amendment 5 would mean on Main Street. It would raise costs every time someone buys or sells a home, add new taxes on the services families use, and hit seniors on fixed incomes the hardest, all without a vote of the people.”

ARA said it will support the campaign by amplifying the “no on both” message through its national platform and member network — helping mobilize real estate professionals across Missouri and providing financial support to the effort to defeat the measures.

Recent statewide polling has shown broad, bipartisan opposition to both amendments. ARA said its goal is to help ensure Missouri voters understand the measures before the Aug. 4 election.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

One of the most consistent mistakes that buyers’ agents make today is ignoring one of the best sources of affordable housing available to their clients: distressed properties — short sales in particular.

After more than 40 years in the real estate business and involvement in over 25,000 distressed property transactions, I’ve watched agents make this mistake repeatedly. They avoid short sales because they believe the process takes too long, too complicated or may never close. That thinking is outdated and it’s costing both agents and their buyers real opportunities.

Let’s start with what’s actually happening in the market. Every month, more than 40,000 homeowners receive foreclosure notices. Today, more than 2 million American homeowners are behind on their mortgage payments and looking for a way out. Some of those borrowers still have equity. Many do not. For a meaningful number of them, a short sale is the most practical resolution available and often the only one. That represents a substantial pipeline of inventory that most buyer’s agents are just not pursuing.

Instead, agents continue chasing the same listings as everyone else, competing against multiple buyers and investors on the same properties and treating affordability as an unsolvable problem. Meanwhile, some of the most accessible opportunities in the market are going largely unnoticed.

Distressed sellers operate with different motivations than traditional sellers

Most homeowners want top dollar while a distressed homeowner wants a resolution. They’re navigating financial hardship and their sole priority is moving forward, not maximizing proceeds. In a short sale, the seller isn’t receiving any money from the transaction anyway, which means these properties are frequently priced at or below market value to facilitate a faster sale. That can mean all the difference in the world for first-time buyers struggling with affordability.

REO properties can carry similar advantages. Many are priced aggressively from the outset. In certain government-backed and institutional programs, First Look periods restrict investor participation for a defined window of time. Owner-occupant buyers can make offers without competing against cash investors during that period. For a first-time buyer with a conventional or FHA loan, that’s a meaningful structural advantage usually unseen in traditional listings.

For many buyers, though, short sales remain the larger opportunity, primarily because agent perception of them hasn’t kept pace with how the process actually works today.

The short sale process has improved substantially

Lender systems are more automated. Furthermore, documentation requirements are more standardized and communication has improved at nearly every stage. Most importantly, lenders have a sizeable financial incentive to resolve these files efficiently. Foreclosure is expensive. It requires legal action, property preservation, ongoing carrying costs and eventual resale. A successfully negotiated short sale typically reduces the lender’s losses and resolves the situation faster. As a result, lenders are not looking to foreclose when a legitimate short sale can be approved.

When short sales move slowly, it’s usually not because of the lender. If anything, most delays trace directly back to listing agents who submit incomplete files, use outdated financial documentation or simply haven’t made themselves familiar with the process. When the listing agent knows what they’re doing, short sales close considerably faster than most buyer’s agents assume.

One of the more reliable indicators a buyer’s agent can use to evaluate a short sale opportunity is whether the listing agent holds specialized training. A Certified Short Sale Expert, for example, understands the documentation requirements, lender procedures, and timeline expectations well enough to keep a file moving. In some cases, the package has already been submitted to the lender and a preapproved net figure may already be in place before an offer even arrives.

The business case to consider

Agents frequently cite a two-month approval timeline which causes buyers to move away from short sales. Leaving aside that timelines are often shorter than that now, a transaction under contract represents a future commission in the pipeline. The agent is free to continue working with other buyers in the meantime.

The alternative, spending those same two months showing the same buyer additional properties, writing offers that lose in competitive situations and, in all likelihood, renegotiating repeatedly, is not actually more efficient. All too often, agents who build strong businesses tend to think in terms of pipeline, not just speed to close. But it’s impossible to deny that a buyer under contract is an asset. A buyer still shopping is not.

There’s also social value to be had here. As affordability challenges continue across much of the country, distressed properties represent one of the more accessible entry points for first-time buyers who are being priced out of conventional listings. Properly priced short sales and REO properties offer better value and reduced competition, not to mention access to inventory that most buyers and agents never seriously consider. A substantial service gap is addressed with a straightforward solution.

Agents who develop working fluency in REO and short sale transactions will be helping more families become homeowners. That’s not because distressed inventory is always ideal, but because understanding it expands what’s actually available to clients in a constrained market. That fluency will only grow in importance as  delinquency rates continue rising and distressed inventory builds through servicer pipelines.

When an agent continues to ignore short sales because of assumptions formed during a different market environment are, they’re effectively making a decision for their clients. They’re deciding that the complications of an unfamiliar process outweigh the benefits of an affordable, accessible property, and that’s a trade-off worth reconsidering, especially now.

Michael P. Krein is President of the National REO Brokers Association (NRBA) and Managing Partner of House Karma.

This post was originally published on here. 

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, after months of deliberation and delays, has encountered yet another curveball.

On Friday morning, President Donald Trump confirmed in a Truth Social post that he won’t sign the legislation, although he didn’t say that he would veto it. Assuming that Trump doesn’t veto or sign the bill today, it is set to automatically go into law at midnight Eastern time, a result that many housing stakeholders expect.

If Trump does issue a veto, Congress could have the votes to override it, but it would cause further delays.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT…”, Trump said in the post.

The news comes after Trump delayed a signing ceremony for the bill on June 24, instead insisting that Congress first pass the SAVE America Act, a bill aimed at strengthening voter identification and registration requirements. In the days after the cancellation, Trump downplayed the significance of the bill, calling it a “big yawn” in comparison to the SAVE America Act. 

Mike Johnson (R-La.), the speaker of the House of Representatives, formally sent the bipartisan housing package — which passed the House on June 23 by a margin of 358-32 — back to the White House on June 29. That triggered a 10-day deadline for Trump to sign the bill, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature. With Sundays excluded, the countdown will end at midnight Saturday after Friday’s deadline passes.

Housing industry stakeholders, who have almost unanimously backed the legislation, are eagerly awaiting its passage.

“The bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is a landmark step toward protecting the American Dream of homeownership. By expanding our housing supply and removing barriers to ownership, this legislation will help more Americans achieve their dream, strengthen communities and build generational wealth,” said Colin Allen, executive director of the American Property Owners Alliance. 

Build-to-rent lifeline

The housing package effectively bans institutional investors that already own 350 or more single-family homes from purchasing additional single-family properties. But the final version removed a pair of controversial provisions that largely froze new investments into build-to-rent (BTR) projects. 

One of the excluded provisions, which was included in a previous Senate version of the bill, would have included an institutional investor ban without carve-outs for BTR communities. Another would have mandated that new BTR communities be sold to individual homeowners within seven years of completion.

Both proposals, which were ultimately excluded from the final bill, would have significantly undermined the ability of BTR developers to generate returns on their investments.

The final text aligns with Trump’s executive order from January aimed at limiting institutional homebuying, while eliminating the broader restrictions on build-to-rent that raised significant concerns and opposition among housing industry stakeholders.

Streamlining homebuilding

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act aims to streamline the development of housing, primarily by cutting red tape. 

For example, the bill would exempt new categories of relatively small-scale development under the HOME program from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The legislation would also limit duplicative environmental reviews in the HOME program and make other adjustments to reduce red tape associated with NEPA reviews. 

Another provision aimed at removing the permanent chassis requirement from manufactured homes has generated a lot of buzz in the industry. Manufactured housing is an attainable source of housing for millions of Americans, but it is primarily located in rural areas far from city centers. Removing the chassis rule could lower costs while expanding design flexibility, unlocking new opportunities for manufactured housing in higher-cost, infill and urban markets.

Shawn King, executive vice president of national sales and co-founder of Arrive Home, called the bill “the most consequential piece of manufactured housing policy in decades.”

“In the past, federal rules have forced builders to permanently attach a steel chassis to every manufactured home, even though fewer than 7% of these homes are ever moved after they’re installed,” King said. “That requirement alone has been adding $5,000 to $10,000 to the cost of every single home for no real benefit to the homeowner.

“Eliminating it doesn’t just lower the price tag; it opens the door to basements, multi-story designs and layouts that let manufactured homes fit naturally into neighborhoods instead of standing apart from them,” King added.

The legislation also creates grant programs to help state, local and tribal governments update regulatory processes and improve permitting capacity. Another grant program will help communities adopt pre-reviewed building plans that can streamline approvals.

The bill additionally simplifies approvals for multifamily buildings, expands affordable housing financing, supports the conversion of vacant commercial properties into housing, and improves access to developable land through the establishment of a database that enables better tracking of publicly owned land. 

“The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act will help expand the nation’s housing supply by reducing regulatory barriers and encouraging local governments to reform zoning and land-use policies that have limited home building,” Bill Owens, the chairman of the National Association of Home Builders, said in a statement.

Mortgage and financing provisions

The bill includes several provisions that directly affect the mortgage industry and housing financing.

Key provisions include a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan pilot program for small-dollar mortgages below $100,000, along with a requirement that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issue a report to Congress to study how loan originator compensation rules affect the availability of small-dollar mortgages. 

Additionally, the housing package raises FHA multifamily statutory loan limits for the first time since 2003 and authorizes a three-year Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery program. 

Another key provision aims to bolster the appraiser workforce by expanding training programs and providing grant funding to attract new talent.  

This post was originally published on here. 

Legal battling between Zillow, Compass and Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) continued Thursday with all parties filing competing post-hearing briefs — Zillow alleging an “unlawful conspiracy” to cut off its access to Chicagoland listing data while defendants Compass and MRED counter that the company’s harm is “self-inflicted.”

The filings come after a two-day hearing earlier this week on Zillow’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would prevent MRED from suspending its listing data feeds to the online portal.

Judge John Tharp Jr. is now weighing whether to grant the injunction, with replies to the new briefs due Monday.

In a 48-page supplemental brief, Zillow argued that MRED and Compass International Holdings worked “in lockstep” to block its Listing Access Standards, which discourage private listing networks that hide properties from public view.

Zillow’s brief accuses MRED — working with Compass — of revising its display rules to target Zillow’s listing standards and create a pretext for terminating its feed access.

It’s also alleged that defendants terminated or discouraged Zillow’s direct broker feeds, eliminating its only alternative source of Chicagoland listings.

Finally, Zillow claimed that MRED and Compass formed an alliance through which Compass “laundered its failed private exclusive listings through MRED, triggering an ostensible violation of MRED’s rules to justify termination of Zillow’s feed access.”

Attorneys for Zillow pointed to an October 2025 email from Compass CEO Robert Reffkin to multiple MLSs urging them to “discipline” Zillow by terminating its feed access if its standards were not “immediately repealed.”

Zillow also said that Compass terminated direct broker feed agreements nationwide and that MRED warned its members against providing Zillow with direct feeds.

The company argued that losing access to MRED’s feeds — which cover nearly all Chicagoland listings — would cause irreparable harm by triggering a “downward spiral” of lost audience and revenue that would be impossible to quantify.

“If Zillow’s listing supply is reduced to less than 50% in Chicagoland, that would directly undermine Zillow’s brand promise and audience-driven business model in ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify,” the brief states.

Defendants reject conspiracy claims

In their joint 40-page brief, MRED and Compass painted a dramatically different picture — arguing that Zillow’s ban on listings previously marketed outside the MLS is the true anticompetitive conduct.

“Zillow is not entitled to the extraordinary relief it seeks because any harm, if it exists at all, is self-inflicted,” the defendants wrote. “If Zillow wants MRED’s feed, the ‘lifeblood’ of its business that it receives virtually for free, all Zillow has to do is not subjectively ban listings. It is as simple as that.”

Compass and MRED argued that Zillow’s Listing Access Standards policy, announced in April 2025, blocks listings from appearing on Zillow’s website if they were previously marketed outside the MLS — a policy designed to discourage brokers from using private listing networks and “coming soon” marketing strategies.

“Zillow pretends it favors ‘transparency,’ but in truth its ban achieves the opposite,” the brief stated. “Zillow only bans listings that were publicly marketed off-MLS and, as such, it encourages listings to be truly secret; it knowingly and deliberately withholds the fact that a home is for sale from its users.”

Defendants also argued that private listings are procompetitive and that MRED’s rules requiring “objective criteria” for listing filters are neutral and lawful.

They also contended that Compass and MRED each acted independently, not as part of any conspiracy.

“The evidence shows that neither Defendant wanted Zillow’s data feeds permanently suspended,” the brief stated. “Defendants simply wanted Zillow to stop banning and misrepresenting listings.”

Long-running dispute over listing access

Litigation traces back to Zillow’s broader antitrust lawsuit alleging that MRED and Compass conspired to cut off the listing portal’s access to the Chicagoland MLS listing feed.

The preliminary injunction motion requires Zillow to show it would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that it is likely to prevail at trial.

MRED suspended Zillow’s feed access on May 20, but the suspension lasted only two days after the court issued a temporary restraining order restoring access.

Dispute centers on Zillow’s Listing Access Standards, which ban listings from its platform if they are not available for display on IDX or VOW feed-powered websites within one business day of the property being publicly marketed.

That policy impacts listings that Compass markets as private exclusives before taking them public via the MLS.

Zillow has argued that its policy is pro-competitive and good for consumers because it promotes transparency, while MRED’s enforcement of its display rules hurts consumers and protects Compass from competition.

MRED has maintained that its rules are neutral and derive from a 2008 settlement between the Department of Justice and the National Association of Realtors that prevented MLSs from selectively hiding listings from consumer-facing portals.

It remains unclear how long the court will take to rule on the motions.

This article was written by Jonathan Delozier and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation. It was reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

West Capital Lending (WCL) is pushing back against loanDepot‘s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit that accuses the lender of using an illegal compensation structure to gain an unfair competitive advantage in the mortgage market.

In an opposition brief filed June 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, WCL argued that its complaint sufficiently alleges loanDepot violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)’s loan originator compensation rule by tying production managers’ compensation to the pricing terms offered to borrowers.

TILA’s application to production managers

WCL filed the lawsuit in March, alleging loanDepot’s consumer direct division violated the Truth in Lending Act’s loan originator compensation rule by tying production managers’ compensation to loan profitability and pricing concessions. WCL argues the rule applies to production managers because they negotiated loan terms with borrowers, despite also serving in supervisory roles.

The complaint alleges loanDepot used the compensation structure to gain pricing flexibility unavailable to compliant lenders. This allowed it to selectively undercut competitors — including WCL — while reducing managers’ compensation, causing WCL to lose customers, market share and revenue.

To support its claims, WCL cited declarations from former loanDepot production managers and executives who said managers regularly negotiated rates and fees with borrowers, and that their pay decreased when they approved pricing concessions.

The filing also points to an internal compensation formula that allegedly reduced production managers’ bonuses based on the number of pricing exceptions granted to borrowers. WCL argues the policy directly linked compensation to loan terms in violation of Regulation Z.

WCL further alleges former employees were instructed to match or beat offers from WCL regardless of profitability. According to the declarations, loanDepot was willing to lose money on individual loans to prevent borrowers from choosing the rival lender, using profits from higher-priced loans and reduced manager compensation to subsidize the discounts.

The company also argues it has standing to pursue claims under California‘s Unfair Competition Law because it allegedly lost customers, market share and revenue as a result of the practices. It contends that California law allows unfair competition claims to be based on alleged TILA violations, even though TILA itself does not provide competitors with a private right of action.

Legal battle on multiple fronts

WCL is asking the court to deny loanDepot’s motion to dismiss or, alternatively, allow it to amend its complaint if the court identifies any pleading deficiencies. The case remains pending, and neither WCL nor loanDepot returned HousingWire‘s requests for comment at the time of publication.

The suit isn’t the first time WCL and loanDepot have gone toe to toe in the courtroom.

In October 2025, loanDepot accused WCL and its founders of poaching hundreds of loan officers, misappropriating trade secrets and customer data, and violating LO compensation and labor laws. That case is still ongoing.

The lender also alleged that WCL improperly classified hundreds of loan officers as independent contractors and compensated them through revenue-sharing arrangements that gave the brokerage an unfair competitive advantage. WCL has denied the allegations.

WCL also faces a separate but similar lawsuit filed in June 2025 by consumer-direct lender Griffin Funding. That suit alleges several former LOs diverted company leads and customers after leaving for WCL. Griffin alleges the former employees misappropriated trade secrets and caused more than $3.7 million in lost revenue, claiming that WCL benefited from the alleged misconduct.

This article was written by Sarah Wolak and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Washington says it wants to lower costs and expand access to credit. For millions of entrepreneurs, access to credit depends not only on the health of their businesses but also on their personal credit profiles. That is why regulatory decisions that make borrowing more complex or expensive deserve close scrutiny. 

Recent disclosures obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Housing Policy Council raise important questions about the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) decision to require the use of two credit scores for mortgages sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As part of an FHFA-directed review of credit score models, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were asked to evaluate and recommend which models should be approved. Both Enterprises recommended moving to a single modernized credit score that incorporates trended credit data and advised against requiring an additional score as part of the transition. FHFA overruled that recommendation and instead required a dual-score framework.

That decision carries real consequences for borrowers, lenders and small businesses by raising costs and introducing uncertainty into mortgage underwriting, and it warrants reconsideration before implementation is locked in.

Unanswered questions in the FHFA review process 

The FOIA disclosures are noteworthy because they show that FHFA’s own review process produced a different recommendation than the one ultimately adopted. FHFA itself stated that “requiring two different scores for each borrower is a significant change” and acknowledged that implementation would be a multiyear effort because of the “complexity and broad impact to the industry.” The agency also noted that credit scores are used throughout the mortgage process and that determining how two different scores will operate across systems will require extensive coordination among lenders, investors, mortgage insurers and other stakeholders.

FHFA argues that requiring multiple scores will improve accuracy, prevent adverse selection and promote competition within the mortgage market. Its determination states that requiring lenders to deliver both scores would prevent lenders from choosing which score to use for eligibility or pricing. But if the Enterprises themselves, after conducting the requested evaluations, did not conclude that two scores were necessary, it is reasonable to ask what evidence justifies overriding that recommendation. FHFA has also stated that it is not publicly releasing the underlying testing results, making it difficult for outside stakeholders to independently evaluate the agency’s conclusions.

Systemic costs and real-world consequences 

For mortgage lenders, implementation extends beyond simply obtaining an additional score. In practice, it can mean updates to loan origination systems, pricing engines, compliance procedures, quality-control reviews, secondary-market delivery processes and investor reporting requirements. Mortgage technology providers and lenders alike will need to test, validate and monitor how multiple scores affect underwriting and pricing decisions. Those investments may be manageable for large institutions, but they still carry costs that ultimately flow through the mortgage system.

For small businesses, this is not an abstract debate. Personal and business finances remain closely linked for many entrepreneurs. Federal Reserve survey data show that 59% of small businesses with debt rely on a personal guarantee, while more than half of firms facing financial challenges reported using personal funds to support their businesses. Changes that affect the cost, availability or predictability of consumer credit can ultimately affect the ability of small business owners to invest, hire and grow.

When lenders face new operational mandates, those costs do not remain confined to compliance departments. Over time, lenders often incorporate added complexity and uncertainty into pricing models, risk management practices and underwriting standards. That can mean higher rates, tighter credit or reduced flexibility for borrowers near approval thresholds, including self-employed applicants, entrepreneurs with thin credit files, first-time homebuyers and borrowers whose risk characteristics may be assessed differently across models.

Preserving flexibility in credit modernization 

Supporters of the dual-score framework point to competition and pricing concerns. But requiring two scores does not automatically resolve those concerns. Credit scores represent only one component of the mortgage process, while broader cost pressures stem from technology investments, regulatory compliance obligations, operational requirements and other market factors. Introducing parallel scoring frameworks risks adding costs for lenders without clearly reducing costs for borrowers.

Importantly, the issue is not whether the mortgage market should adopt newer credit scoring models. Updating credit scoring models to reflect evolving data and risk patterns is appropriate and necessary. The question is whether requiring both models simultaneously creates benefits sufficient to justify the added operational burden.

A simpler approach would preserve flexibility while reducing risk: Allow lenders to rely on a single modernized score, with the option to use additional models where appropriate. That approach would promote innovation without forcing unnecessary complexity into a system that directly affects borrowing costs.

FHFA still has time to reconsider how this transition is implemented. Before moving further, the agency should publicly release the analysis underlying its decision, explain why it departed from its own Enterprise review process and demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the costs lenders, borrowers and small businesses will ultimately bear.

John Stanford, Co-executive Director, Small Business Roundtable
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: zeb@hwmedia.com. 

This post was originally published on here. 

Indianapolis-based apartment developer Milhaus started building an apartment project in Manatee County, Florida, under the state’s Live Local Act after securing its funding earlier this year.

It may be one of the few to be built in the county, next to Sarasota, under the law, until lawsuits over a major increase in impact fees are resolved.

Manatee has quickly emerged as a broader litmus test of how municipalities continue to hinder housing development, even as laws change to encourage more housing. Fights over Live Local projects continue.

In Manatee County, the fight isn’t about the Live Local Act, but a law enacted last year to limit impact fees in hurricane-stricken areas.

County officials raised fees dramatically last year for all development, invoking the “extraordinary circumstances” exception under Manatee County’s 2021 impact fee law. They said the increase would pay for the infrastructure needed to handle growth. Officials made the move despite Senate Bill 180 freezing major fee increases through October 2027.

Housing advocates and developers say the fees offset the financial incentives that make Live Local projects attractive, including workforce housing.

Developers sued the county over the fees. The county joined a lawsuit against the state over last year’s bill.

While that dispute unfolded, state lawmakers closed more loopholes in the 2023 Live Local law that preempted local zoning. Live Local is now in its 4.0 version.

The math behind the increase

Manatee County commissioners raised impact fees to the state maximum on June 5, 2025. The vote was unanimous, 6-0, with one commissioner absent earlier in the process.

Fees jumped from roughly $13,442 to $16,328 per unit. Under the new schedule, some categories now reach $33,875 per unit, an increase of 69% to 169% depending on housing type.

Consultant Benesch argued 2015-based rates left millions of dollars uncollected. Commissioners framed the increase as growth paying for itself, not as housing policy.

The new rates took effect in early September last year. Developers who filed permits by Sept. 4 locked in the old, lower fees. Anyone filing after that date absorbed the full increase.

Legal fights add uncertainty

Developers sued the county, arguing the fee hike violates SB 180. That law bars more burdensome development rules in hurricane-affected areas for roughly two years.

Florida’s Department of Commerce sent a warning letter last August. Secretary Alex Kelly said the fee increase potentially violated SB 180. The state also withheld $3 million tied to the dispute.

Manatee County pushed back. Commissioners voted in July 2025 to fight SB 180 directly, directing lobbyists to seek its repeal. The county also joined a separate lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality.

Beginning with Live Local

Under Live Local, housing developments bypass zoning hearings. The county’s own resolution describes Live Local procedures as supporting its affordable housing goals.

Milhaus entered with the county’s first Live Local project. A couple of others are now in the pipeline. The process has been a learning curve for everyone involved.

“We took the brunt of a learning curve,” Brad Vogelsmeier, Milhaus’s vice president of development, told HousingWire TBD.

Officials were new to Live Local. They were still figuring out, for example, what belongs in a land use restriction agreement that locks in affordability for a set period.

“We’re not technically supposed to go through public vote council approval,” Vogelsmeier said. “That was probably the highest barrier.”

Milhaus now has 231 units under construction, with completion targeted for November 2027.

Atlanta-based Rangewater Development has a 300-unit Live Local project underway in Manatee after winning approval earlier this year.

What comes next

Future Live Local projects in Manatee will likely sit on the shelf now that fees are high enough to erase much of their advantage.

Manatee is still trying to recover the nearly $3 million in withheld state funds. Until a court rules or the fee schedule changes, developers face a math problem.

“LLA projects will likely become less feasible if the county wins the case, but so will all development,” Kody Glazer, Florida Housing Coalition’s chief legal and policy director, told HousingWire TBD.

This post was originally published on here. 

[Editor’s note: This is the second of a two-part article in the aftermath of filings this week from Dream Finders Homes and Beazer Homes, as Dream Finders pursues Beazer as an acquisition target. Here’s the link to Part 1]. 

The surface question in the Dream Finders Homes–Beazer Homes takeover contest is the one everybody is now asking. Is $32 per share enough? What’s thornier for both parties in this “Justify My Love” chapter of the saga is how ably they each contend with what happens next.

For Dream Finders, the latest increase raises the financial fallout of being wrong about what it is buying. The company has put forward an all-cash offer near the highest level at which Beazer shares have traded in more than 15 years, without yet having access to the confidential diligence it says it needs to confirm its best offer.

What’s more, Dream Finders will likely need to convince its own shareholders that it has the ability to improve Beazer’s performance. That is, while Dream Finders margins have remained above Beazer’s, Dream Finders has nonetheless experienced margin erosion due to the affordability-challenged environment the entire industry is grinding through.  

For Beazer, the risk runs in the opposite direction. If the board rejects the offer, if talks never begin, or if a transaction ultimately falls apart, the company would remain in the public market with the same operating challenges that left its shares well below $32 before Dream Finders appeared.

On one side, Dream Finders faces financial leverage and operational risk. On the other hand, Beazer faces uncertainty risk. Both turn on the same stubborn track-record fact: Beazer has underperformed.

That underperformance is what makes the company potentially attractive to Dream Finders. It is also what makes the economics and logistics of acquiring and turning it around so difficult to assess from the outside, not yet looking in.

The next stage of the contest, therefore, is no longer only about what Beazer is worth today. It is about which company can bear the risk of what happens after $32.

Beazer’s risk: what happens if $32 goes away?

Beazer’s position since Dream Finders first went public has been that the bidder undervalues the company.

At $25.75, that argument was one thing.

At $32, it becomes a tougher position to defend.

Dream Finders has now put forward a cash price near the upper end of where Beazer shares have traded in more than 15 years. Beazer, meanwhile, says its board is considering interest from additional parties, a “range of potential transactions” and the company’s standalone strategy.

Any of those paths may ultimately produce greater value. The uncertainty lies in whether they will.

That is the risk Beazer shareholders increasingly face if the Dream Finders transaction does not happen. The board is not simply weighing $32 against its own estimate of what the company should be worth. It is weighing a certain cash proposal against alternatives whose value, timing and execution remain uncertain.

The distinction matters because the market price Dream Finders disrupted in May reflected the investor sentiment and outlook as it existed then: Beazer’s assets, strategy, management team, profitability and prospects.

Dream Finders’ arrival changed that price. Its departure could change it again.

That does not mean Beazer’s shares would necessarily return to their pre-bid level if the transaction falls apart. Nor does it mean the board should accept an offer merely because rejecting it creates market risk. However, the board must recognize that past offers, whether $25.75 or $32, won’t necessarily set a future floor for the stock.

In any event, Beazer’s standalone scenario now carries a more visible burden of proof.

The question is no longer simply whether Beazer possesses assets worth more than Dream Finders is offering. Rather, it’s how, and over what period, Beazer can convert those assets into shareholder returns that exceed the value and solidity of $32 in cash.

That requires a diagnosis of the company’s underperformance. Longtime homebuilding equity analyst Dan Oppenheim sees two very different possibilities.

One is primarily operational. If Beazer owns fundamentally sound land but has failed to extract adequate margins because of sales, construction, overhead or execution problems, better management and processes could create substantial value.

That would support the case that Beazer can improve as an independent company. It would also strengthen Dream Finders’ thesis that an acquirer can do better with the same platform. The second possibility becomes a harder conundrum.

If Beazer’s profitability problem is rooted substantially in the price it paid for land and where it bought it, there may be no rapid operating fix.

“Once the land is acquired, you can only do so much,” Oppenheim said.

That observation cuts both ways.

For Beazer, the burden is no longer simply to point to book value or argue that $32 undervalues the company’s assets. The company must communicate a credible strategy for generating better results that will yield a present value greater than $32 in cash. Turning the ship may take time, but Beazer’s board and shareholders may insist on a more rapid turnaround in order to forgo the $32 offer.

Can Beazer improve margins and inventory turns? Can it generate stronger returns from the land it already owns and controls? How long will those improvements take, and what market and execution risks must shareholders accept while they wait?

Those questions matter because $32 is not a theoretical valuation. It is cash. The more compelling the offer becomes, the more concrete the case for walking away from it ultimately has to become.

DFH’s risk: the higher the price, the less room for error

Every increase in Dream Finders’ offer puts more pressure on Beazer’s board. Every increase also raises the cost to Dream Finders of misjudging what it is buying. That factor may now be the least examined – and the hardest to fathom, given current constraints on due diligence – part of the saga.

Much of the public discussion has focused on Beazer: What price should its board accept? Is $32 enough? Can the standalone company create more value? Are there other bidders or strategic alternatives?

The latest offer gives a different question equal billing. Is buying Beazer at $32 good for Dream Finders?

Not to ignore from a high-level, in addition to Dream Finders management thinking that it can improve BZH’s results, it may also see value in amping up deeper local scale in its existing markets, given the significant overlap between the two companies. This is not just about more volume across the country –  it wouldn’t meaningfully change DFH’s market presence – but is about greater scale in the existing markets to better compete with the largest builders. 

Beyond that 40-thousand-foot strategic gain, Dream Finders’ own late-yesterday response to Beazer underscores why that question remains open. The company said it is prepared to execute an NDA immediately and accept a limited standstill so it can begin due diligence and “confirm its best offer.”

That is the black box inside the proposal.

Dream Finders is willing to pay $32 based on what it knows publicly. It is still seeking access to what it does not know.. Beazer’s public results reveal the symptoms. The company has persistently lagged stronger-performing peers on profitability and returns. What the public record cannot neatly reveal is how much of that underperformance can be fixed by a new owner — and how much is embedded in land, capital and operating decisions already made.

Beazer’s underperformance is both an acquisition opportunity and a risk. Some potential savings are easier to envision. A buyer can eliminate duplicative public-company expenses and other corporate overhead. Dream Finders may find efficiencies in purchasing, construction, sales and operations, and it may believe its operating model can improve inventory turns and capital allocation. The harder questions lie deeper in Beazer’s existing asset base, “under the hood.”

A homebuilder does not acquire land as a blank slate. It inherits where the land is located, when it was purchased, how much development capital remains to be invested, and what home prices and absorption rates those communities can support.

Those variables do not lend themselves to a clean public spreadsheet. Nor do they disappear when ownership changes. Oppenheim’s point is not that Beazer cannot be improved. It is that the difficulty of the turnaround should not be underestimated: “They’ve been in the industry for a long time. If it were simple to turn things around there, they would have done so.”

That is where the risk to Dream Finders becomes more than a question of purchase price. Without full diligence, it is difficult to know whether Beazer’s performance gap represents readily recoverable upside or a more stubborn set of asset and operating constraints. And as Oppenheim notes, Dream Finders cannot yet claim that confidential diligence has revealed synergies or improvements that were invisible when it made its earlier offers.

Yet the price has continued to rise. At $32, Dream Finders has uncomfortably less room for error in the diagnosis.

The land doesn’t reset at closing

The uncertainty is particularly important around land. If Beazer’s weaker profitability is primarily an operating problem, Dream Finders may be able to improve sales execution, construction performance, overhead or inventory turns. Dream Finders apparently believes this is a key issue, seen in its willingness and persistence in pursuing the acquisition and as it highlighted Beazer’s “inability to extract value from existing land positions” in its investor presentation.

However, if a meaningful part of the problem is embedded in the basis and positioning of land Beazer already controls, the remedy is a slower and harder slog. Ownership can change overnight. Land economics do not.

Dream Finders has also indicated that land-bank capital could play a role in financing a transaction. Such structures may reduce the amount of capital Dream Finders itself must commit to acquire and hold Beazer’s land.

Beazer has increased its lots controlled via options, which stood at 60% as of March 31st, while Dream Finders would likely aim to utilize land banking structures to minimize the land held on balance sheet should it be able to complete the acquisition.

That can make a transaction more capital-efficient, but it does not make the land cheaper. A land banker must earn a return. Lots taken down from a third-party structure embed the interest burden of that capital provider. Dream Finders could therefore reduce the capital tied up in land while adding another cost that the homes built on those lots must absorb.

Without access to the detailed economics of Beazer’s land pipeline and Dream Finders’ prospective financing structure, attaching a tidy number to that burden would suggest a precision the public facts do not make clearly evident.

The strategic challenge is clear enough without one. Dream Finders may be able to reduce the capital required to control Beazer’s land. It still has to build and sell homes profitably on it.

That is the leverage risk inside the $32 offer: The higher the acquisition price and the more expensive the capital structure needed to support it, the more operating improvement Dream Finders must produce to justify the transaction.

Two different ways to get it wrong

The contest has now reached a point where neither company holds a risk-free position.

Beazer could be right that $32 undervalues the company, only to discover that its standalone improvement takes longer than expected, that other strategic alternatives fail to materialize, or that investors are unwilling to restore the valuation Dream Finders has put on the table.

Dream Finders could be right that Beazer is fixable, only to discover after gaining access to confidential information – or after completing a transaction –  that more of the underperformance is embedded in the assets than it expected.

That is why the latest disagreement over due diligence and the standstill matters beyond process. Dream Finders says it will sign an NDA and accept a limited standstill. It wants access to Beazer’s confidential information while preserving its ability to return to shareholders or nominate directors if engagement fails.

Beazer wants the 12-month restriction it says other interested parties have accepted. Behind that dispute is a more basic reality. Dream Finders wants to know more before confirming how far it is ultimately prepared to go. In the halting dialog it has opened up, Beazer seems to want Dream Finders to give up its hostile approach in order to get the chance to find out.

Dream Finders’ persistence may reflect a belief that Beazer’s underperformance is precisely what makes the company attractive. An efficiently-run company offers fewer obvious improvements for a buyer to capture. An underperforming one may offer more. But that all depends on whether the buyer correctly discerns what is wrong and can nimbly make those operational, business-impacting adjustments.

That is the paradox inside the pursuit. Beazer faces the uncertainty of turning away from $32, based on an inference that it can deliver something better, and then having to prove it can deliver something better. Dream Finders faces the leverage risk of paying $32 and then having to prove it can turn what it bought into something better.

The question is no longer simply whether $32 is enough for Beazer.

It is about determining which company can better manage the heightened risk of being wrong.

This post was originally published on here. 

The Federal Reserve on Thursday outlined a slate of five new task forces led by prominent academics and business leaders. They will scrutinize how the central bank communicates, manages its balance sheet, interprets data, evaluates productivity and jobs, and responds to inflation.

The initiative, detailed in Fed press release, is aimed at advancing “the conduct of monetary policy” at a time when structural changes in the U.S. economy and advances in technology are testing longstanding policy frameworks.

“The Federal Reserve‘s commitment to price stability and maximum employment is unwavering. As is our resolve to pursue our mandate with rigor,” Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh said in a statement announcing the task forces. He framed the effort as a broad review of the tools and methods used by policymakers, emphasizing that the goal is to ensure the Fed is “best positioned to achieve our objectives in this consequential time.”

Warsh announced the coming formation of the task forces on June 17 during his first press conference as Fed chair. The groups themselves represent a shift in Fed policy as Warsh has explicitly stated the central bank will move away from the forward guidance given under former Chair Jerome Powell.

“Taking a fresh look at all of these areas should ultimately make the Fed operate more efficiently and effectively over time,” Marty Green, principal at Polunsky Beitel Green, previously told HousingWire. “It will also allow the Fed to perhaps better adjust policy in an economy that may evolve more quickly as artificial intelligence has a greater impact.”  

HousingWire Lead Analyst Logan Mohtashami said the task forces may signal Warsh’s desire to move away from the Fed’s dual mandate by Congress to achieve maximum employment and price stability.

“Look for the task force to eventually recommend losing the dual mandate that also includes maximum employment,” Mohtashami wrote. “But that move will need congressional approval, and I highly doubt he can muster the political support right now to make it happen. Warsh wants new ways to track labor and inflation data, which is fine.”

The five task forces will focus on areas central to the formation and communication of monetary policy and will be co-led by external advisers with experience in academia, business and central banking. They will be supported by Federal Reserve staff but are expected to operate independently and provide “candid feedback” and “rigorous findings” to the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).

Task force areas and leaders

Communications. This group will review how the Fed conveys policy deliberations and decisions, particularly under uncertainty. Its leaders are:

• Peter R. Fisher, professor of practice, Foster School of Business, University of Washington
• Arminio Fraga, founder and chairman, Gávea Investimentos, and former president of the Central Bank of Brazil
• Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank of England

Balance-sheet policy. This task force will examine the costs, benefits and institutional implications of the Fed’s current balance-sheet regime, an issue that has become central since the expansion of quantitative easing and ongoing balance-sheet runoff. Its leaders are:

• Karen Dynan, professor of economics, Harvard University
• Raghuram Rajan, professor of finance, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and former governor of the Reserve Bank of India
• Jeremy Stein, professor of economics, Harvard University, and former Federal Reserve Board governor

Data. This group will focus on improving the quality and timeliness of real-economy signals that feed into policy judgments, a key issue for markets that increasingly trade on high-frequency data and alternative indicators. Its leaders are:

• Raj Chetty, professor of economics, Harvard University
• Doug McMillon, former president and CEO of Walmart Inc.
• Kevin Murphy, professor of economics, University of Chicago

Productivity and jobs. This task force will assess how new general-purpose technologies, including artificial intelligence, are affecting productivity, employment and wage dynamics, with the goal of better informing policy judgments on growth and labor markets. Its leaders are:

• Marc Andreessen, co-founder and general partner, Andreessen Horowitz
• Charles I. Jones, professor of economics, Stanford University, currently on leave at Anthropic
• Asha Sharma, executive vice president and XBOX CEO, Microsoft Corp.

Inflation frameworks. This group will revisit how the Fed understands and responds to the drivers of inflation, including the framework it uses to target and communicate about price stability. Its leaders are:

• Greg Mankiw, professor of economics, Harvard University, and former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers
• Thomas Sargent, professor of economics, New York University and Nobel laureate
• William White, senior fellow, C.D. Howe Institute, and former economic adviser at the Bank for International Settlements

The Fed said more information on the task forces and their topics will be posted periodically on its website.

This article was written by Neil Pierson with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Chicago-based mortgage lender Rate announced on Thursday that more than a dozen loan officers have joined the company from California-headquartered New American Funding (NAF), bringing “nine figures in production volume with them.”

The group includes 14 loan officers: Lori Crabb, Maria Castorena, Cory Graciano, Donaciano Garcia Amaya, Jim Butz, Samuel Wagner, Kristi Hernandez, Andy Thom, Michael Giganti, Joe McCaslin, Kyle Travers, Peter Strahler, Jay Kunkle and Chad Geyer.

Per Modex data, the top producers among the group are Geyer with a year-to-date volume of $12.21 million and Travers with a year-to-date volume of $9.426 million.

Rate said several of the loan officers are returning to the company after spending time with other lenders, pointing to the company’s platform, technology and product offerings as factors behind the moves.

New American Funding did not return HousingWire‘s request for comment at the time of publication.

“The best in the business are making intentional decisions about where they can win,” said Shant Banosian, president of Rate. “They’re choosing the platform with the product depth, pricing, technology, execution and collaborative culture of sharing built to grow their business and give themselves and their partners a real competitive edge.

“When experienced producers look closely at what Rate offers, including those who have been here before, the decision speaks for itself.”

Some of the returning LOs cited Rate’s technology and lending platform as reasons for rejoining the company.

“I wasn’t actively looking to make a move, but after reconnecting with someone at Rate whom I greatly respected, I took a fresh look at the platform and everything that had evolved since my previous time there,” Kunkle said.

“The more I explored, the clearer the decision became. What ultimately brought me back was the combination of industry-leading technology, a broad product offering, competitive pricing, and a platform that truly allows me to better serve my clients and agent partners while continuing to grow my business.”

Geyer said Rate’s technology, products and pricing were among the factors influencing his decision to return.

“It’s great to be back at Rate,” Geyer said. “The tech, product, and rates are as good as it gets. My business is taking off, and I can better serve my borrowers and partners.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Bright MLS is set to implement a series of rule updates later this summer designed to give agents more options and sellers greater control over property data.

Changes also establish new protections around the use of listing information in artificial intelligence (AI) applications.

Other moves include a streamlined listing submission process, unified consumer display standards, new privacy controls for sellers and expanded pre-marketing options.

A central change reaffirms the requirement that all listings must be submitted to the MLS within two calendar days of signing a listing agreement. Bright is introducing a new option for situations where a property is not yet ready for public marketing.

Agents will be able to file the listing with the MLS in a new “Registered” status while they and their sellers prepare for its marketing launch.

This allows agents to remain compliant with the two-day submission rule without triggering public exposure before the seller is ready.

“The two days has been policy for a long time,” said Rajeev Sajja, chief artificial intelligence and product officer at Bright MLS. “However, with the additional options we’re giving them, they can add it in the MLS within two days — but still restrict exposure and take the journey with the visuals that were probably shared with you anyway.”

Sajja noted that agents have multiple layers of control available in the rule updates, including office exclusive status, coming soon status and active status with internet display options.

“There are stages that they can fully control exposure while still being compliant and not worrying about more exposure than before they’re ready for it,” he said.

New reporting option, privacy controls

Bright is consolidating its IDX and VOW rules into a single “Policy on Display for Consumer Search” with uniform display standards.

While the underlying display rules remain largely unchanged, the update introduces a mechanism for agents to report websites that fail to remove information added to their listings.

Sajja said agents may submit compliance tickets through Bright’s system — with the MLS pursuing enforcement against publishers that violate display rules.

“We have a strong compliance follow-through framework,” he said. “We get a few hundred compliance issues every month, so agents can report it, and we’ll obviously go after the publisher for that reason.”

The updates also introduce two advanced settings giving sellers more control over how their property data appears online. Photo suppression allows sellers to request that all but one exterior photo be suppressed from public-facing websites — while all photos remain fully visible to professionals within the Bright MLS system.

This expands upon a listing photo control option for off-market listings introduced in December.

Price suppression gives sellers the option to withhold the listing price from public sites.

“Our goal at an MLS is to truly empower any broker’s marketing strategy or an agent’s marketing strategy, so that they don’t say, ‘I can’t do this in an MLS because my seller is asking for it,’” Sajja said. “If they feel like we want to suppress the price for those, we have a path for that. If they want full exposure, we have a path for that.

“I think our goal is give them more options and have them choose the options that best fit their strategy.”

Sajja emphasized that Bright’s role is not to direct marketing strategy.  

“We are a neutral, transparent, cooperative marketplace,” he said. “We want to empower them with all the options they need.”

AI protections, data governance

Bright is taking what Sajja described as a proactive stance on how broker data is used — and not used — in AI applications.

The MLS is prohibiting anyone from downloading MLS data and uploading it to train AI models.

“The pitfalls [of uploading data directly to AI tools] is having AI models train on our data. We want to do it the right way and give them access,” Sajja said, referring to plans to provide subscribers with secure access to MLS data through tools like model context protocol servers.

Bright is also developing an application that will allow subscribers to utilize AI to ask questions and receive answers grounded in Bright’s market data.

Sajja added that he recently tested three large language models by asking for the list-to-sale price ratio in his neighborhood, and each gave a slightly different answer.

“If it was all connected to Bright’s trusted data, the answer would be exactly the same, and that’s where we’re headed,” he said. “We want to empower our brokers and agents to win at the client conversations, the kitchen table.”

Sajja also pointed to Bright’s recent efforts to enforce data use policies — including calling out large language models that were scraping listing photos without permission.

“We think we’re taking a proactive stance on how brokers’ data is used and not used in AI,” he said.

Broader strategy, launch date

Sajja said the rule changes preserve flexibility while protecting cooperation.

“We want to give the freedom to the broker to market the way they want as they work with their sellers to supports their strategy, and we don’t really pivot to one broker strategy over the other,” he said. “Our role, we think, is to empower every broker in our marketplace to compete on their strategy and give them the options to do that in the MLS.”

Bright has not finalized a specific date for the rule updates — saying that they will take effect later this summer.

Sajja said the timing is intended to give data feed recipients time to adapt to the changes, particularly photo suppression, which requires technical adjustments. “

“Photo suppression is a big thing,” he said. “I’m a technologist and I know coding. It takes a while to get that going, and we’ve heard that initially. So, we want to leave the window a little open and give them, respectfully, some time to get the changes done.”

Bright said it will provide additional details in the coming weeks to help subscribers navigate the new tools and settings.

This post was originally published on here. 

HighTechLending is marketing a home equity line of credit (HELOC) targeted at older homeowners as an alternative to traditional reverse mortgages, amid a long-term decline in federally insured loan volume.

In a recent webinar, “Beyond Reverse — Winning the 55+ Borrower,” Paul Fiore, vice president of sales at HighTechLending and a former executive at American Advisors Group, positioned HighTech’s EquitySelect product as one option for borrowers 55 and older who want to tap home equity but are wary of reverse mortgages.

Fiore noted that annual Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) endorsements have fallen “about 78%” from their 2009 peak, now standing at roughly 25,000 to 30,000 loans a year.

“The 55-plus community is doing HELOCs and cash-outs, about a million loans a year,” he said. “If you just sell reverse mortgages today, you’re only capturing 50,000 of the borrowers that over a million are currently transacting in the demographic that you are marketing to.”

Recent data supports Fiore’s claims. Reverse Market Insight (RMI) reported that the top 100 HECM retail lenders logged 2,064 loans in June, a 6% increase from May but down 9.8% year to date. And while retail lender endorsements were up in June, HECM Mortgage-Backed Securities (HMBS) issuance fell to $456 million, ranking as the 10th-lowest month for HMBS issuance since the program began in 2009, according to New View Advisors.

Fiore cited higher interest rates, increased closing costs and ongoing perception issues as reasons many older borrowers who inquire about reverse mortgages ultimately do not close on them. “No matter how much we advertise, no matter how much we educate, the borrowers are choosing different products,” he said.

EquitySelect is structured as a HELOC that can be set up in a first- or second-lien position. According to Fiore’s presentation, line-of-credit sizes can reach up to $4 million in first position and $1 million in second position, with the product generally aimed at borrowers with combined loan-to-value ratios below about 60%.

Borrowers select a minimum payment based on a percentage of the outstanding balance. For borrowers 60 and older, plans range from 1% to 5% annually, and the selected plan is fixed for the life of the loan.

Fiore described EquitySelect as a “non-recourse, non-recast, no prepayment penalty loan” with a 40-year balloon term. It includes a seven-year draw period for first liens and five years for second liens.

Qualification is based on a capped minimum payment rather than a fully amortizing principal-and-interest payment, which changes how debt-to-income ratios are calculated.

“What that means is they will likely qualify for more money than they would have with a traditional mortgage lien, and they might actually qualify in situations where they otherwise would not have,” Fiore said.

As of Thursday, the EquitySelect 1st and 2nd Lien HELOC is now available in Illinois and Michigan, per a company press release.

Fiore framed the product as part of a broader strategy to give loan officers more options for older borrowers. “People buy outcomes, not products,” he said. “If you can have optionality in what you present, it boosts your credibility with the borrower.”

The product mirrors other offerings in the reverse space, including Longbridge Financial‘s HELOC for Seniors and Finance of America’s HomeSafe Second line of credit.

This post was originally published on here. 

Remodeling contractors remained optimistic in the second quarter of 2026 even as material costs and economic uncertainty delayed larger jobs, according to new data from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).

The NAHB Remodeling Market Index (RMI) came in at 61 in Q2 2026, down one point from the prior quarter but solidly above the break-even level of 50, NAHB reported on its Eye on Housing blog. The index has held in the low 60s for the past year and continues to outperform sentiment in both the single-family and multifamily new construction sectors.

The RMI is based on a national survey of professional remodelers who rate current conditions and future expectations for the residential remodeling market as “good,” “fair” or “poor.” Readings above 50 indicate more remodelers view conditions as good than poor.

Lock-in, low inventory and equity keep demand flowing

NAHB economists attributed the resilience of remodeling to several structural tailwinds that matter directly to builders, remodelers and suppliers.

• Mortgage rate lock-in: With current mortgage rates sitting above the median outstanding rate for existing homeowners, many households are opting to remodel rather than move, especially given lean for-sale inventory.
• Record home equity: Homeowners are sitting on record-high real estate gains, giving them the capacity to finance kitchen, bath and whole-house projects through cash-out refis, home equity lines or cash.
• Inventory constraints: Limited existing-home supply and affordability pressures in new construction continue to push demand toward improving the current home rather than trading up.

For residential construction firms with both building and remodeling operations, the data reinforces that remodeling remains a comparative bright spot in a housing market still constrained by rates, prices and regulatory burdens.

Small and mid-size jobs hold up better than big-ticket projects

The RMI’s Current Conditions Index, which averages sentiment for small, medium and large projects, held at 70 in the second quarter, unchanged from Q1.

• Sentiment for moderately sized projects between $20,000 and $49,999 rose four points to 73.
• The small projects component (under $20,000) was steady at a strong 74.
• The large projects component ($50,000 and above) fell three points to 64.

That pattern mirrors what many design-build and remodeling firms have reported anecdotally: smaller tickets are easier for homeowners to greenlight in an uncertain macro environment, while large, discretionary additions and whole-house jobs are facing more scrutiny, scope reductions or delays.

For builders and trades that rely heavily on high-dollar renovation work, the shift toward mid-range and smaller projects may require adjustments in pipeline management, pricing strategy and crew allocation.

Future indicators soften but stay positive

The Future Indicators Index, which aggregates remodelers’ views on leads and backlogs, slipped two points to 52 in Q2, NAHB said. Both components remain just above the 50 threshold:

• The index for the backlog of remodeling jobs declined two points to 54.
• The index tracking the rate of leads and inquiries edged down one point to 51.

The modest drop suggests demand is easing from the peak levels seen during the pandemic-era remodeling boom but remains consistent with a solid, sustainable pipeline rather than a cliff in activity.

Inflation and fuel costs pressure margins

Cost and pricing pressures continue to shape project timing and profitability:

• 74% of remodelers said their suppliers raised material prices since March due to higher fuel costs.
• Those remodelers reported an average 6.7% increase in material prices over that short period.

NAHB noted that inflation and broader economic uncertainty are driving more project delays, particularly for large jobs. For remodelers and homebuilders with renovation divisions, the data underscores the need to:

• Tighten estimating and contingencies on long-duration projects
• Revisit escalation clauses and price-adjustment language in contracts
• Communicate early with clients about potential cost changes tied to fuel and freight

With operating costs moving higher and homeowners still price sensitive, firms that can manage procurement efficiently and lock in costs where possible will be better positioned to protect margins.

Why this matters for homebuilders and residential construction

NAHB’s baseline forecast calls for remodeling spending to remain “robust” in both the near term and over the long run. For The Builder’s Daily and broader HousingWire homebuilding audience, the RMI results highlight several strategic implications:

• Counter-cyclical hedge: Remodeling continues to provide diversification for production builders, specialty trades and suppliers facing choppy for-sale demand.
• Product strategy: Stronger demand in small and mid-range projects favors systems and finishes that support partial kitchen/bath upgrades, energy retrofits and exterior refreshes over full gut rehabs.
• Land and spec strategy: Builders in supply-constrained markets may see more opportunity in “build and remodel” models, acquisition-rehab programs or partnerships with remodeling firms targeting aging stock.
• Labor planning: A still-healthy backlog suggests firms should be cautious about cutting crews in remodeling operations, even if new-home starts slow.

For now, NAHB’s latest read on the RMI confirms that remodeling remains one of the most resilient segments in the housing ecosystem, supported by rate lock-in, equity and aging housing stock—even as cost inflation and macro uncertainty test budgets and timelines.

This post was originally published on here. 

A federal judge has denied the Federal Trade Commission’s request for a partial summary judgment in its antitrust challenge of Zillow Group’s partnership with Redfin, finding that disputed issues in the case must be resolved at trial.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga ruled Wednesday that factual disputes in the antitrust case require a full trial rather than an early decision.

Bloomberg reported that Trenga, who declined to temporarily block the partnership between Zillow and Redfin, said, “Too many disputes exist in the case to decide it before a trial.” The trial is expected to start on Aug. 24.

Zillow released a statement on its website regarding the news: “The FTC asked the court to partially resolve this case before Zillow has the opportunity to present its full evidence at trial — evidence that will demonstrate the pro-competitive effects of this partnership for renters and housing providers. We are pleased with the court’s decision today, and look forward to presenting the full record at trial next month.”

Neither the FTC nor Redfin responded to HousingWire’s requests for comment at the time of publication.

The backstory

The news comes just months after Trenga denied Zillow and Redfin’s motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit filed by the FTC and attorneys general from Virginia, Arizona, New York, Connecticut and Washington.

The FTC and several states sued Zillow and Redfin over a February 2025 agreement under which Zillow paid $100 million to become the exclusive provider of multifamily rental listings on Redfin, Rent.com and ApartmentGuide.com, with two optional two-year extensions.

Zillow also operates several rental listing platforms, including Zillow Rentals, HotPads and Trulia.

Originally filed as two separate lawsuits in September 2025 and consolidated in November, the case alleges the agreement effectively paid Redfin to exit the multifamily rental listings market, eliminating it as a competitor.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Redfin also agreed to stop selling multifamily advertising, terminate its existing advertising contracts and transition those customers to Zillow.

The FTC alleges the arrangement effectively combined two of the three largest online apartment listing services and violates federal antitrust and merger laws.

This post was originally published on here. 

The Dream Finders-Beazer situation has now moved beyond a standard merger-and-acquisition negotiation. It has become a live case study in public company governance, board discretion, shareholder rights, and the limits of process as a defense.

On the surface, this resembles a familiar public-company takeover dispute. One homebuilder has made an all-cash offer for another. The target board says it is evaluating options. The bidder claims the board is not engaging constructively.

Both sides use the language of fiduciary duty, shareholder value, and process.

Beneath that familiar structure, however, lies a more important question: when does a board’s right to manage a sale process become a tool to prevent shareholders from deciding for themselves? That is the issue surrounding Dream Finders Homes’ pursuit of Beazer Homes.

Dream Finders’ latest public statement is not merely an argument about price. It is a call-out on how Beazer’s board is exercising its gatekeeping power. The company is effectively saying that Beazer’s board is not only negotiating hard but also using procedural controls to limit the ability of a credible bidder and a Beazer shareholder to engage directly with the company’s owners.

Boards are supposed to protect shareholders from opportunistic bids, incomplete information, inadequate financing and rushed decisions. They are not supposed to use governance mechanics to insulate themselves from credible proposals that shareholders may reasonably want to consider.

Standstill as a management tool

The most telling issue is the reported 12-month standstill requirement that prevented Dream Finders from accessing due diligence. A standstill can be a legitimate tool. Companies often require bidders who enter a data room to agree not to misuse confidential information, to launch a hostile bid based on inside materials, or to disrupt the process while the board evaluates alternatives.

In a normal context, that is defensible. But a full year is different.

A 12-month standstill is not simply about confidentiality. It can work as a muzzle. It can prevent a bidder from returning to shareholders if the board delays, refuses to engage or steers the process in another direction. That is especially significant when the bidder is already a shareholder.

In that situation, the standstill is not merely a confidentiality agreement. It becomes a governance weapon. If a board requires a yearlong silence period just to allow a bidder into the data room, shareholders should ask whether the purpose is protection or entrenchment. There is a difference between running an orderly process and disabling a competing viewpoint. The practical effect is clear. Dream Finders would be allowed to look under the hood only if it agreed to surrender its ability to pressure the board publicly or go directly to shareholders for a meaningful period. That may be convenient for Beazer’s board. It may reduce noise. It may give directors greater control over the timeline. But the question is whether that control benefits shareholders or merely protects the board’s preferred process.

That is where this dispute becomes broader than Beazer. Public company governance is often discussed in abstract terms. Annual reports and proxy statements speak of independence, ethical conduct, shareholder alignment and disciplined oversight. But governance is not proven in boilerplate. It is proven under pressure.

All-cash at a premium is a bright line

A live premium bid is one of the clearest pressure tests a board can face. When a credible buyer appears with cash, financing support and a premium over the undisturbed trading price, the board’s job is not to make the offer disappear. Nor is it to manage the optics until shareholders lose interest. The board’s job is to determine whether the proposal is genuine, whether better alternatives exist and whether shareholders should be given a clear path to evaluate the choice.

That does not mean every premium bid should be accepted. Boards are not auctioneers with an obligation to sell to the first bidder. A board may conclude that the company’s standalone value is higher. It may be that the timing is poor. It may have other strategic alternatives. It may have legitimate concerns about execution, financing, regulatory approvals, or buyer credibility. But if the board chooses to reject or slow-walk a cash premium offer, it needs to show its work.

That is the second major issue in this dispute: the references to “other interested parties.” Beazer’s board may well be pursuing alternatives. It may have other parties interested in the company. It may be believed that a more attractive transaction is possible. But shareholders deserve to understand whether those alternatives are concrete or theoretical.

Dream Finders is openly challenging Beazer to confirm whether any unnamed parties have submitted a comparable all-cash offer at or above $32 per share, with committed financing support and a clear path to closing. That is a fair question.

In public M&A, “interest” is not a proposal. A phone call is not a bid. A non-binding expression of interest is not a financed offer. Strategic chatter is not the same as value. Shareholders do not own hypothetical upside. They own shares that can be sold, held, voted, or tendered based on real alternatives. If there are other credible bidders, Beazer should be able to say so, at least in general terms, without compromising the process. If there are not, the board is effectively asking shareholders to trust an undefined process over a visible cash proposal.

That is a much harder argument.

Where due diligence meets risk

The reported premium is also central. If the Dream Finders offer represents a 60% to 70% premium over Beazer’s undisturbed trading price, it is not a marginal proposal. It is the kind of offer that requires serious, transparent engagement. Shareholders may still prefer the standalone plan. They may believe that book value, land holdings, future earnings, or cycle timing justify a higher price. But they are entitled to compare that belief with actual cash. This is especially important in the homebuilding sector.

Public homebuilders often trade in complex territory. Book value, land inventory, option exposure, debt, absorptions, gross margins, backlog, cycle risk, and local market mix all matter. A company may look cheap on paper yet be difficult to unlock in practice. Conversely, a builder may trade below book because the market does not believe the assets will generate attractive returns over the cycle.

For asset-heavy companies trading below book value, management teams and boards often argue that public markets are undervaluing the company. Sometimes they are right. But when a strategic buyer appears and offers cash at a substantial premium, the conversation shifts.

The board can no longer rely solely on the premise that the market misunderstands the story. It must explain why shareholders should continue to accept public-market discounts rather than monetize the asset base today. That is the core tension.

Measuring ‘intrinsic value’

Beazer may believe its standalone plan is worth more than Dream Finders’ offer. It may believe the bid opportunistically captures value at the wrong point in the housing cycle. It may believe shareholders would be better served by waiting for rates to normalize, margins to recover, or investor sentiment toward small- and mid-cap builders to improve. Those arguments may be legitimate, but legitimacy requires evidence.

What is the board’s view of intrinsic value? What assumptions underpin that view? What is the probability-weighted outcome compared with cash today? What execution risk is embedded in the standalone plan? How long will shareholders have to wait? What happens if the housing cycle weakens? What happens if capital costs remain elevated? What happens if Beazer continues to trade at a discount despite operational progress? These are the questions shareholders should be asking.

The real issue is not whether $32 is the perfect number. It is whether the board allows shareholders to make a clear comparison between the bid and the alternative. That is why the standstill issue matters so much. A board confident in its standalone plan should not need to impose a broad gag order on a shareholder bidder. It should be willing to test the proposal, run a process, communicate with shareholders, and defend its conclusion. If the offer is inadequate, make that case. If other bidders are real, show enough evidence to establish that. If the standalone plan is superior, explain the math.

But using restrictive process terms to control the narrative invites suspicion. Governance risk often arises when a board’s legal rights and shareholder expectations diverge. Directors may have the authority to manage the process and may have counsel advising them that certain defensive steps are permissible. Yet the fact that something is legally available does not make it persuasive to owners.

Shareholders care less about technical governance language than about practical outcomes. Did the board engage? Did it test the offer? Did it preserve optionality? Did it communicate clearly? Did it allow the owners to make an informed judgment? Or did it hide behind the process? That is why this matter has become a referendum on Beazer’s board as much as on Dream Finders’ bid.

Rules of engagement

Dream Finders’ reservation of rights to nominate directors and re-engage shareholders ahead of Beazer’s 2027 annual meeting is not a throwaway line. It signals that if the board will not run what the bidder views as a real process, Dream Finders may take the question directly to the owners.

That is the classic escalation path in public company control disputes. First comes the proposal. Then the public letter. Then the pressure on the board. Then the possibility of a proxy contest or director nominations. The message is simple: if the board controls the door, shareholders control the board. That is the part every public company should pay attention to.

The modern governance environment is less tolerant of boards that speak the language of shareholder alignment while acting as though shareholders are a constituency to be managed rather than the company’s owners. Investors may not always agree with activists or hostile bidders, but they generally dislike being told to trust a process they cannot assess.

In this case, Dream Finders seeks to portray Beazer’s board as the obstacle to a premium cash exit for shareholders. Beazer, in turn, must position itself as a disciplined fiduciary protecting shareholders from an inadequate or premature offer. The side that wins will likely be the one that presents the more credible case on process, value, and owner choice. For Beazer, the path forward is clear, even if difficult.

If the company has better alternatives, it should demonstrate their legitimacy. If the Dream Finders offer undervalues the business, it should present a convincing valuation framework. If the standstill is necessary, it should explain why a less restrictive agreement would not protect the company. If the board is truly acting in shareholders’ best interests, it should welcome scrutiny rather than rely on procedural opacity.

For Dream Finders, the challenge is also clear. It must continue to prove that its offer is credible, financed, executable, and superior to the alternatives. It must persuade shareholders that this is not merely an opportunistic attempt to buy assets cheaply but a legitimate premium proposal that deserves direct consideration. That is the battle now. Not just price. Not just process. Trust.

Do shareholders trust Beazer’s board to evaluate the bid fairly? Do they trust Dream Finders to close at the proposed price? Do they trust the standalone plan enough to reject cash today? Do they trust references to other interested parties without seeing comparable economics? Those questions will shape the next phase.

Macro implications

The broader lesson for public homebuilders is unmistakable. In an asset-intensive industry where book value, land position and cycle timing can create persistent valuation gaps, boards cannot assume that public market discounts will remain a private frustration. Those discounts invite strategic interest. Once a credible buyer appears, governance shifts from theory to practice.

A proxy statement can say “shareholder-aligned.” A board deck can say “best-in-class governance.” An annual report can say “ethical conduct.” But when a premium cash bidder shows up, the market watches what the board actually does.

Does it engage? Does it negotiate? Does it test the market? Does it explain the math? Does it allow shareholders to choose? Or does it hide behind NDAs, standstills, and process control?

That is why the Dream Finders–Beazer situation matters beyond the two companies. It is a reminder that governance is not a slogan, a committee structure or a paragraph in the proxy. Governance is behavior under pressure. At some point, the question becomes very simple. If shareholders own the company, should they be allowed to decide between the status quo and cash? 

This post was originally published on here. 

Howard Hanna NYC has added 26 real estate agents as the brokerage continues to expand its Manhattan operations.

The additions include the Andrew Klima Team, which joined from SERHANT. The team closed $58 million in sales across 90 transactions in 2025, according to Howard Hanna, and works in both the Pittsburgh and New York City markets.

Team founder Andrew Klima said the move will help the team serve clients relocating or investing across multiple markets.

“In this industry, agents are often forced to choose between the scale and resources of a large brokerage and the personal support of a family-run firm, but it’s rare to find both under one roof,” he said. “Howard Hanna has built a culture that combines institutional strength with genuine accessibility and care from leadership. For our team, the move creates an opportunity to better serve clients across Pittsburgh and New York City while leveraging a powerful national platform that still feels entrepreneurial, collaborative and personal.”

Howard Hanna NYC also added agents from several competing brokerages, including members of the FAST Advisory Group. Christopher Avesian, James Ferrando and Elizabeth Steele joined from Corcoran.

The brokerage said additional hires have been integrated into existing teams. Bert Johnson’s team added Nadia Sunn and Renee Bulles.

New agents joining the firm also include Alexandra Czapelski, Bess Sullivan and Malik Allen.

Michael Rossi, executive vice president of Howard Hanna NYC, said the additions reflect the brokerage’s growth strategy.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

VantageScore on Wednesday announced the release of VantageScore 5.0, a new tri-bureau credit scoring model that the company says is designed to improve lenders’ ability to assess consumer creditworthiness, particularly for unsecured loans and auto financing.

The new model is available through the three major U.S. credit reporting companies — Equifax, Experian and TransUnion — and is built using post-pandemic consumer credit data. VantageScore said it better reflects changes in borrowing behavior since 2020.

According to the company’s press release, VantageScore 5.0 provides up to a 9% improvement in predictive performance for unsecured lending products — including credit cards, retail cards, personal loans and auto loans — compared with VantageScore 3.0.

“VantageScore 5.0 uses an innovative and simplified credit score model design that minimizes credit score migration, maintaining a more consistent credit score within an ever-changing credit environment,” the release stated. “VantageScore 5.0 also reduces variability across credit bureau files, ensuring 96% of scores remain within a 40-point range across all three bureaus.”

VantageScore claims that the new model, which is “optimized for unsecured lending and auto loans,” is the only nationwide tri-bureau credit score currently trained on post-pandemic consumer loan performance.

The company said the model incorporates new patent-pending credit attributes designed to provide lenders with more detailed insights into borrower risk. It also said the model is intended to produce more consistent credit scores over time and reduce differences in scores generated from the three national credit bureaus.

“The credit landscape has evolved rapidly,” Andrada Pacheco, VantageScore’s executive vice president and chief data scientist, said in a statement. “VantageScore 5.0 is at the forefront of a new generation of VantageScore credit scoring models built on today’s challenges and tomorrow’s opportunities.”

The release comes as competition in the credit scoring market has intensified. Federal housing regulators have recently expanded the use of newer credit scoring models in mortgage lending, including VantageScore 4.0 and FICO 10T.

This article was written by Sarah Wolak and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

WNC & Associates has closed a $210 million Low-Income Housing Tax Credit fund that will finance 18 affordable housing communities across 13 states, adding or preserving more than 2,000 rental homes.

The vehicle, WNC Institutional Tax Credit Fund 59, L.P., will invest in 2,015 units across Alaska, California, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada and Texas, the company announced.

The portfolio includes seven new-construction communities and 11 preservation deals, two of which involve historic rehabilitations. Five of the properties will serve seniors, while 13 will provide family housing.

For homebuilders and developers, the fund represents another pool of equity capital targeting affordable projects at a time when higher rates, construction costs and tighter capital markets are squeezing project feasibility. LIHTC equity remains one of the few scalable tools available to fill gaps in the capital stack for income-restricted rentals.

Fund 59 will primarily use LIHTCs but also includes properties leveraging Energy Tax Credits and Historic Tax Credits. Layering multiple credit types has become increasingly common as sponsors work to cover rising hard costs and finance energy upgrades that are now embedded in many state allocation plans.

WNC framed the fund as part of a broader response to the national housing shortage. Citing National Low Income Housing Coalition data, the company noted a 7.2 million-home gap in affordable and available rental units for extremely low-income renters.

Founded in 1971, Irvine, California-based WNC and its affiliates have acquired about $21.7 billion in assets across 49 states, including more than 1,770 affordable rental properties serving over 1 million residents, according to the announcement. The firm said it has partnered with more than 400 developers and 175 institutional investors.

The fund is a potential capital source for for-sale builders with affiliated multifamily arms or those partnering on mixed-use or mixed-income communities where LIHTC rentals are part of a larger master plan.

As federal and state policymakers consider expanding LIHTC and related incentives, national funds like WNC’s are positioned to deploy capital quickly into shovel-ready affordable projects, including those embedded in larger master-planned communities where homebuilders play a lead role.

This post was originally published on here. 

Purchase mortgage demand gained momentum in June as overall mortgage rate-lock activity increased and lenders continued adjusting to a higher interest rate environment, according to Optimal Blue’s June 2026 Market Advantage report, released Thursday.

The report found total mortgage rate-lock volume increased 10% from May and 15% from a year earlier. Purchase lock volume rose 10% month over month and 14% year over year, reaching its highest level since early spring. Purchase loans accounted for more than 81% of all rate locks during the month.

Refinance activity also remained stable, with refinances representing 19% of total lock volume. Cash-out refinance volume increased 11% from May and 10% from a year earlier, while rate-and-term refinances rose 6% month over month and 32% year over year.

“June wasn’t defined by a single headline number. Purchase demand strengthened, refinance activity held up and pull-through improved after softening in May,” Mike Vough, Optimal Blue’s senior vice president of corporate strategy, said in a statement. “Together, those trends point to a market that is battle-tested and that has adapted to a higher-for-longer rate environment.”

The report also showed continued changes in loan composition. Conforming mortgages accounted for 49% of total production in June, remaining below the 50% threshold for the second consecutive month. Non-conforming loans grew to more than 19% of production, their highest share in several years, while non-qualified mortgages represented 9% of total lock volume, up 1.4 percentage points from a year ago.

Government-backed lending remained a significant portion of the market, with Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans making up nearly 19% of production and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) loans accounting for almost 13%.

Mortgage rates were little changed during the month. Optimal Blue’s Mortgage Market Indices 30-year conforming fixed rate rose 1 basis point to 6.45%, though it remained 22 basis points below its level a year earlier. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note ended June at 4.44%, down 1 basis point from May, widening the spread between the Treasury yield and the 30-year conforming mortgage rate to 201 basis points.

On the secondary market, agency mortgage-backed securities executions declined for a second straight month, falling to 40% of funded loan sales, while best-efforts executions increased to 3%.

“We saw lenders continue to fine-tune execution strategy in June,” Vough said. “Agency MBS executions declined again while best-efforts activity increased, showing that lenders are evaluating all potential loan sale options.”

The report also found signs of improving borrower performance. Purchase pull-through rates rose to 81.4% after declining in May, while refinance pull-through increased to 71.1%.

First-time homebuyers accounted for 45% of conforming purchase locks, nearly 3 percentage points higher than a year earlier. Average debt-to-income ratios remained below 2025 levels across conforming, FHA and VA loans, while the average borrower credit score held steady at 731.

The average locked loan amount increased to just over $399,000, approaching record highs as home prices continued to appreciate and purchase activity remained concentrated in higher-cost markets.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Zillow has rolled out Zillow Pro, a nationwide premium membership designed to give real estate agents direct visibility into their clients’ activity on Zillow and tools to act on those signals.

The launch brings Zillow’s consumer data and collaboration tools directly into agents’ day-to-day workflows at a time when home sales are on track for another flat year and mortgage rates hover near 6.5%.

With 235 million average monthly unique users and 70% of actual buyers and sellers in the U.S. using Zillow, the company said most agents’ past clients are already on the platform but often without a clear next step toward a transaction.

Zillow Pro, announced Thursday by Zillow Group, Inc., is available to any agent, whether or not they currently advertise on Zillow. Nearly 20,000 agents used Zillow Pro during its beta period, according to the company announcement. Buyers working with Zillow Pro agents were 80% more likely to meet their agent in person and 50% more likely to move forward in their search, Zillow said.

“Real estate runs on relationships, and we see time and again the agents who win are the ones who show up at the right moment with the right information,” said Cynthia Taylor, senior vice president of product at Zillow, in the release. “Now any agent can have the tools and visibility to do that across their entire business.”

How Zillow Pro works

The core of the membership is My Agent, a collaboration tool that pulls agents into the consumer’s Zillow experience. Agents can invite any buyer or seller in their network to connect on Zillow. Once a consumer accepts a My Agent invitation, the agent gains real-time insight into that shopper’s behavior — including what they are browsing, saving and searching in their area.

Those signals are intended to help agents prioritize outreach and tailor their communication. Zillow said My Agent data connects with Follow Up Boss, the customer relationship management (CRM) platform it owns, to automatically surface high-intent contacts and suggest messages. Consumers who connect through My Agent are converting at more than four times the rate of those with inferred relationships, according to the company.

On the consumer side, shoppers who accept an invitation see their agent branded across Zillow listings in their local market and can message or book a tour with that agent directly from their search experience.

CRM integration and ‘Likely to List’ signals

Zillow is positioning Zillow Pro as a way to merge its audience data with CRM workflows. With a membership, agents can send My Agent invitations to any contact in their Follow Up Boss database. The goal is to keep agents visible to past clients and sphere contacts who may quietly be returning to the market.

A new premium feature called “Likely to List” uses artificial intelligence to tag properties in an agent’s Follow Up Boss database that may be preparing to come to market. Those prompts are designed to give listing agents a reason to re-engage with former clients or leads who could be considering a sale.

Branding and positioning in a slow market

Zillow Pro includes a premium Agent Profile that allows for enhanced branding with custom visuals and video. Zillow said the package is designed as a full system for branding, outreach and workflow, rather than a standalone lead product.

For housing professionals, the launch underscores how portal data is increasingly being integrated into CRM and marketing automation. As transaction volumes remain subdued, retaining and reactivating past clients has become a priority. Tools that show when a known contact starts browsing homes again, or appears likely to list, can help agents focus time and marketing spend on the highest-intent relationships.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

A little more than a month into a hostile homebuilder takeover saga that has not quite reached midsummer, Dream Finders Homes’ pursuit of Beazer Homes is beginning to resemble a Shakespearean tale of unrequited love.

The ardent suitor has returned again. And again. The latest offering is richer: $32 per share in cash, up 24% from the $25.75 proposal Dream Finders made public in May and, by the bidder’s calculation, 70% above Beazer’s undisturbed May 8 share price.

The object of its affection still will not agree to a meeting.

Not, at least, without conditions.

Beazer’s July 8 response to Dream Finders’ latest proposal reveals a contest that has become more complicated than a bidder repeatedly raising its price and a target repeatedly saying no.

In fact, Beazer did not reject the $32 offer outright.

Instead, the Atlanta-based builder said it had received interest from “additional parties regarding a range of potential transactions” and was evaluating those possibilities against its standalone strategy. It also disclosed that it had previously given Dream Finders three conditions for opening discussions: raise the price, drop a demand for exclusive negotiations, and sign a customary confidentiality and standstill agreement.

Dream Finders met the first two conditions. The third condition has now become the fault line.

What that means is that the next phase of this contest turns on something other than whether Dream Finders will keep bidding against itself. At $32, the pressure now runs in both directions.

Beazer’s board faces a higher burden to demonstrate that remaining independent — or pursuing one of the other alternatives it says it is considering — offers shareholders greater prospective value than cash in hand.

Dream Finders, meanwhile, faces a question that grows more pressing with each increase in its offer: What, precisely, can it do with Beazer that Beazer cannot do for itself, and will those improvements justify what Dream Finders is now prepared to pay?

Those are the questions that will shape what comes next [and we’ll take them up in a Part 2 installment on this analysis tomorrow].

First, however, the two companies have to get into the same room.

Five offers, but a more helpful approach

Dream Finders’ latest public presentation fills in a bidding chronology that stretches back five months.

In early February, Dream Finders privately proposed paying $28.50 per share in cash. It raised that proposal to $29 in March. On May 5, it submitted the $25.75 proposal that became public six days later and turned a private courtship into a hostile pursuit.

That $25.75 figure has served as the public benchmark ever since. But it may not be the most useful number for understanding how the negotiation has evolved.

Longtime homebuilding equity analyst Dan Oppenheim regards the earlier $29 private proposal as the more relevant reference point. Seen from that perspective, Dream Finders’ June 22 move to $29.25 carried a message beyond the extra quarter per share.

With that communication, Dream Finders signaled it was prepared to move.

The offer went above its previous private proposal and, without abandoning the hostile campaign, shifted the tone toward something more constructive:

We are not simply trying to pressure you with a lower public bid. We are prepared to find a price at which you will engage.

“I think the message from that one was, ‘We’re not trying to play games here. This is higher than where we were in March. Can we talk about this?’” Oppenheim said.

That progression may help explain why Beazer’s response changed.

The company had rejected the earlier approaches. After the $29.25 proposal, it instead told Dream Finders what would be required to begin discussions: a higher price, abandonment of the exclusivity demand, and a confidentiality and standstill agreement.

Dream Finders then went to $32 and dropped exclusivity.

The price increase therefore did more than raise the prospective payout to Beazer shareholders. It signaled to investors and directors that Dream Finders was prepared to negotiate upward and put a number on the table that could not as easily be dismissed as a hostile tactic.

“From a process standpoint, it is higher than the $29 offer in March and communicates the message that Dream Finders truly wants to engage to complete a transaction rather than simply pursuing an opportunistic transaction,” Oppenheim said. “As it relates to the consideration, $32 is close to as high as BZH has traded since coming out of the downturn/GFC.”

That places the offer in a different context than Dream Finders’ preferred comparison to Beazer’s $18.77 undisturbed May 8 closing price. The bidder can fairly call $32 a 70% premium to that price.

Beazer’s board must also contend with another fact: Investors in the public market have valued the company more highly for only brief periods over the past 15 years.

The $32 offer, Oppenheim said, is now “more helpful, more productive,” and steps up the pressure on Beazer. The company can still decide that another transaction or its standalone strategy offers shareholders more value. But the number has become attractive enough that an outright rejection requires a more substantive case.

“This may be viewed as more compelling by investors as it is 1) a 10% premium to the $29 offer in March, 2) a 16.7% premium to yesterday’s closing price, and 3) nearly as high as Beazer has traded in over 15 years,” Oppenheim said. “While $32 per share would still be approximately 25% below Beazer’s book value as of March 31st, other recent transactions — Landsea et al — have shown that managements and boards can no longer view book value as a floor in a potential sale transaction.”

That, in turn, is why the standstill and Beazer’s reference to other alternatives now matter so much.

The standstill is more than a trifling matter

The immediate obstacle between the companies is no longer the exclusivity requirement Dream Finders had previously attached to its proposal. Dream Finders dropped that requirement.

Nor is it clear that price alone is preventing engagement. Beazer had asked Dream Finders for an improved proposal, and Dream Finders responded with $32.

What remains is Beazer’s insistence that Dream Finders sign a confidentiality and standstill agreement.

Standstill agreements are a familiar part of M&A processes. A target company that opens confidential information to a potential buyer commonly seeks restrictions on what that party can do with the information and on the actions it can take while diligence and negotiations proceed.

The duration matters, however.

Dream Finders characterizes Beazer’s requested agreement as a 12-month standstill that would prevent it from taking its proposal directly to shareholders if the two sides fail to reach a transaction. A year would also extend the restrictions through Beazer’s next director-nomination cycle.

That’s more than a minor procedural point in a hostile contest.

Once a bidder goes public because the target will not engage, outreach to the target’s shareholders becomes a standard part of the campaign. Unlike a friendly transaction negotiated privately between two companies, a hostile bidder seeks, in part, to persuade the target’s owners that its proposal deserves consideration.

The board sits at the center of that process. Management acts under the board’s authority; directors, in turn, are accountable to shareholders. As the contest unfolds, pressure can shift from shareholders to directors and from directors to management.

A 12-month standstill would not merely create a quiet period for diligence. Depending on its precise terms, it could prevent Dream Finders from pursuing other avenues to influence Beazer’s governance during the coming cycle, including the possibility of nominating directors.

Beazer’s public filings set the calendar for shareholder nominations. A 12-month standstill would extend beyond that window, meaning Dream Finders could surrender that option before knowing whether private engagement would produce a transaction.

That does not mean Dream Finders has decided to pursue a director slate. It means the standstill could eliminate its ability to do so.

Oppenheim called Beazer’s insistence on the provision “savvy” from the target company’s standpoint. The description need not imply anything improper.

Beazer has an obvious interest in controlling a process it now says involves multiple potential alternatives and in preventing any one participant from gaining leverage unavailable to others. Dream Finders has an equally obvious interest in preserving the tools available to a hostile bidder if private engagement leads nowhere.

That makes the disagreement substantive rather than semantic.

Beazer says Dream Finders wants to engage “under unilateral terms.” Dream Finders says Beazer is demanding a restriction that could neutralize its ability to continue the campaign.

Both descriptions can be true from the perspective of the party making them.

“Additional parties” does not equal ‘white knight’ competing bid

Another phrase in Beazer’s response deserves equally careful reading. The company said it has “received interest from additional parties regarding a range of potential transactions.”

That does come across as news. It is not, however, the same thing as saying Beazer has another offer to buy the company.

Beazer did not say it has received another whole-company acquisition proposal. It did not say another party has offered more than $32. It did not say any alternative before the board would deliver more immediate cash value to shareholders.

“Additional parties” and a “range of potential transactions” can encompass a much broader field.

Those possibilities could include another strategic buyer. They could also involve a capital investment, a land-banking arrangement, an asset or regional transaction, or another structure that releases capital or changes Beazer’s balance-sheet economics without selling the entire company. The ambiguity in the phrasing leaves the issue open to conjecture as to what and who those “additional parties” are.

That does not make Beazer’s disclosure meaningless.

Its board has publicly notified shareholders that Dream Finders is not the only path under review. Beazer says other parties have signed the confidentiality and standstill agreements that it is asking Dream Finders to accept.

The distinction is that shareholders do not yet have enough information to compare those alternatives to $32 in cash. That comparison is a burden that falls increasingly on the Beazer board.

The result is a takeover contest that has entered a new phase.

Dream Finders has done two of the three things Beazer said it would require for engagement. It raised its price and dropped exclusivity. What remains is a disagreement over a standstill that could materially limit the bidder’s leverage if talks go nowhere.

Meanwhile, Beazer has disclosed enough about other interests to make clear that its board is evaluating alternatives — but not enough for shareholders to know whether any of them offer value comparable to $32 in cash.

So the not-quite-midsummer saga continues. The suitor has returned with more. The object of its pursuit has not said yes. But this time, it has not quite said no, either.

What happens next may depend on whether the two companies can get into the same room. What happens after that raises an even harder set of questions.

Tomorrow: At $32, what does Beazer have to prove about its future – and what does Dream Finders have to prove about its ability to fix what it wants to buy?

This post was originally published on here. 

Buckling columns at the former Pfizer headquarters this week forced evacuations across seven Midtown East blocks.

The incident raises new questions about office-to-residential conversion, one of several tools the city has used to add housing. It is also a tool Mayor Zohran Mamdani leaned into because it fit his affordability narrative.

Mamdani has framed housing as his central promise. He has paired headline-grabbing ideas like reviving the Sunnyside Yard megaproject with more incremental tools already on the books.

Office conversions fall into the second category. The mechanism predates his tenure and builds on former Mayor Eric Adams’ City of Yes for Housing Opportunity rezoning, approved in December 2024. City officials said at the time that it could add 80,000 homes over 15 years.

That ordinance made office-to-residential conversions easier. New York City has led the nation in these conversions for several years. Mamdani inherited a pipeline with about 12,000 units and continued championing it because it aligned with his affordability pitch.

“Hopefully this doesn’t have a pause effect, or people revisiting the City of Yes legislation, but I think that might be kind of a natural impact of this,” Michael Webb, a real estate attorney with New York City firm Farrell Fritz, told HousingWire TBD.

Lawsuit followed, but lost

The City of Yes legislation was passed by a narrow margin. Some City Council members opposed the law and called it a favor to developers.

A coalition of civic associations and elected officials from Staten Island, Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx sued the city over the City of Yes early last year. The suit did not challenge the policy’s housing goals. Instead, petitioners claimed the city violated state and local environmental review law in adopting it.

They argued the city unlawfully segmented City of Yes into three phases – carbon neutrality, economic opportunity and housing opportunity – to avoid assessing cumulative impacts. Petitioners also said the city failed to take a required “hard look” at harms such as sewer overflows, school overcrowding, and shadows, and never proposed any mitigation or alternatives. They lost the case in November.

Building bigger

The 235 East 42nd St. project was the marquee conversion example. Developer Metro Loft is converting two 1970s-era office towers built as Pfizer’s headquarters. One rises 10 stories, and the other stands 33 to 37 stories.

Metro Loft is adding 19 stories to the shorter building, bringing the total to 1,600 units. It is the largest office conversion in city history. The project demonstrated how vacant towers could be converted into badly needed apartments at scale by leveraging the state’s 2024 tax abatement for buildings with 25% affordable units.

That symbolism now carries added weight. A 2023 Moody’s Analytics study found only 3% of city office buildings were structurally suitable for conversion. That caveat drew little attention during the boom, but it now prompts sharper questions about whether incentives pushed marginal buildings – including one requiring a 19-story vertical addition atop a 1970s tower – into conversion too quickly.

The city comptroller’s office has flagged how these projects work financially, stacking tax exemptions against tight construction timelines. Critics argue that the dynamic can favor speed over caution. The concern echoes broader skepticism about big, complicated housing fixes, and this incident suggests even smaller-scale conversions carry underappreciated structural risk.

“With these office-to-residential conversions, it’s sort of like you’re building the plane while you’re flying it,” Webb said. “This really highlights the complexities when you’re doing a very ambitious office-to-residential conversion project.”

He noted that office buildings are typically built for heavier loads than residential. Aging structures can make that capacity uncertain in advance.

“If there’s a way that we can use this to make the process better, safer, let’s examine it,” Webb said. “I don’t want to see this becoming a problem that begs 1,000 solutions that aren’t needed.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Synergy One Lending, a division of American Pacific Mortgage (APM), will assume control of Newrez’s distributed retail mortgage business under a new strategic agreement announced Wednesday, extending an existing partnership and reshaping both lenders’ retail strategies.

The transition moves Newrez’s distributed retail operations and personnel to Synergy One, which is building out a purpose-built retail platform following its June merger with APM. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, according to the company announcement.

San Diego-based Synergy One said the deal will increase its national retail footprint, adding branches and originators at a time when many lenders are still rationalizing their physical networks after years of margin compression and interest rate volatility. Synergy One said it’s licensed in 49 states, employs 540 people and operates 65 branches nationwide.

Data from mortgage tech platform RETR shows that as of July 6, following the addition of Synergy One, APM now has 1,135 producing loan officers. Since the start of 2026, APM has produced about $5.1 billion in mortgages, ranking No. 29 among all U.S. lenders.

Newrez — a Rithm Capital subsidiary and top-five U.S. mortgage lender and servicer by volume — framed the move as a redeployment of capital and resources toward joint venture partnerships and its localized Newrez Direct strategy, retail segments it views as having the strongest long-term upside. Newrez will continue to originate through its wholesale, correspondent, consumer direct and joint venture channels.

“This transition is direct evidence of the momentum behind Synergy One right now,” Aaron Nemec, division president of Synergy One Lending, said in a statement. “We have worked hard to build a powerful platform for retail originators, and Newrez’s decision to trust us with their people reflects the strength of what we have built. We are proud to welcome this team and energized about what we will build from here.”

“This move reflects our confidence in Synergy One as a partner and a continued deliberate focus on the areas of our business where we see the strongest growth opportunity going forward,” Newrez President Baron Silverstein said.

RETR data shows that Newrez is the 25th-largest U.S. mortgage lender since the start of the year, having closed $5.4 billion in volume.

Follows the merger with APM

The transition comes roughly a month after Synergy One joined forces with fellow California-based lender American Pacific Mortgage. Under the merger agreement, Synergy One is maintaining its brand name under APM’s divisional dba model. APM is licensed in 49 states, employs more than 2,900 people and operates nearly 300 branches.

As higher-for-longer rates and elevated origination costs keep pressure on company margins, lenders are making careful choices about which channels they want to own. Newrez’s decision to exit distributed retail in favor of JVs and consumer direct efforts — and Synergy One’s move to double down on traditional retail — illustrate diverging but conscious bets on where future home purchase business and operating leverage will come from.

APM is 49% employee-owned through an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). That could be a factor for incoming Newrez retail teams as they weigh long-term career paths, particularly as more originators look for stability, equity participation and local control in a volatile interest rate environment.

This article was written by Neil Pierson with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Ryan Smith will become CEO of Visionary Homes on Sept. 1, 2026, as founder and current chief executive Jeff Jackson transitions to chairman of the board, the Utah homebuilder recently announced.

Smith joined Visionary Homes on June 15 and will work alongside Jackson through the summer before formally assuming the chief executive role in September, according to the company’s announcement. Jackson, who co-founded Visionary Homes in 2004, will remain full-time through the end of 2026 to support the handover and then move into the chairman role on Jan. 1, 2027.

The company said the move is part of a multiyear leadership succession plan at one of Utah’s largest privately held homebuilders. Visionary Homes builds communities from Logan to St. George and operates in partnership with Misawa Homes America, the U.S. subsidiary of Japan’s Misawa Homes Co. Ltd.

Smith brings more than 20 years of experience in production homebuilding and master-planned communities across the Mountain West and Southwest. He joins Visionary from Oakwood Homes, a Clayton Homes company, where he served as president and chief operating officer of a four-market, $442 million homebuilder. The company said he grew sales and starts 41% in 2025 even as those markets declined.

Earlier in his career, Smith ran Oakwood’s Utah and Arizona division from Salt Lake City and held division leadership roles at Beazer Homes and Shea Homes. He holds an MBA from the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business.

“I am honored to join Visionary Homes,” Smith said in the announcement. “Jeff and the Visionary team have created a special organization. You can feel Visionary’s commitment to quality in everything they do by simply being around the team.”

“From the first time I met Ryan, one thing was clear: he is a kind, driven leader people instinctively respect,” Jackson said. “He is the right person to lead Visionary forward, and he has my full confidence and support.”

Visionary Homes said it is scaling toward 2,000 annual home starts and expanding into neighboring markets. The company said its mission, values and commitments to trade partners, customers and communities will remain unchanged through the transition.

The leadership change comes as Utah remains one of the nation’s fastest-growing housing markets, with strong in-migration and persistent supply constraints. A CEO with a track record of growing volume in softening markets could influence how aggressively Visionary Homes pursues land, labor and materials across the state and into adjacent regions.

This post was originally published on here. 

In a request for information (RFI) scheduled for publication Thursday in the Federal Register, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will seek public input on whether mortgage disclosure requirements and other lending regulations should be revised to reduce compliance burdens and improve access to mortgage credit.

The RFI, viewed by HousingWire in its unpublished version on the register, was filed by CFPB acting director Russell Vought.

The bureau said it’s considering potential regulatory changes consistent with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14393, titled “Promoting Access to Mortgage Credit.” The order directs federal agencies to review regulations that may increase the cost of mortgage lending and limit access to credit.

The CFPB is requesting comments on three primary areas: integrated mortgage disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), together commonly known as TRID; the right of rescission for certain refinance transactions; and disclosure requirements for reverse mortgages.

The bureau is asking whether current rules create unnecessary burdens for lenders and borrowers while still providing adequate consumer protections. Areas under review include disclosure timing requirements, tolerance thresholds, electronic disclosures and whether smaller financial institutions should receive more tailored rules.

For reverse mortgages, the CFPB said current disclosure requirements rely on multiple documents, including Truth in Lending disclosures, Good Faith Estimates and HUD-1 settlement statements. The agency is seeking feedback on whether reverse mortgage borrowers would benefit from a single set of integrated disclosures designed specifically for the product.

The bureau is also reviewing the Total Annual Loan Cost, or TALC, a disclosure used in reverse mortgages. Specifically, the CFPB wants to know whether TALC calculations should be updated, and whether showing projected loan balance growth in dollar amounts would be easier for borrowers to understand than current annualized cost figures.

The CFPB is also seeking input on whether reverse mortgage borrowers would benefit from educational materials tailored specifically to the product rather than the general mortgage information currently required.

While the request for information does not propose any regulatory changes, the CFPB said comments will help determine whether future rulemaking is appropriate.

This article was written by Sarah Wolak and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Sotheby’s International Realty has acquired Majestic Realty Collective, a luxury real estate organization operating multiple Sotheby’s International Realty affiliates across the western U.S.

The acquisition expands Sotheby’s International Realty’s presence in luxury and resort markets, adding operations in Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California and other western regions.

Majestic Realty Collective includes LIV Sotheby’s International Realty, Summit Sotheby’s International Realty, Sierra Sotheby’s International Realty, Las Vegas Sotheby’s International Realty, Sun Valley Sotheby’s International Realty, Group One Sotheby’s International Realty, Desert Sotheby’s International Realty and Central Coast Sotheby’s International Realty.

The operations will join Sotheby’s International Realty’s existing company-owned locations in markets including New York City, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, Houston and Palm Beach.

Majestic Realty Collective will continue operating under its existing leadership team, including Scott Webber and Thomas Wright.

The transaction includes American Discovery Capital, Webber, founder and CEO of Majestic Realty II, and Wright, CEO and principal broker of Summit Sotheby’s International Realty and president and COO of Majestic Realty II.

“From the beginning, we built our organization around a simple belief: exceptional advisors deserve and benefit from a platform of personal and professional growth,” said Webber. “By aligning with Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., we gain access to additional resources and enhanced technology while preserving the local expertise and culture that has defined our success. The Sotheby’s International Realty brand has been central to our growth, and this alignment creates even greater opportunities for our advisors while strengthening our ability to serve clients whose lives, businesses, and investments span multiple markets.”

Philip White, president and CEO of Sotheby’s International Realty, said the acquisition builds on an existing relationship between the organizations.

“The acquisition of Majestic Realty Collective represents a natural evolution of a long-standing relationship and shared commitment to excellence,” said Philip White, president and CEO of Sotheby’s International Realty. “Scott, Thomas, and their teams have built one of the most admired organizations in luxury real estate by combining entrepreneurial vision, exceptional local expertise, and an unwavering commitment to the Sotheby’s International Realty brand.”

Majestic Realty Collective includes a development division representing more than 40 new-construction and master-planned community projects. The organization has also focused on advisor recruitment, leadership development and operational support.

Sotheby’s International Realty said the acquisition will support additional investment in technology, marketing and advisor services, including access to Compass International Holdings’ proprietary Home Platform.

Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Douglas Elliman announced today a companywide technology transformation aimed at consolidating systems, automating operations and developing new real estate intelligence capabilities through a newly formed business unit called Elius.

The New York-based real estate firm said the initiative will operate across two tracks; modernizing brokerage operations and creating a separate intelligence platform designed to develop new data-driven products and services.

The transformation will be powered by Google Cloud technology, including its artificial intelligence (AI) models and enterprise infrastructure.

Through AI-enabled automation and technology consolidation, Douglas Elliman expects to reduce non-commission operating expenses over the next three years while improving operational efficiency.

The second part of the initiative centers on Elius, which Douglas Elliman said will use the company’s proprietary luxury real estate data to develop intelligence tools beyond traditional property search and portal models.

Leaders said Elius will draw from transaction activity, market data and information generated by its agents and clients while maintaining protections around confidential client information.

“The next era of this business will be defined by intelligence,” said Michael Liebowitz, president and CEO of Douglas Elliman. “For generations, residential real estate has been organized around the transaction — and for just as long, the data that real estate transactions generate has been monetized by nearly everyone except the brokerages that create it. We are changing that model and taking it back.”

Douglas Elliman said Elius is expected to support several areas of the company, including brokerage operations, development marketing and international business.

Potential applications include workflow automation, market insights, lead generation and client matching, the company aded.

Douglas Elliman said it plans to fund the initial technology rollout and Elius development using existing resources.

This article was generated using HousingWire Automation and reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

Unlock Partnership Solutions Inc., dba Unlock Technologies, has agreed to treat its home equity agreements (HEAs) as consumer credit under Colorado law, pay restitution to affected homeowners, and meet state licensing and disclosure rules, the Colorado attorney general’s office announced June 24.

The office of Attorney General Phil Weiser said it determined Unlock’s products are consumer credit transactions that must comply with the state’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code — including the Colorado Consumer Equity Protection Act (CEPA), rate caps, mandatory disclosures and licensing obligations.

Unlock markets arrangements in which homeowners receive a lump-sum cash payment in exchange for a percentage of their home’s future value, regardless of whether the home appreciates or depreciates. State regulators concluded that these HEA contracts function as loans subject to interest rate limits and other consumer protections — a position that other state and federal regulators are increasingly taking with similar shared-equity or home equity investment products.

Under the settlement, Unlock must:

• Follow Colorado lending laws under the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, including CEPA
• Comply with state rate caps
• Provide all UCCC-required disclosures
• Obtain required Colorado licenses before resuming operations in the state
• Make restitution payments directly to affected consumers, including additional payments as more loans close

As of June 24, Unlock has identified $283,375 in restitution owed to 125 Colorado homeowners whose contracts exceeded state interest rate limits, according to an announcement by the AG’s office. That figure is expected to rise as additional loans close in the coming months and years.

“Colorado homeowners deserve transparency and fair dealing when they make decisions about their home equity,” Weiser said in a statement. “Today’s agreement ensures that homeowners receive the restitution they are owed and that Unlock will follow Colorado lending laws going forward.”

Unlock issued a statement to HousingWire‘s Reverse Mortgage Daily (RMD) to explain its reasoning for a negotiated resolution.

“We stand behind the integrity of Unlock’s Home Equity Agreement (HEA) and our compliance with all applicable state laws. With more than 20,000 homeowners funded across the U.S., an A+ BBB rating, and a 4.8-star Trustpilot rating, our track record reflects the trust homeowners place in us every day,” the statement read.

“We chose to resolve this matter with the Attorney General’s Office because a negotiated resolution, rather than prolonged litigation, is the right path forward for our business and for the Colorado homeowners who want options in how they access their equity. We want regulation for our industry and are actively advocating for it as a member of the Coalition for Home Equity Partnership (CHEP). We believe that purpose-built regulation — that matches how HEAs actually work — is the best long-term answer for both our industry and consumers, but establishing a framework under existing law is preferable to regulatory ambiguity.

“This resolution establishes a clear cost ceiling that we can operate under and keeps the HEA product available in Colorado. As we continue to clarify how existing requirements would apply to HEAs, we remain committed to working with policymakers so that Colorado homeowners have more ways to access the equity they’ve built in their homes.”

Growing scrutiny, changing guidelines

The action underscores growing state scrutiny of alternative home equity products that have been pitched as non-debt “investments” rather than loans. For mortgage lenders, servicers and real estate agents in Colorado, the settlement signals that shared-equity agreements may be treated as consumer credit, with full application of rate caps, disclosures and licensing rules.

Nonbank equity access providers operating in Colorado will need to assess whether their products trigger UCCC coverage and CEPA obligations, while ensuring they are licensed and structured as compliant loans rather than unregulated investment contracts. Lenders and brokers should also be prepared to explain these regulatory distinctions to homeowners when they compare products like home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), cash-out refinances and equity-sharing agreements.

Consumer and secondary market demand for home equity investment products remain high even as the arrangements are being investigated and reclassified.

In May, Unlock completed the largest securitization in the space this year — a $358.5 million deal backed by a pool of more than 3,500 HEAs. The company said at the time that the offering was oversubscribed and attracted interest from a number of institutional investors, including six first-time participants in Unlock’s securitization program.

Late last year, Unlock closed a $303 million HEA securitization with the help of Saluda Grade, which issued and sponsored the transaction. That came a few months after Unlock secured $250 million from D2 Asset Management through a purchase commitment agreement. D2 also invested $30 million in Unlock through a Series B seed round in late 2024.

Unlock CEO Jim Riccitelli told RMD earlier this year that shared equity products need “purpose-built regulation.” The segment remains small, but the three largest providers — Point Digital Finance, Hometap Equity Partners and Unlock — originated 54,000 agreements between 2015 and 2025, according to research from the Urban Institute.

“The core issue is a regulatory mismatch. What’s happening with shared-equity products is what happens in category formation of any new and fast-growing product category,” Riccitelli said.

“Existing rules and regulations weren’t designed for the structure of a shared-equity product, and what we’re seeing is exactly what new financial product category formation looks like: growth, scrutiny, regulatory efforts that are at times flawed and are at times good, and then clearer definition and workable solutions.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated with comments from Unlock.

This article was written by Neil Pierson and generated with the assistance of HousingWire Automation, then reviewed by a HousingWire editor before publication.

This post was originally published on here. 

As more Americans end marriages later in life, some senior homeowners are turning to reverse mortgages as a way to manage the financial challenges of a “gray divorce.”

Divorces that arise when couples are in their 50s or older, commonly known as gray divorces, present unique financial challenges because they often occur after retirement, when income is largely fixed and assets are limited.

Rates of gray divorce in the U.S. doubled between 1990 and 2010, according to research published by the National Library of Medicine and cited by The New York Times.

Lisa Moriello, the national retail reverse sales manager at loanDepot and a Certified Divorce Lending Professional (CDLP), wrote in a think piece published on social media that the “stakes are higher” for divorce later in life.

“Older adults take a bigger financial and psychological hit from divorce than younger adults, and they have far less runway to recover,” Moriello wrote. “Retirement accounts, pensions and home equity that were built to support one household must suddenly support two.”

Moriello wrote that women often “absorb the largest setback” since they often have lower lifetime earnings and smaller retirement savings.

Unlike younger divorcing couples, older homeowners have less ability to replace lost income through new jobs or career changes. Many mistakenly believe they will keep both Social Security checks if a spouse dies, only to discover that is not the case and that their post-divorce income may be even tighter than expected.

“For a 35-year-old, a rough divorce settlement is a setback. For a 65-year-old, it can be the difference between a secure retirement and outliving their money,” Moriello wrote.

Housing is often the largest asset on the table, and decisions about the home can determine whether a newly single older adult can maintain financial stability.

In cases where one spouse wants to remain in the home, a reverse mortgage can “fund an equity buy-out while eliminating the required monthly principal-and-interest payment” if the homeowner is age 62 or older, Moriello wrote.

“Many of these homeowners are house-rich and cash-flow-constrained — exactly the profile where traditional financing options narrow just when they’re needed most,” she added.

In divorce settlements, the obligation to pay an ex-spouse can be treated as a “mandatory obligation,” allowing the spouse who stays in the home to tap a lump sum from a reverse mortgage to satisfy the settlement.

“A HECM for Purchase can help the departing spouse buy their next home without draining the settlement proceeds or taking on a payment they can’t sustain. These aren’t fringe strategies; they’re underutilized ones, largely because most divorce professionals — and frankly, most loan officers — were never trained to evaluate them,” she wrote.

Moriello noted that many divorce settlements negotiate the marital home based on assumptions rather than verified facts.

“The agreement says one spouse will refinance and buy out the other within 12 months — but nobody verified whether that spouse can qualify,” she wrote. “The decree awards the house to one party — but both names stay on the mortgage, and the departing spouse discovers years later that the contingent liability is blocking their own purchase. Support income is structured in a way that works for the family court but fails mortgage underwriting guidelines entirely.”

Moriello suggests that integrating mortgage planning into divorce negotiations earlier in the process could help reduce financing obstacles and improve long-term financial outcomes for both parties.

This post was originally published on here. 

Fiserv‘s newly appointed president, Dhivya Suryadevara, has resigned less than a month after taking on the role, according to an 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 7.

According to the filing, Suryadevara resigned for “good reason” under the terms of her employment agreement and Fiserv‘s executive severance policy, a designation that may entitle her to severance benefits.

While her resignation as president took effect on Tuesday, Suryadevara will remain as a “non-executive officer employee” through July 31 to assist with the transition while continuing to receive her base salary and benefits.

The global fintech and payments company named Takis Georgakopoulos as CEO and Suryadevara as president on June 15 after former CEO Mike Lyons stepped down to lead Truist Financial Corp.

Also in the filing was the news that Andrew Gelb, executive vice president and chief operating officer for financial solutions, and Srini Krish, head of technology and operations for financial solutions, were appointed as interim leaders of Fiserv’s Financial Solutions business. The moves were effective July 7.

The news of Suryadevara’s resignation comes as The Wall Street Journal reported that several major banks — including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and PNC Financial Services — have held preliminary discussions about acquiring one of Fiserv’s debit payment networks.

Per WSJ’s reporting, owning a debit network could exempt a bank from the federal interchange fee caps imposed by the Durbin amendment, part of the Dodd-Frank Act, potentially allowing it to collect higher fees on debit transactions. Other banks have backed away from this type of deal before due to regulatory scrutiny concerns, the outlet noted.

Fiserv issued a statement to HousingWire about Suryadevara’s resignation while declining to comment about preliminary discussions of a potential acquisition.

“We can confirm that Dhivya Suryadevara has decided to leave Fiserv, and we thank her for her contributions. Andrew Gelb and Srini Krish, who have each been with the company for 12 years, are serving as interim co-heads of Financial Solutions, ensuring continuity and strong execution,” the statement read.

“The One Fiserv Action Plan and the strategy, priorities and key actions laid out at our Investor Day remain unchanged, and we continue to focus on delivering for clients through a client-first approach, innovation, and platform modernization.”

This post was originally published on here.