Real Estate (Page 3)

The second and final day of the hearing regarding Zillow’s preliminary injunction motion in its ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) and Compass International Holdings featured testimony from two key witnesses for the defense, Compass CEO Robert Reffkin and MRED CEO Rebecca Jensen. 

During their times on the witness stand on Thursday, Reffkin and Jensen both testified that executives at Zillow threatened them regarding their respective firms’ resistance to Zillow’s listing access standards policy, which bans listings from Zillow that are not available for display on IDX or VOW feed powered websites within one business day of the property being publicly marketed. 

The lawsuit focused on whether MRED can suspend its IDX and VOW listing data feeds to Zillow if the listing portal filters or suppresses certain listings and whether Compass unlawfully pushed MRED to do so. 

Let’s play telephone

In her testimony, Jensen detailed calls with Zillow executives, including Zillow’s chief industry development officer Errol Samuelson and the firm’s vice president of enterprise sales and industry at Showingtime+ Michael Lane. According to Jensen, both calls occurred in October 2025.

In the call with Lane, he told Jensen that he regretted using MRED’s private listing network, which has existed since 2016, to sell his Chicagoland area home. Lane allegedly argued that the network raised fair housing concerns. Jensen said she defended the network by citing research and examples of sellers facing sensitive personal circumstances, arguing it exists to give sellers flexibility during difficult times, while acknowledging they ultimately disagreed over whether the network should continue.

In a separate call with Samuelson, Jensen said the Zillow executive asked if she would consider having MRED’s private listings delayed on Zillow, which she declined citing the 2008 settlement between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR), that prevented MLSs from selectively hiding listings from consumer-facing web portals. The terms of this settlement expired in November 2018. 

According to Jensen, when she refused to comply with Zillow’s request, Samuelson told her that she was leaving “no choice for Zillow than to litigate.” Jensen told the court that Samuelson told her she should expect her “phone to be dumped and all of [her] text messages to get out and have millions of dollars spent on litigation, and that [she was] going to have a public spectacle.” 

Learning from the past

On the stand, Jensen explained her strong desire to not acquiesce to Zillow’s request came from her experience in the real estate industry dealing with the DOJ lawsuit that resulted in the 2008 settlement, and if faced with potentially contending with a lawsuit from the DOJ or Zillow, she would rather deal with Zillow. Jensen also testified that the “objective criteria” defined in MRED’s IDX display rule, which is the policy at the center of this lawsuit, are a result of the 2008 settlement.

Over the course of the hearing, MRED’s witnesses argued that the MLS simply clarified these objective criteria in its October update and did not change them at the behest of Compass, as Zillow has claimed. Additionally, Jensen told the court that MRED has always been focused on growing its footprint and expanding nationally since she started at the MLS in 2015, claiming that this was not a new desire brought about by an alleged conspiracy with Compass. 

In an emailed statement, an MRED spokesperson told HousingWire that the lawsuit is “just a breach of contract case, not an antitrust conspiracy.” 

“MRED is enforcing a neutral rule designed to maintain data integrity between brokerages and preserve the viability of MLSs as valuable services in the real estate industry,” the spokesperson added. “Zillow’s purported harm is entirely self-inflicted and can be remedied immediately by simply complying with the same clear and longstanding license agreement terms that Zillow has complied with for years.”

Robert Reffkin takes the stand

During Reffkin’s time on the witness stand he faced screenshots of his own texts and emails presented to him by Zillow’s counsel during his cross examination. Earlier in his testimony, Reffkin had said that he rarely communicated with Jensen and could not recall sharing litigation documents with her. However, the evidence Zillow presented to the court showed a text exchange from November 2025 in which Reffkin sent a Zillow document from an earlier court filing marked “highly confidential” and “outside counsel’s eyes only,” followed by an exchange in which Jensen asked whether she could forward the documents to the Illinois attorney general and reporters. 

Through this communication, as well as other examples of conversations between Compass and executives at other MLSs, including Bright MLS,  Zillow attempted to show the court how MRED and Compass allegedly conspired to harm the listing portal. 

“A conspiracy between Compass and MRED to undermine Zillow’s pro-consumer listing standards came into clear view over two days of testimony in federal court in Chicago. Key witness testimony from Compass and MRED executives was repeatedly contradicted by texts, emails, internal documents and previous statements introduced in court,” a Zillow spokesperson told HousingWire in an emailed statement.

“The conduct at the center of this case is not limited to Chicago, but a test of whether this playbook can become a national template for hiding homes that can be replicated in market after market. If so, that could spell the end of the open, transparent housing system that benefits buyers, sellers and agents nationwide. We are pleased the truth is out.” 

Compass did not immediately return HousingWire’s request for comment on the conclusion of the hearing. 

What comes next

Post-hearing briefs from both sides are due July 9, with responses due July 13. In order to be granted a preliminary injunction, Zillow needs to have proven to the court that it would be irreparably harmed without it and that it is likely to prevail if that lawsuit goes to trial.

If the motion is denied, that would mean that Zillow was unable to meet this burden, indicating that there is a chance the defendants prevail in a trial, if Zillow does not provide stronger arguments and evidence. 

A ruling on the motion could take weeks if not months. 

This post was originally published on here. 

Former Zillow employee Samuel James Herrera has notified a Denver-based U.S. District Court that he and his former employer are working toward a settlement in his job discrimination lawsuit. 

On Wednesday, Herrera, who calls himself “a day-one Zillow employee,” notified Judge Regina Rodriguez, who is overseeing the lawsuit in a Denver-based federal court, that the parties were working toward a settlement agreement.

According to the notice of settlement, the agreement resolves all of the claims in the case. The filing said the terms of the settlement are still being finalized. 

Parties typically file notices of settlement in a lawsuit when all or some of the plaintiff’s claims have been settled.

In his complaint, filed in September, Herrera claimed he was wrongfully terminated by Zillow in February 2024. 

During his time with the firm, Herrera claims he earned seven promotions, ultimately landing in the role of general manager of rentals, Eastern region in 2022.

At Zillow, Herrera said he was known for his “stellar performance,” which he claims continued in his final general manager role. In this role, Herrera claims he regularly exceeded his sales goals, but despite this, he says he was passed over for further promotions and held to different standards than his white colleagues. Herrera claimed that after complaining of discrimination, Zillow forced him out of the company. 

At the time of the lawsuit’s filing, Zillow told HousingWire that the claims “alleged in the complaint are inconsistent with Zillow’s culture and values, and we believe they are without merit. One of our highest priorities at Zillow is and always has been creating an environment where people do great work and treat each other with dignity and respect.” 

Additionally, the listing portal giant noted that while Zillow was founded in 2004, Herrera did not join the firm until 2010, making him a long tenured employee, but not a “day-one” employee.

Zillow did not immediately respond to HousingWire’s request for comment on the settlement. 

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article said a settlement had been reached. The article has since been clarified to say that they parties are working toward an agreement.

This post was originally published on here. 

Consistent growth and disciplined hiring have helped The Craig Tann Group become one of the nation’s highest-performing real estate teams.

Based in Las Vegas, the team closed just under $486 million in sales volume across 877 transaction sides last year — earning the No. 10 national ranking for sales volume and No. 3 ranking for transaction sides among mega teams on RealTrends Verified’s rankings.

The operation also finished No. 1 in Nevada for both volume and sides.

Recognition comes as founder Craig Tann continues expanding his broader real estate business. Tann launched The Craig Tann Group in 2012 before opening independent brokerage Huntington & Ellis in 2016.

Huntington & Ellis reported $1.44 billion in sales volume across 2,496 transaction sides in 2025 and has grown to 175 agents.

Despite a challenging housing market marked by elevated mortgage rates and slower sales activity in recent years, Tann detailed consistent growth in an interview with HousingWire.

“We’ve grown every year since essentially since our inception, so 10 years,” he said. “Every year we’ve seen pretty significant growth on average between like 15% to 20%. I would say it’s our hiring process and hiring standards. We do have requirements that agents have to meet every year.

“That’s also helped us attract really high-quality agents that want to be in an environment where other agents are succeeding at a high level.”

The Craig Tann Group includes 40 agents operating within Huntington & Ellis. Consistent growth has helped pave way for the opening of a second office in Henderson, Nevada.

“We’ve talked about it for the past three years, but we’ve really worked on executing the plan over the last six to eight months,” Tann said. “We technically have a second office already, but it’s right next to our main office, so it’s really just one office. We just ran out of space.”

Building a business from the ground up

Tann entered real estate more than two decades ago after receiving an opportunity from a family friend who owned a brokerage in New York.

After working there until age 21, Tann vacationed in Las Vegas and made a life-changing decision.

“I decided I was just going to pick up and move [to Las Vegas],” he said. “So, I moved out from New York by myself at 21 and then started with a big franchise brokerage and just kind of worked my way up — slowly learned the business. Then I learned how to build a team and after building the team, I wanted to take the next step and be a little bit more creative.

“I really enjoyed the marketing side of the business, and the next step for me was starting the brokerage.”

Today, Huntington & Ellis operates as an independent brokerage, something Tann believes provides a competitive advantage in a rapidly changing industry.

“In a fast-paced changing market, you know, the independents can operate more like a speedboat versus a cruise ship, so it allows us to pivot quickly,” he said. “We can take advantage of new opportunities quickly. I think that’s one of the things that agents are attracted to. We get to create the environment. It’s not set by a big corporate company. We get to create exactly how we operate.”

The brokerage also works to differentiate itself through in-house support services, including a full marketing department and staff videographers — allowing agents to focus primarily on serving clients, Tann added.

Advice for growing teams

As more agents seek to build larger teams, Tann encourages leaders to prioritize opportunity and culture over rapid expansion.

“Build a strong reputation in town, start small and only hire as needed,” he said. “I think some of the mistakes that teams make is they hire to get bigger, and they think that means more profit, and it’s actually the opposite.”

Instead, his organization adds agents only when business demand supports it while maintaining strict expectations.

“We are very picky on the agents that we feel are going to be a good culture fit, and we only hire full-time, all-in agents,” Tann said. “So, they can’t have secondary jobs and they have to be fully committed to the business.”

Las Vegas continues attracting newcomers

Looking ahead, Tann remains optimistic about the Las Vegas housing market despite affordability challenges affecting much of the country.

He points to continued investment throughout the city, including the growth of professional sports, expanding infrastructure and Nevada’s business-friendly environment.

He also said the state’s lack of an income tax continues attracting buyers from neighboring states.

“We’re definitely seeing population grow,” Tann said. “Because we’re so much more affordable than the California or Washington market, plus we’re so much more business and income friendly, it’s just helping us attract some really great growth and population.”

While higher interest rates and home prices remain headwinds, Tann believes Las Vegas continues to offer opportunities for buyers, sellers and real estate professionals alike — positioning both The Craig Tann Group and Huntington & Ellis for continued growth.

This post was originally published on here. 

Jenni Bonura has joined Georgia-based First Multiple Listing Service (FMLS) as chief growth officer after more than 20 years in senior leadership roles at Harry Norman, REALTORS, including serving as president and CEO of brokerage, according to an announcement on Wednesday.

At Harry Norman, Bonura held multiple leadership positions before rising to president and CEO.

Her move to FMLS carries a historical connection. Harry Norman was one of eight brokers who founded FMLS in 1957, tying Bonura’s appointment back to the MLS’s origins while it works to expand its footprint and services across Georgia and the broader Southeast.

Jeremy Crawford, president and CEO of FMLS, said Bonura’s leadership background and industry relationships align with the organization’s growth plans as MLSs face rising pressure to demonstrate value amid commission litigation, changing brokerage models and increased scrutiny of data access and costs.

“Jenni’s leadership experience, industry insight, and dedication to serving real estate professionals align perfectly with the future of FMLS,” Crawford said in a statement. “As our organization continues to grow, her expertise will help guide new opportunities, strengthen relationships, and ensure we continue providing meaningful value to the brokers and agents we serve.”

At FMLS, Bonura is expected to focus on member growth, brokerage and team relationships, and the expansion of products, services and data solutions available to subscribers. 

The organization said Bonura brings a “member-focused perspective” and long-standing relationships across the real estate community, which FMLS expects will support its efforts to deliver “exceptional products, services, data solutions and support” to its subscribers in Georgia and beyond.

Crawford said the hire reflects FMLS’s continued investment in talent and its mission to help real estate professionals succeed.

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

This post was originally published on here. 

Shareholders of Two Harbors Investment Corp. have approved the company’s sale to an affiliate of CrossCountry Mortgage (CCM), ending a months-long contest with rival United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM) for control of the mortgage real estate investment trust (REIT).

The virtual shareholder meeting, held Thursday morning, had been originally scheduled for May 19 and was delayed four times as Two Harbors and its suitors worked to secure support.  

Two Harbors is an MSR-focused REIT and a top servicer of conventional loans through its RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing platform. It had a $158.89 billion owned servicing portfolio as of the first quarter, per Inside Mortgage Finance. The CCM servicing book was at $202 billion, while UWM‘s was at $229.5 billion. 

“We’re excited about our strategic partnership with Two Harbors, which will bring together TWO’s best-in-class capital markets team, RoundPoint’s servicing and operational expertise, and the unmatched retail origination business we’ve built at CCM, further reinforcing our position as a one-of-one player in the mortgage industry,” a CCM spokesperson told HousingWire.

The CCM transaction offers Two Harbors investors $12 per share in cash plus a pro-rated stub dividend. Holders of Series A, Series B and Series C preferred stock will have their shares redeemed at $25 per share, plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends, in accordance with the terms of the preferred stock.

Two Harbors’ board unanimously recommended shareholders vote in favor of the CCM deal, citing the certainty of an all-cash offer and regulatory progress, including having cleared 48 of 53 required approvals. The deal remains subject to other conditions, including the receipt of the remaining state regulatory and agency approvals. It is expected to close in August 2026.

UWM put forward a competing package that included $12.50 per share in cash — or at the shareholder’s option, 2.3328 shares of UWMC stock. Two Harbors pressed UWM to provide an all-cash alternative and argued that the stock component would deliver significantly less value for investors who took the default consideration.

Based on UWMC’s Thursday opening share price of $2.26, the default stock option would have implied about $5.27 per Two Harbors share, less than half of the advertised $12.50 per-share headline price.

“This chapter of the months-long saga with Two Harbors is now closed,” a UWM spokesperson said in a statement. “Throughout this process, our offers were superior, but their board’s conduct was both inappropriate and consistent with their track record.”

The outcome caps a dispute that began in December 2025, when Two Harbors agreed to sell to UWM in an all-stock deal that would have been UWM’s first acquisition. UWM, founded in 1986 by Jeff Ishbia and led by CEO Mat Ishbia since 2013, has historically leaned on organic growth rather than mergers and acquisitions. At that point, UWM was paying about $11.94 per share.

But UWM’s share price declined, Two Harbors walked away from the UWM agreement. CCM emerged with a higher all-cash offer of $10.80 per share.

Between April and May, UWM raised its cash-and-stock proposals, but the Two Harbors board repeatedly reaffirmed its support for the CCM bid, pointing to greater regulatory certainty and the fully cash structure that ended at $12 per share. 

This post was originally published on here. 

Compass International Holdings, is rolling out its AI-powered Home Platform across its company-owned brokerage brands, marking what the company calls the largest technology deployment in residential real estate history, according to an announcement on Thursday. 

The firm said the deployment comes less than six months after it closed its merger with Anywhere Real Estate and will extend its proprietary platform to thousands of agents across its global brands.

Beginning this summer, real estate professionals affiliated with @properties, Coldwell Banker Realty, Corcoran and Sotheby’s International Realty will gain access to the technology. The platform will be branded as Home Platform, with Compass planning to extend access to its franchise network in 2027, according to the company announcement.

Unifying all the brands

Compass said unifying its brokerage brands on a single, proprietary platform is intended to support every stage of the real estate lifecycle, from winning and servicing clients to managing transactions and nurturing repeat and referral business. The company also framed the move as a way to concentrate and scale its proprietary data.

“For more than a decade, Compass has invested in building technology to help agents grow their business and create great experiences for their clients,” Ori Allon, co-founder of Compass, said in the announcement. “The true power of AI lies in the unique data and workflows that fuel it. By combining industry-leading artificial intelligence with our vast, proprietary data, Home Platform creates an advantage that cannot be replicated.”

Rory Golod, president of growth, called the rollout “the single most important innovation in our business.”

Compass said Home Platform was developed with input from thousands of real estate professionals and is continuously trained on data from exclusive inventory and agent-client interactions. The integrated suite includes things like comparative market analysis tools, the client dashboard and other well-known Compass agent tools like its marketing center, Collections and Insights. 

By deploying the platform across its expanded brokerage footprint, Compass said it is increasing the volume of unique listing inventory, client interactions and usage patterns feeding its AI models. The company argues that in a world where base AI models are broadly available, access to differentiated, proprietary data creates a structural advantage for agents who can turn those insights into pricing strategy, listing positioning and client counsel.

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

This post was originally published on here. 

As of July 1, more than 7 million federal student loan borrowers have 90 days to transition to a new repayment option as the Biden administration’s SAVE income-driven repayment plan is officially phased out.

The program, launched in 2023 to lower monthly payments and accelerate loan forgiveness for many borrowers, is ending following a broader restructuring of the federal student loan system.

The changes stem from the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted in 2025, and a federal court ruling in March 2026 that found the SAVE plan unconstitutional.

For the housing market, the student debt repayment overhaul could reshape mortgage affordability for millions of borrowers with student debt as they attempt to qualify for mortgages. Higher required student loan payments may reduce home purchasing power or delay homeownership for some borrowers by factoring into debt-to-income ratios.

The choice of repayment plan could also influence borrowers’ ability to qualify for a mortgage. The Pay As You Earn (PAYE) plan, which remains available until July 1, 2028, continues to cap monthly payments. Meanwhile, the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) bases payments on income and household size but has no maximum payment amount for higher-income borrowers.

Existing borrowers, however, will need to resume payments on a new plan in three months, on top of regular mortgage payments and other costs associated with housing.

Borrowers ‘should have planned accordingly’

Donna Schmidt, president and CEO of DLS Servicing, says that borrowers should have been prepared.

“Just like any other debt, a borrower must establish a budget to pay back borrowed funds,” Schmidt said. “While inflationary pressure had been escalating when the SAVE program was established (8% in 2022 and 4.13% in 2023), inflation rates have stabilized, dropping to 2.9% in 2024 and 2.7% in 2025. It is time to get back to regular order.”

Schmidt says that former students had “plenty of notice and should have planned accordingly.”

“From a mortgage servicer’s perspective, this may put additional pressure on borrower budgets, but this should be outside the mortgage obligation,” she added.

But existing data paints a different picture. According to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, delinquency rates across mortgages, credit cards, auto loans and student debt reached 4.8% of outstanding household debt in fourth-quarter 2025, their highest levels in nearly a decade.

According to the New York Fed’s Q1 2026 data, student loan borrowers continued to face repayment challenges early this year, although fewer fell into serious delinquency than a year earlier. The share of borrowers transitioning into serious delinquency declined to 10.9%, down from 16.2% in the prior quarter, suggesting the pace of new payment problems has begun to slow.

Despite that improvement, the share of student loan balances at least 90 days past due rose to 10.3%, up from 9.6% in the previous quarter. About 2.6 million borrowers who were more than 120 days delinquent had their loans transferred to the U.S. Department of Education‘s Default Resolution Group.

“That’s existing data right before this happened,” Phil Crescenzo Jr. of NFM Lending said in reference to the New York Fed’s data. “So now you have seven and a half million more people that the budgets get strained a little bit or a lot. They’re different than what they were a month ago — and they will be going forward.”

Crescenzo noted that since many student loan repayment plans have placed loans in forbearance, especially following COVID-19, the payments have effectively fallen out of borrowers’ mental and practical budgets.

“You can’t ignore these things,” he said. “They give borrowers 90 days to decide on a new program or plan. That’s plenty of time to respond, but it’s not a lot of time if you’re blowing off notices and not really keying in on the dates.”

Crescenzo said borrowers with multiple small student loans are especially vulnerable. Each loan can report a 90-day delinquency, leading to several serious late marks hitting a credit report at once.

“Now you’re going to have four 90-day lates,” he said. “Good luck trying to overcome that on a mortgage approval. A drop of 40 to 100 points [in a credit score] is easy when that happens.”

Need for proactive analysis, education

The consequences are not evenly felt across loan products. Crescenzo said Federal Housing Administration (FHA) borrowers face a “hard stop” if they incur serious student loan delinquencies, often triggering a two-year waiting period before they can qualify again. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) loan guidelines have shown somewhat more tolerance in select cases, he added.

Jane Mason, CEO and founder of Clarifire, said that the mortgage industry needs to be more “proactive” in looking at a borrower’s whole credit history and portfolio, especially today.

“I’m encouraging our industry to make sure that they’re more proactive,” Mason said. “Look at the escrow analysis contact and use that as an opportunity… so that the borrower is getting more help earlier on, before delinquency really sets in.”

Like Crescenzo, Mason is concerned about how the end of SAVE will impact credit reports.

“We need to look at what the credit companies are reporting and encourage mortgage servicers to pull credit reports more often to proactively help a borrower who has student loan debt that also has a mortgage,” she said.

Mason, who is based in Florida, is especially concerned given the preexisting high costs and high risks associated with homes in the Sunshine State.

“The property insurance is out of control in the state of Florida, and the property taxes are increasing because our values skyrocketed during COVID-19. … We’ve had two hurricanes and so many people have not received FEMA aid, so now we’re seeing delinquencies, especially in the area of FHA, and I think there’s going to be more of that.”

This post was originally published on here. 

When Americans think about infrastructure, they think about roads, bridges and broadband. But they should also think about housing. A home is the foundation from which families build their lives: where children grow up, neighbors become communities and one generation creates new opportunities for the next. As the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary, homeownership continues to drive financial security, strengthen community ties and create the ability to build and pass down something lasting.

Building communities through the power of home equity 

In the United States’ 250th year, it is clearer than ever how integral homeownership is to American civic stability. In recent years, housing has dominated the national conversation, prompting policymakers across the political spectrum to prioritize pro-housing policies to bring homeownership within reach for more Americans.

A home is more than just a place to live; it provides a foundation for financial stability and the opportunity to build wealth beyond one lifetime, across multiple generations. Owning a home remains the most effective way for families to build lasting generational wealth, with the typical homeowner holding a net worth over 40 times that of a renter. 

Every mortgage payment made is equity built, allowing homeowners to passively accumulate wealth over time while the value of their home is likely increasing. That equity can support a family’s move into a larger home, withstand an unexpected expense, support a child’s future or leave something meaningful to the next generation. 

But ask homeowners what their home means to them, and few will start with equity. They talk about stability: the security of putting down roots, the confidence of building toward something lasting and for some, the opportunity to give their children a stronger start than they had.

Homeownership also strengthens the communities in which that wealth is built, as a critical piece of civic stability for many communities across the country. When individuals own property, they transition from temporary residents to long-term stakeholders committed to improving the neighborhood around them. Homeowners are more likely to vote in local elections and are 1.3 times more likely than renters to become involved in a neighborhood group and join a civic association.

Yet, for many Americans, the goal of homeownership is being delayed. 

Expanding access through legislative and regulatory reform 

Encouragingly, policymakers in Washington are working to advance policies to expand the aspiration of homeownership to more Americans. This includes the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which was passed by both chambers of Congress with overwhelming majorities. 

The legislation includes several meaningful changes that enable cheaper, faster construction of new homes, including: streamlining environmental reviews, encouraging pre-approved housing designs, updating regulations on manufactured homes and lowering construction costs by up to $10,000 per unit. Additionally, the legislation includes a pilot to expand access to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) backed loans under $100,000. 

In addition, policymakers are reconsidering financial rules that shape how capital flows into and through the mortgage market. Most notably, the Trump Administration’s banking regulator’s proposal for Revised Basel III Endgame seeks to safely and sensibly recalibrate the rules to encourage more bank participation in the mortgage market, which should drive down prices for consumers. 

The mortgage industry has also committed itself to innovation and emerging technologies, including AI, to make the mortgage origination process easier, faster and more cost-effective for all stakeholders. Technology is not a substitute for meaningful policy changes, but through continued advancements, it can help consumers navigate an often complicated process by reducing friction, providing real-time updates, and streamlining workflows. 

Modernizing the mortgage ecosystem

One of the challenges in housing finance is that many processes remain highly manual, document-heavy and operationally fragmented. That creates delays, increases costs and limits scalability across origination and servicing. Today, mortgage leaders and loan officers are beginning to use these tools to streamline often tedious processes and better serve more customers, with their capabilities and impact expected to grow considerably over the next year.

That breadth reflects a deeper truth about the industry. It is tempting, quarter to quarter, to tell a “tale of two cities”: origination up here, servicing down there, as if they were unrelated businesses. They are not. 

At its best, the mortgage industry is one integrated ecosystem. Production puts families in homes; servicing keeps them there through every rate environment and economic season. That balance is a strength, not a contradiction, and it is far more relevant to America’s housing future than any single selling season’s headlines.

Committing to the next generation of American homeowners 

Americans have good reason to be optimistic: housing supply has been steadily expanding. In 2024, builders completed approximately 1.6 million new homes, outpacing the 1.3 million homes built in 2019. That structural progress matters more than any near-term volatility in seasonal activity. Much of that progress is linked to deregulation and permitting reform at every level of government, which has made it faster and cheaper to build new homes. Sustaining that momentum will be essential to meeting demand and creating a healthier housing market over the long term. 

Building the housing supply America needs will not happen overnight. It will require policymakers and industry leaders to look beyond the fluctuations of any one quarter and remain focused on the families still waiting for the opportunity to own a home.

Temporary market headwinds and seasonal noise will always capture headlines, but they cannot suppress the deep-seated American desire to own a home. As the nation approaches America 250, policymakers and industry leaders have an opportunity to look beyond near-term uncertainty and dedicate themselves to one of our country’s defining principles: homeownership. It is time to commit ourselves to a more affordable, accessible and resilient housing market for the next generation of Americans.

David Spector is Chairman and CEO of Pennymac.
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. 

The Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization (MISMO) has updated its Mortgage Insurance Implementation Guide to incorporate data requirements for VantageScore 4.0 and FICO 10T, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) subsidiary announced Thursday.

The guide provides a standardized data framework for electronic information exchange between lenders and mortgage insurers across key processes, including mortgage insurance (MI) rate quotes, commitments, contract underwriting, document delivery and querying for MI order responses, according to the announcement.

The latest changes add support for the newer credit models that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are expected to adopt as part of the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s credit scoring modernization initiative. That shift will require lenders, mortgage insurers and technology providers to adjust how they capture and transmit credit data for loan qualification and pricing.

MISMO said the enhancements are designed to streamline how MI-related information is exchanged across systems, improve consistency in data delivery and help organizations modernize their MI workflows. For lenders, standardized data can reduce custom integrations with individual MI providers and lower the risk of errors or rework when ordering or updating coverage.

“Standardizing how lenders and mortgage insurers exchange information is critical to improving efficiency across the mortgage ecosystem,” Brian Vieaux, president of MISMO said in a statement. “The updated Mortgage Insurance Implementation Guide is essential to enabling the use of modern credit scoring models such as VantageScore 4.0 and FICO 10T. It also helps lenders benefit from improved system integration and more efficient loan qualification, while giving mortgage insurers access to more complete and consistent data.”

The Mortgage Insurance Implementation Guide was developed by MISMO’s Mortgage Insurance Community of Practice in response to industry demand for more consistent MI data exchange practices. The work group is led by Leslie Bensen of MGIC as chair, with Nayanika Sanyal of Arch Mortgage Insurance Co. and Candy Hepfner of MGIC as co-vice chairs.

The guide has reached MISMO’s “Candidate Recommendation” status, meaning it has broad industry consensus and is considered ready for implementation. At this status level, organizations are encouraged to begin planning and execution, with the expectation that only minor clarifications, if any, would be made going forward.

MISMO urged lenders and technology providers to coordinate with their MI partners when implementing the updates. For housing professionals, this coordination will be critical as the industry moves toward production use of VantageScore 4.0 and FICO 10T, which are expected to change how credit risk is measured, especially for thin-file and historically underserved borrowers.

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

This post was originally published on here. 

With the first half of 2026 in the rearview mirror, the reverse mortgage industry continues to work through a variety of pain points that are keeping origination and securitization levels historically low.

HousingWire‘s Reverse Mortgage Daily (RMD) analyzed page views to uncover the most popular stories during the first six months of the year. While mortgage rates, mortgage insurance premiums and reverse mortgage sales tactics are noteworthy subjects, here are the stories that captured the most attention.

1. States debate senior property tax relief

Rising property taxes across much of the country are catching the attention of homeowners — and that’s especially true for seniors living on fixed incomes. At least three states attempted legislative efforts that would lower costs and better equip older residents for aging in place.

In Tennessee, Rutherford County Assessor Rob Mitchell pushed the Tennessee Golden Homeowners Tax Relief Program, a proposal that would allow full reimbursement of property taxes for homeowners 65 and older who have lived in the Volunteer State for at least 20 years. The cost of the program would equal approximately 3% of the state’s annual state budget and could be funded by a recurring surplus estimated at $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion per year. But the proposal hasn’t gone anywhere, and the assessor’s office has been embroiled in controversy after state officials determined that many recent assessments were “riddled with errors.”

Kentucky lawmakers advanced Senate Bill 51, a proposed constitutional amendment to freeze property tax assessments for homeowners 65 and older. Supporters cited relief for fixed-income seniors, while the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy warned about funding strains for schools and local governments that rely on the revenue. The state Senate passed the bill unanimously, but it did not receive enough votes in the House to be placed on voter ballots this year.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, Gov. Mikie Sherrill proposed scaled-back property tax relief in her first-year budget. The plan would have cut the income cap for eligibility to $250,000 and reduced the maximum relief to $4,000 per years. But that plan never came to pass: This week, Sherrill signed the state’s fiscal year 2027 budget, which includes more than $4.1 billion in property tax relief through three programs. One of them was revised to provide higher annual benefits of up to $6,500, depending on household income.

2. Senior home sellers take a hit on profits

Older homeowners, especially those over 70, make significantly lower returns when selling their homes, according to a research brief published by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The brief found that poor upkeep, the rise of private listings and the prevalence of sales to real estate investors are driving that gap.

The gap grows with age and translates into tens of thousands of dollars in lost value on a typical sale. An 80-year-old seller earns about 0.5% less per year than a 45-year-old. Over an average 11-year holding period, that adds up to sales proceeds that are roughly 5% lower. On a $400,000 home, the difference is about $20,000.

That information comes at a time when baby boomers represent the nation’s largest group of home buyers and sellers. And it could provide food for thought as originators and real estate agents work to breathe life into reverse mortgage for purchase programs, which have been underutilized for many years.

3. Aging in place is reshaping housing demand

Aging in place is often driven out of financial necessity, Rosarium Health CEO Cameron Carter said in a recent interview with RMD. Affordable housing alternatives are often in short supply for this population, and the cost of assisting-living facilities and other types of long-term care are making those options more prohibitive.

A former value-based care executive at DaVita and Bright Health, Carter said there’s a simple but profound problem occurring: Most homes aren’t built to handle the specific needs of seniors and require signification modifications to get there. “Ninety percent of housing was built in this country before the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) was even a law, and the ADA only applies to public spaces — not private residences,” he said.

Aging-in-place experts are attempting to educate the reverse mortgage industry about smart-home technology and other tools that could address these issues. Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs), proprietary reverse mortgages and flexible home equity lines of credit designed for seniors could finance these necessary home improvements.

4. Older women stand out as prime reverse mortgage candidates

An AARP survey found that women 50 and older are insecure about retirement, the high costs of health care, emergency savings efforts and caregiving duties. And while many of them rely on Social Security benefits, reverse mortgage use remains concentrated among single women.

Federal Housing Administration data shows the HECM program predominantly served single female borrowers in fiscal year 2025, making up 41.1% of all endorsements. That statistic could serve as opportunity for reverse mortgage companies in their marketing and sales efforts.

“In the last six months, I’ve gotten four cold calls from clients, and each one of them said, ‘I just want to work with a woman,’” Christina Harmes, a reverse mortgage broker with Barrett Financial, told RMD. “I’ve had situations where it was a husband and wife. The wife didn’t feel cared for and spoken to properly by the originator who was male, so she went and looked up somebody else.”

5. Elon Musk says retirement savings could become ‘irrelevant’

Near the start of the year, Elon Musk raised some eyebrows when he suggested future technological abundance, driven by artificial intelligence, could make retirement savings a relic of the past. Musk, who became the world’s first trillionaire after the public launch of SpaceX, made the comments on a podcast.

“One side recommendation I have is: Don’t worry about squirreling money away for retirement in 10 or 20 years,” Musk said. “It won’t matter. If any of the things that we said are true, saving for retirement will be irrelevant.”

“The good future is anyone can have whatever stuff they want,” he added. “That would mean better medical care than anyone has today, available for everyone within five years. No scarcity of goods and services. You can learn anything you want about anything for free.”

His statement, unsurprisingly, received immediate and sharp pushback from financial planners and other retirement experts. Survey data released in April by the Employee Benefit Research Institute showed that 64% of Americans express confidence about having enough money for a comfortable retirement. But that means roughly one-third don’t have confidence. And sentiment declined over the past year among workers and retirees alike.

Financial adviser Ryan Ponsford of Equity Wealth Strategies recently told RMD that clients should have “different spigots you can pull” in retirement, ranging from Social Security and pensions to stock-and-bond portfolios and Roth IRAs.

“The reverse mortgage line of credit is typically not an option until you’re 62, so you don’t have to spend a bunch of time on it if the client is 50. But I might start positioning them to account for their home in their retirement plan,” Ponsford said.

This post was originally published on here. 

The opening day of a high-stakes preliminary injunction hearing in Zillow’s antitrust lawsuit against Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) and Compass International Holdings laid out two sharply different stories about who is trying to shape how listings are marketed — and for whose benefit.

In opening statements and testimony from its witnesses, Zillow argued that multiple listing service MRED and brokerage giant Compass conspired to weaponize MRED’s rules to block Zillow’s listing access standards and a new premarket product, Zillow Preview, in order to protect private listing networks.

MRED and Compass countered that Zillow is the one trying to weaponize MLS data, in violation of rules born out of a 2008 Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement with the National Association of Realtors (NAR).

The case centers on whether MRED can suspend its IDX and VOW listing data feeds to Zillow if the listing portal filters or suppresses certain listings and whether Compass unlawfully pushed MRED to do so. 

Zillow: Group boycott to protect private listing networks

In her opening, Zillow attorney Bonnie Lau framed the dispute as a classic antitrust case over access to an essential input. According to Lau’s arguments, Zillow says its business model depends on comprehensive, timely listings, especially brand-new listings that generate the most consumer engagement and lead volume. Errol Samuelson, Zillow’s chief industry development officer, testified that new listings are “the lifeblood” of Zillow’s platform.

According to exhibits shown during Samuelson’s testimony, on “day zero” when a listing first hits the market, it averages nearly 180 page views on Zillow. By day five, that falls to around 60 views per day and continues to decline. Serious buyers focus on the freshest inventory, and that is where Zillow generates the most agent connections and referral revenue.

Additionally, Samuelson testified that PLNs restrict seller exposure and reduce competition, deny buyers access to the full set of available homes, pull agents and consumers toward the largest brokerages that control off-market inventory, raising barriers for smaller firms and increase the number of agents or firms double-ending deals.

“We think they’re harmful for consumers. We think they’re harmful for sellers. They’re bad for buyers. We think they reduce competition in the real estate industry,” Samuelson said of PLNs.

Zillow’s listing access standards and Preview product

Samuelson also answered questions regarding Zillow’s listing access standards policy, which the firm debuted in April 2025, before rolling out the application of the policy nationwide in late June 2025.  The standards, applied on a listing-by-listing basis, are designed to discourage “selective or gated marketing” while preserving true seller privacy choices, Samuelson testified.

In his testimony, Samuelson said “truly private” listings — such as office exclusives, which he acknowledged are the “least transparent kind of listing,” for sellers with privacy concerns — remain permissible, but only if the seller signs a waiver acknowledging reduced exposure and the listing is not broadly promoted online behind a simple registration gate.

Samuelson stressed that the standards are tied to how a listing is marketed, not who the listing broker is. He also testified that if a seller fires the original agent and lists with a new agent, Zillow will display that property, even if it was previously in a PLN, because it does not want to “penalize the new agent” or the seller a second time.

Beyond the standards, Zillow launched Zillow Preview in March 2026 as a premarket tool that it says competes directly with PLNs but with full transparency. Samuelson described Preview as a “trailer for a movie”: Consumers cannot tour the home yet but can see that it is “coming soon” and register interest.

MRED and Compass: Zillow is trying to weaponize MLS data

In opening statements and testimony from their witnesses, who included Chris Haran, MRED’s chief technology officer and managing director, and Fran Broude, a Compass regional vice president, the defendants rejected Zillow’s framing and said the real issue is Zillow’s attempt to use MLS data to force a particular business model on competitors.

MRED’s counsel, Stephen Libowsky, argued that MRED’s “objective criteria” rule is a neutral, long-standing requirement designed to preserve data integrity and ensure that no MLS participant can use listing display as a “sword or shield” against competitors. That rule, he said, is grounded in the 2008 DOJ–NAR settlement, which required MLSs to give equal access to listings to prevent incumbents from blocking online entrants.

Under those principles, MLS participants can filter or sort listings on objective property characteristics — such as price, property type, location or features — but not based on the identity or marketing strategy of the listing broker or agent, Libowsky said. He told the court that MRED has enforced that non-discrimination framework for nearly two decades and across thousands of brokerages of all sizes.

Conversely, Libowsky characterized Zillow’s listing access standards as an attempt to “weaponize MLS data” to coerce sellers and agents away from competing marketing strategies, including Compass’s multi-phase marketing program. He said Zillow’s own documents admit that the standards are “designed to get sellers to switch brokers.”

Zillow, he argued, is free to pursue its preferred transparent, all-on-MLS-first model but cannot use MLS feeds — which are governed by neutral participation rules — to punish brokers that do not adopt that model. In his telling, MRED repeatedly warned Zillow, beginning when the standards were announced in 2025, that banning listings based on how they were previously marketed would violate MRED’s rules and the parties’ license agreement.

Instead of changing course, Libowsky said, Zillow “played hardball” and now seeks to label ordinary contract enforcement as an antitrust conspiracy.

Compass counsel Nate Eimer focused on three main themes

Those themes were: Absence of a conspiracy, the lack of antitrust injury and Zillow’s inability to show irreparable harm.

On conspiracy, Eimer argued that Compass acted unilaterally and lawfully when it complained to MRED and other MLSs about Zillow’s listing bans. Discovery, Eimer said, shows that Zillow’s enforcement was overwhelmingly directed at Compass. Of roughly 1,500 listings banned under the standards in the relevant period, he said, all but eight were Compass listings. 

Regarding antitrust injury, Eimer told the court that the antitrust laws protect competition and output — not a particular firm’s business strategy. Zillow’s alleged injury is its inability to reduce output by banning listings it disfavors. Unless a restraint reduces the number of homes available to consumers, he said, there is no antitrust problem. 

Finally, on irreparable harm, Compass emphasized that any harm to Zillow is “entirely self-inflicted” and compensable with monetary damages. Zillow has never enforced its standards in the MRED region, Eimer claimed, even though MRED has had a PLN since 2016. During that period, Zillow became the dominant portal without enforcing the standards in Chicagoland. If Zillow loses MRED’s feed now, he said, it can restore access “the moment it leaves the courtroom” by agreeing to display the affected listings.

In contrast, Zillow’s chief financial officer Jeremy Hoffman testified that the harm from losing MRED’s feed cannot be reduced to a number. 

“If we lose access to listings, highly likely we lose access to consumers, we lose advertisers,” he said. “Our brand promise is broken.”

MRED’s rule change, Compass outreach and the Realtor.com deal

Samuelson’s testimony also detailed what Zillow says is a factual chain showing coordination between Compass and MRED.

In October 2025, Compass CEO Robert Reffkin emailed at least eight MLSs urging them to terminate Zillow’s feeds if Zillow enforced its listing access standards in their markets. Samuelson said he personally spoke with one of those MLSs; that MLS told him it would not cut Zillow off, concluded Zillow’s standards were objective and “appreciated” Zillow’s stance on transparency.

Less than two weeks after Reffkin’s outreach, MRED notified Zillow it was revising its IDX/VOW display rules. In an email, MRED said it wanted to “supply this issue for you to ensure your Zillow listing transparency policy, if implemented in our markets, is compliant.” The changes, which took effect October 29, 2025, added language barring websites from refusing to display listings based on the identity of the listing agent or brokerage.

MRED’s position, Samuelson said, was that Zillow’s standards now violated those revised rules. Zillow disagreed, arguing that the standards are applied objectively to listings’ marketing practices, not to particular firms, and offered to modify the language further to clarify that no broker-specific factors would be used. According to Samuelson, MRED rejected those proposed compromises. Due to a lack of alternative MLS options in the Chicagoland market, Samuelson said Zillow chose not to enforce its standards in the MRED footprint to avoid losing its local IDX/VOW feeds. 

In contrast, MRED and Compass said that the October 2025 notices regarding MRED’s rules was just a clarification of its longstanding policy, which MRED claimed Zillow had requested. 

In his testimony, Haran said: “We believed that the original rule already said that. We were asked for a clarification, and we added that clarification.”

What’s at stake

The legal question facing Judge Tharp is whether MRED’s enforcement of its clarified objective criteria rule — in response to Compass complaints and against a dominant portal — is a legitimate application of a neutral policy, or an unlawful group boycott designed to suppress a rival’s product and preserve private listing networks.

In an emailed statement, an MRED spokesperson told HousingWire that the “lawsuit is just a breach of contract case, not an antitrust conspiracy.”

“MRED is enforcing a neutral rule designed to maintain data integrity between brokerages and preserve the viability of MLSs as valuable services in the real estate industry,” the spokesperson added. “Zillow’s purported harm is entirely self-inflicted and can be remedied immediately by simply complying with the same clear and longstanding license agreement terms that Zillow has complied with for years.”

As the hearing continues on Thursday, the court is expected to hear testimony from MRED CEO Rebecca Jensen and Compass CEO Robert Reffkin, as well as two expert witnesses, Lawrence Wu, the president of NERA Economic Consulting, and attorney Debra Aron, who is the vice president of Charles River Associates’ Competition Practice. The witnesses are expected to testify on the competitive impact of PLNs, the scope of MRED’s market power and the feasibility of alternatives like direct feeds.

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. 

TitleEase is gaining momentum as demand grows for its franchise-based title insurance model — backed by a recent capital raise, strategic acquisitions and an expanding pipeline of real estate and mortgage partners.

The company completed a capital raise that closed at the end of May, with funding slated to bolster continued expansion, and is seeing increased market interest, with licensing now secured in 46 states.

Company leaders told HousingWire they’re now meeting with approximately 200 prospective brokers each month.

“Some of our larger customers, about three and a half years ago, came to us and said, ‘Hey, we see the HUD statements. We know title. We know you guys are making a killing, so can we participate?’ And we said, ‘No problem. We’d love for you to do that. Let us legally figure out what’s the best way to do it.’ After a lot of money invested in legal, the vehicle that was the best way to do it was a franchise system.”

In California and Texas, franchisees also establish escrow companies alongside their title operations.

The ramped up growth strategy was already underway with the acquisition of California-based Landwood Title at the end of 2025.

That purchase gave TitleEase licensing coverage across all 58 California counties — helping the company serve one of the nation’s most difficult states for title licensing while supporting brokers and lenders seeking to establish title and escrow operations.

A different approach to title ownership

Founded in 2021, TitleEase is part of the Rhode Island-based Lincoln Family of Companies.

Led by CEO Joseph D’Urso, it offers a franchise model designed to help real estate brokerages, mortgage lenders and entrepreneurs establish fully compliant title insurance and settlement businesses.

Unlike traditional joint ventures, TitleEase structures its model so franchise owners establish and own their own title company — while relying on the parent organization for operational infrastructure, compliance, licensing assistance, software, vendor relationships and ongoing support.

Oakley said the concept grew out of requests from existing customers seeking to participate more directly in title revenue.

He described the offering as “a title company in a box.” “Here’s your box. It has a title company in it and it has your LLC,” Oakley said. “It has all your compliance and all your licensing. “We’ll even help you find and recruit the licensed title person in your state. If you don’t know what to ask them, we do.”

The company also assists franchisees with regulatory compliance, underwriter relationships, staffing guidance, operational manuals and ongoing coaching designed to reduce barriers to entering the title industry.

Revenue is shared equally between TitleEase and franchise owners — with each side responsible for separate operating costs while working together to grow transaction volume.

“We are true partners with them, and we’re here to help you grow,” Oakley said. “If you say you can do 30 policies a month today, great. We’re going to do everything in our power to make sure we get you to 100 policies a month in six months, because we make more money when you make more money.”

Growth strategy, long-term value

Investor Richard Bitner said the company’s most significant expansion efforts have occurred over the past year following new funding and additional hiring.

“Joe D’Urso, the founder and braintrust behind this, spent a lot of time with CFPB talking to them about this structure before we ever launched,” he said. “I think part of the problem with joint ventures is they tend to be opaque. If there’s anything that CFPB kind of hates, it’s when you can’t really tell who’s making what, where, how, why or who’s responsible.

“We’ve taken the exact absolute opposite approach. So, on the [HUD statement], you’ll actually see two title fees, where the fees get split between the parent company that does the work and the title franchise directly. It’s the absolute opposite of what’s been happening with the [joint ventures].”

Beyond creating an additional revenue source, executives believe the model gives brokerages and lenders greater operational visibility while creating a business asset that owners can eventually sell independently.

“When we’re talking about a reduced margin environment, which we’re in, with interest rates being up, I think the ability for anybody who’s doing 10 or more transactions a month — that’s kind of the general number we’re looking at, if you can contribute 10 or more — might consider this as an opportunity.”

He added that ownership extends beyond monthly income.

Leaders also believe ownership can strengthen recruiting by offering agents and loan officers an opportunity to participate in a business that generates additional revenue beyond traditional commissions.

Looking ahead

Executives say the combination of recent investment, expanded licensing capabilities and growing industry awareness positions TitleEase for continued national expansion.

Oakley said the company’s growth reflects increasing interest from brokerages and lenders looking to bring title operations in-house while avoiding the complexity of building those businesses independently.

“We’re now [onboarding] between five and 10 [new franchises] a month,” he said. “We have people actually reaching out and saying, ‘Hey, I heard about you guys, and I heard you’ve got a phenomenal program where you know I can make some ancillary revenue off of transactions that I already control.’”

As TitleEase continues signing new franchisees and pursuing acquisitions, leaders believe the franchise model offers an alternative to traditional title joint ventures by combining ownership, operational support and regulatory compliance within a single platform.

This post was originally published on here. 

When Zillow launched Zillow Preview alongside a coalition of leading brokerages earlier this year, there was a moment of relief across the housing industry. Many hoped the company’s sustained campaign against private listings had finally run its course. Two months later, that hope looks premature.

Zillow’s assault on private listing strategies is disruptive and costly — for agents, brokerages large and small, and especially Compass. The so-called “Zillow ban” was dressed in the language of consumer protection: it cast Compass as the enemy of buyers and a threat to the MLS. Neither charge holds up.

What matters is this: Zillow’s claim to be defending the MLS was really a strategy to protect its dominant market position, monetize MLS data at scale and capture the marketing value that local agents create when they prepare homes for sale.

How it all came down

The ban emerged in direct response to NAR’s March 2025 decision to introduce new flexibility through its “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers” policy. Critically, NAR did not abandon the Clear Cooperation Policy — it retained it in full — but added an exemption allowing sellers to delay syndication to portals like Zillow for a set period.

NAR’s move reflected hard-won wisdom: Its own rigid listing rules had already cost it a $418 million antitrust settlement over commission practices. Where NAR found room for compromise, Zillow dug in — imposing standards on its platform stricter than what even NAR required.

Compass’s three-phased marketing approach gained legitimacy precisely because NAR acknowledged the commercial logic behind delayed syndication. Beginning a listing as a private exclusive allows sellers and agents to gather market intelligence and stress-test pricing before going fully public. The vast majority of these listings ultimately reach the MLS. The temporary withholding of data is a tool of seller strategy, not market manipulation.

The economics are straightforward

Zillow monetizes listing data as fuel for its Zestimate tool, as inventory for banner advertising, and as raw material for its Premier Agent program — a lead-generation product that routes buyer inquiries around the seller’s own chosen agent. Every listing withheld from Zillow, even temporarily, is lost revenue. The Listing Access Standards were never really about the consumer. They were about keeping the pipeline full.

MRED, the dominant MLS serving the Chicago metro area, updated its rules to ensure sellers retained the full range of marketing options available under NAR policy. It informed Zillow that local rules govern local markets and that agents shouldn’t be penalized for following their clients’ instructions.

When Zillow refused to comply, MRED moved to cut its listing data feed — a serious escalation, but one grounded in the authority that MLSs have always held over data licensing.

Is the real target the seller?

Zillow’s new lawsuit may name Compass and MRED as the defendants, but its real target is the seller. The company is asking a federal court to let it override seller choices — about who represents them and how their property is marketed. What Zillow frames as an illegal conspiracy is, in practice, a brokerage and a local MLS following their clients’ lawful instructions.

The irony is hard to miss. Zillow is wielding the Sherman Antitrust Act against the very market participants whose cooperation makes its platform possible — and doing so while simultaneously facing its own FTC antitrust lawsuit over a deal with Redfin to eliminate competition in multifamily rental listings.

For housing professionals, the question at the center of this fight isn’t complicated: Does a dominant listing portal have the right to dictate how individual home sellers market their properties in order to protect its own data access and revenue model?

Zillow is betting the courts will say yes. The industry should be hoping otherwise.

Kevin C. Gillen, PhD, is Principal Research Fellow with Wilbur C. Henderson Real Estate Institute and Adjunct Professor of Finance at Drexel University. This is Kevin Gillen’s opinion and not necessarily those of Drexel University or the Henderson Real Estate Institute. 

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. 

LP Building Solutions’ role in the evolution of engineered wood products and American homebuilding is the focus of a new USA Today documentary segment, part of the publisher’s “America 250” series on U.S. industry and innovation.

The segment, which premieres July 2 on USAToday.com, traces how LP’s development and commercialization of oriented strand board (OSB) and other engineered wood products have influenced residential construction over the past five decades, according to a company announcement.

From plywood to OSB as a structural standard

Founded in 1972, Nashville-based LP helped move the market from plywood to OSB structural panels, opening North America’s first OSB mill in 1979. At the time, plywood still dominated U.S. homebuilding.

OSB, made from smaller, fast-growing trees, offered a more uniform and resource-efficient alternative aimed at improving consistency in panel performance. Over time, OSB moved from a niche product to a standard in residential construction and now accounts for the majority of the structural panel market, the company said.

LP later extended its engineered wood platform into exterior products with the launch of LP SmartSide Trim & Siding in 1997, giving builders and remodelers a wood-based option that competes with fiber cement, vinyl and traditional wood siding systems.

Why this matters for builders

For production builders and regional operators, the America 250 feature underscores how material choices have shifted in response to labor, cost and performance pressures. Engineered wood systems such as OSB have become central to framing, sheathing and exterior assemblies as builders look for predictable performance, manufacturing scale and compatibility with evolving energy and fire codes.

The spotlight on LP also comes as builders continue to face supply and demand imbalances. Realtor.com estimated a nationwide housing shortfall of more than 4 million homes in 2025, while the National Association of Home Builders reported that the median age of owner-occupied homes reached 42 years in 2024. That combination points to sustained demand for both new-home starts and major renovation work, keeping pressure on building products manufacturers to support higher volumes and more specialized applications.

“Our focus has been on improving how homes are built and how they perform,” LP Chief Executive Officer Jason Ringblom said in the announcement. “We see sustained demand for solutions that advance innovation, sustainability and performance across the industry, and we will continue to meet that demand.”

Product innovation and code-driven demand

LP’s recent product development has centered on both exterior cladding and code-aligned structural solutions. In 2025, the company was granted 21 patents and added products such as the LP SmartSide ExpertFinish Naturals Collection Siding, aimed at giving builders more prefinished options while reducing jobsite labor.

The company also advanced LP BurnGuard Fire-Retardant-Treated OSB, described as the first commercialized FRT OSB certified to meet International Building Code and International Residential Code definitions for fire-retardant-treated wood structural panels. As more jurisdictions tighten fire and wildland-urban interface (WUI) requirements, builders are increasingly weighing FRT options for roof decks, exterior walls and multifamily assemblies.

For homebuilders, the growth of FRT OSB and integrated structural systems reflects a broad trend toward solutions that combine structural performance, moisture management, energy efficiency and code compliance in fewer steps. That can help mitigate skilled labor constraints and reduce cycle times on larger communities.

Emphasis on carbon and resource efficiency

Beyond product performance, LP used the America 250 spotlight to reinforce its positioning around carbon and forest management — an area that is drawing more attention from institutional land developers, public builders and ESG-focused capital.

In its 2025 sustainability report, LP said carbon-negative products accounted for 91% of its North American net sales in 2024. The company also reported a 50% reduction in Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions intensity by net sales since 2019.

LP said its manufacturing model emphasizes resource efficiency and long-term forest stewardship, framing these practices as longstanding operational priorities rather than new initiatives. The company operates more than 20 manufacturing facilities across North and South America and reported $2.7 billion in revenue in 2025 with about 4,300 employees.

Positioning ahead of the semiquincentennial

USA Today’s America 250 series is designed to highlight how U.S. businesses have contributed to economic and technological progress since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary in 2026. LP’s inclusion places residential construction materials alongside better-known sectors like automotive, technology and manufacturing in the run-up to the semiquincentennial.

For builders, developers and construction executives, the feature is another signal that building materials innovation and housing supply constraints are part of a broader national conversation about economic growth, infrastructure and sustainability. It also reinforces that code shifts, carbon reporting expectations and productivity pressures will likely continue to shape product specifications on job sites.

The LP segment is available on USAToday.com as part of the America 250 documentary series. More information on LP’s products and sustainability reporting is available at LPCorp.com.

This post was originally published on here. 

Mike Kortas is stepping into the mortgage servicing space with the launch of evoLend — a servicer approved for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae loans that’s initially designed to give NEXA Lending loan officers a competitive advantage in borrower relationships. 

In an interview with HousingWire, Kortas — the founder and CEO of NEXA — said the traditional mortgage servicing model often disconnects LOs from borrowers after a loan is funded, limiting their visibility into future refinance and payoff opportunities.

“Every time a loan is sold to somebody, the loan officer is getting sold out by their company, because the servicing is now being done by somebody else,” Kortas said. “Now our loan officers will be able to be involved in the servicing.”  

evoLend plans to offer mortgage servicing tools and borrower data to help LOs stay connected with clients during the life of a loan. Kortas also said future integrations could give NEXA LOs access to servicing information and payoff data, subject to regulatory and compliance requirements.

Leadership

Tammy Richards has been appointed CEO at evoLend, where she will oversee technology, operational infrastructure and the servicing platform. When asked whether Richards will retain her position as NEXA’s chief strategy officer, Kortas said that the decision is “still in transition” but that Richards will “focus on this new venture.”

“evoLend is about giving loan officers access to the information and infrastructure they have historically been separated from after closing,” Richards said in a statement. “This company is being built intentionally, with compliance, technology, and long-term loan officer value at the center.”

Todd Bitter, national director of sales at NEXA, explained that in the company’s nondelegated correspondent business format, it funds the loans while lenders handle the underwriting. Typically, lenders then buy the loans off NEXA’s warehouse line and retain the servicing.

“That’s how it’s always worked in this industry,” Bitter said. “But we basically said, ‘Here’s a servicing company, and we want our loans to be able to be serviced by this company. If you want to do business with us, we would appreciate that.’ Some of them are going to be a subservicing agreement, and some of them are going to be servicing fully.”

Competition 

Kortas is launching evoLend amid a competitive landscape for servicing, which has led to several recent transactions: Rocket Companies and Mr. Cooper Group; Bayview Asset Management and Guild Mortgage; and the attempts by United Wholesale Mortgage and CrossCountry Mortgage to acquire Two Harbors Investment Corp.

“Not every lender is going to allow us to service the loans, but some are, because they’re thinking this is their way to get more volume from NEXA,” Bitter added.

Kortas plans to make evoLend available to other brokers, LOs and companies in the future. He said evoLend is pursuing multiple business models depending on the lender or investor involved in a loan.

In cases where evoLend owns the mortgage servicing rights (MSRs), the company would also service the loan, giving it direct access to borrower information throughout the life of the mortgage.

If another lender retains the servicing rights, Kortas said evoLend could instead act as the subservicer, handling the day-to-day servicing while the lender continues to own the asset.

In situations where evoLend neither owns nor services the loan, the company plans to rely on technology integrations to receive servicing data through application programming interfaces (APIs). Kortas said that would allow LOs to monitor payoff activity and remain engaged with borrowers even when another company services the loan.

Partnerships 

While Kortas says that no companies have officially signed on, he anticipates that Pennymac will be the first company to work with evoLend. Other companies are in the works too, but “nothing has been finalized,” he added. 

“I have enough cash reserves to service many billions of dollars,” he said. “Our goal is likely $2 billion year one and then grow it from there. But we certainly will not be thinking small long term.”

The addition of a new company under Kortas’s belt does not mean a change for NEXA’s business model, he said.

evoLend is not Kortas’s only business pursuit this year. He also acquired the for-sale-by-owner platform FSBO.com through an ownership group co-led by strategic partner Brad Rice, the CEO of real estate marketplace Homepie and of Amerifund Home Loans.

Kortas said at the time of that announcement that while NEXA does not own FSBO.com, the platform will benefit NEXA due to lead discounts and lead aggregation. Similarly, Kortas confirmed to HousingWire on Thursday that he alone owns evoLend and that it will operate independently, not under NEXA’s ownership.

This post was originally published on here. 

For over a century the Georgia-based brokerage Blanchard & Calhoun Real Estate Co. has continued to serve consumers in the Augusta area all while navigating recessions, record high interest rates, the rise of the internet, the COVID-19 pandemic housing market, the commission lawsuits and the current wave of massive consolidation hitting the housing industry.

Tom Blanchard, the firm’s president, attributes the continued success of his family’s firm to its focus on community and relationships. 

“I think what has helped us survive over the years, especially in previous waves of consolidation, is just sticking to who we are, knowing our business and doing our best to be a source of information that people want to engage with,” Blanchard said. “We just focus on sticking to the core of the business and surrounding ourselves with the best people we can. There are thousands of challenges out there and in real estate right now it feels a bit like we are under attack with all of the lawsuits and scrutiny. But, I think it’s a people business and having good people is what helps local, regional independents like us survive.” 

Blanchard believes the current rise of the “mega-brokerage” provides his firm with an opportunity to home in on what differentiates it from some of the national brands, but he knows this task won’t be easy.

“As everyone keeps consolidating, I don’t think our job is going to get any easier. It might continue to get harder for us independents, but if you build a company with a good reputation, that is always valuable, so we’re going to focus on keeping things that way for Blanchard & Calhoun,” he said. 

Competing with the big dogs

In the quest to stay competitive, Blanchard said he is focusing on making sure that the company is bringing in the right people and systems to support existing agents and continue to grow the brokerage. 

“If we’ve got good folks, who can effectively help consumers buy or sell a home, and the systems behind them help them become more efficient, collaborative and productive, then the sky is the limit,” Blanchard said. “As long as our agents continue to put themselves in positions to grow their business, making sure they are involved with community projects, then things will be positive. There is no question that the big firms are getting bigger, but we have always had to compete against bigger players.” 

The network effect

In addition to ensuring he has the right people at the brokerage to best serve clients, during challenging times, Blanchard said it is important to lean on other relationships in the industry. Due to this, he said he is glad to be part of the Leading Real Estate Companies of the World network, as it provides him with a network of other top-independent brokerages to discuss and identify best practices and strategies with. 

“They are a great resource for a company like ours,” Blanchard said of the LeadingRE network. “They add value to our ability to refer folks moving out of our area to other trusted professionals, but they also do a really good job of keeping us on the forefront of best practices and tools. There are some really successful companies and leaders in the network and it is really neat to just be around them and listen.” 

Navigating the noise

With so much noise in the real estate industry right now, Blanchard said he feels it is most important to remain centered on the consumer and their needs and concerns. 

“We are focused on staying on top of questions our consumers may ask us — lately that has been a lot of questions around commissions and compensation — and making sure that our agents are very professional and [provide] great resources for buyers,” he said. 

Currently, Blanchard said he and his team are working to help consumers navigate a relatively flat housing market and ongoing affordability challenges. Looking at the second half of the year, he said the company, which also functions as a developer, is excited about several new construction listings coming online soon.

“We’ve been looking at ways to help with housing affordability and some of that comes down to [bringing] more housing product to the market, so new lots and houses to the market, in a place where this is challenging, is really exciting and our agents are looking forward to bringing these to buyers in our market,” Blanchard said.

This post was originally published on here. 

Every few years, an elite institution announces that the American Dream is over.

This time, the argument comes dressed as housing analysis. Middle-class homeownership, we are told, was not a durable feature of American life but a historical accident. A temporary postwar phenomenon, made possible by cheap land, federal mortgage support, rising wages and a building boom that cannot be repeated.

It sounds sophisticated, but it is also dangerously incomplete.

The American Dream is not dead.

It has been priced out of some markets, regulated out of others, and politically strangled in many of the places that now claim to mourn its disappearance. But in the parts of America still willing to build, adapt, finance, entitle and grow, the dream remains very much alive.

The mistake is simple: Harvard is confusing a broken geography with a broken country. No serious person should minimize today’s affordability crisis. Mortgage rates, insurance, property taxes, construction costs, land prices, and wage pressures have made ownership harder for young families. The monthly payment is real. The math is unforgiving.

But “harder” is not the same as “over.”

Nationally, roughly two-thirds of U.S. households still own their homes. Despite volatility, that rate remains broadly within the band the country has occupied since the late 1960s. Among households aged 35 to 44, ownership remains above 60%. That is below prior peaks, but it is still a majority – even after one of the sharpest affordability shocks in a generation.

The more honest conclusion is this: middle-class homeownership remains possible where supply, infrastructure, and product innovation meet demand. It is becoming impossible in places that worship scarcity, overregulate land, delay infrastructure, and then act surprised when scarcity drives up costs.

That is not a historical accident. It is a policy choice.

For decades, many of America’s most expensive markets struck a bargain. Protect existing homeowners. Restrict new housing. Slow permitting. Fight density. Limit starter-home product. Preserve neighborhood politics at almost any cost. The result was predictable. Prices rose. Young families were locked out. Builders moved elsewhere. Employers followed talent. Talent followed affordability.

Then the same institutions looked at the wreckage and declared the American Dream dead.

No. The Dream did not die. It moved.

It moved to Texas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, Georgia and the outer rings of major growth markets, where families are still trading rent checks for mortgages. They are still buying new homes and choosing schools, trails, garages, yards, safety, and community over permanent renter status in cities that forgot how to say yes.

That is the blind spot in the national housing conversation. Too many analysts treat Boston, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington as if they were America. They are not. They are important markets, but they are also warnings. They show what happens when economic opportunity and housing production become disconnected.

America has always been a country of movement.

Families moved west. Workers moved to factories. Immigrants moved toward opportunity. Veterans came home and bought homes in new suburbs. The middle class did not achieve ownership because one perfect city made room for everyone. It achieved ownership because the country kept building new places for the next generation to start.

That is still happening. The product has changed. The lot may be smaller. The first home may be a townhome, cottage-lot home, duplex, patio home, or a smaller detached house farther from the old urban core. In some communities, the first step may even be a build-for-rent home that later becomes an ownership home.

That may not look like a 1970s subdivision with a quarter-acre lot and a two-car garage, but the ladder still exists where communities allow it to be built.

The real issue is not whether Americans still want ownership. They do. The real issue is whether local governments, lenders, builders, landowners, and infrastructure providers can build a modern ownership ladder that fits today’s incomes, household formation, and monthly payment realities.

That means more starter product. It means smaller lots where appropriate. It means townhomes, patio homes, duplexes, and right-sized detached homes. It means faster approvals, clearer rules, and infrastructure delivered on a timeline that aligns with demand. It means communities with trails, schools, parks, services, and dignity – not just density for density’s sake. It also means accepting a basic truth: you cannot regulate every attainable option out of existence and then blame capitalism for the price.

The phrase “historical accident” lets too many people off the hook. It frames homeownership as a lucky glitch in American history rather than the result of deliberate systems: land availability, infrastructure investment, mortgage access, job growth, private capital, and large-scale housing production.

Those were not miracles. They were choices. And choices can be made again.

Not everywhere. Not overnight. Not with slogans. But in practical, pro-growth markets, the formula remains clear: entitlement discipline, responsible land development, builder competition, flexible product design, financing capacity, and local governments that understand a simple point, namely that saying yes to homes is not a betrayal of community. It is how communities survive.

The American Dream was never a guarantee that every household could buy any house in any ZIP code at any time. That was never the deal. The deal was better than that.

The deal was mobility. Agency. A first rung. A chance to trade effort for ownership. A chance to move to a place where the math works. A chance to build equity, raise a family, change schools, change cities, and change your life.

That Dream is still alive.

But it is no longer evenly distributed. It increasingly belongs to the places willing to earn it. So the question is not whether middle-class homeownership was a historical accident. The question is whether today’s leaders have the courage to recreate the conditions that made it possible: buildable land, infrastructure, capital, reasonable regulation and housing products designed for real households rather than for political theater.

Harvard sees the Dream vanishing because it is looking backward at the markets that stopped building.

Look forward. Look south. Look west. Look at the communities still growing, still permitting, still welcoming families, still solving for the monthly payment, still creating the next front door.

The American Dream did not die. It simply left the places that stopped making room for it.

This post was originally published on here. 

A coalition of consumer, housing and civil rights organizations is asking federal regulators to investigate Compass International Holdings’s new agreements with multiple listing services (MLS), arguing the deals expand off-MLS “pocket listing” networks that harm competition and fair housing, according to a July 1 letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ).

A group of advocacy organizations led by the Consumer Federation of America sent a letter Tuesday to FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson and Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, urging the agencies to open an investigation into a set of recently announced data and access agreements between Compass and several MLSs.

The groups argue the arrangements appear designed to bolster private or “off-market” listing networks that keep homes out of traditional public MLS distribution during key marketing periods. They say that structure reduces transparency for buyers and sellers, weakens price competition and can create steering incentives that favor large brokerages and their agents.

In April 2026, Compass reached a deal with Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) to expand MRED’s Private Listing Network nationwide, according to the letter, citing public reporting. Subsequent arrangements have reportedly been struck with Bright MLS, Realtracs and MLS/CLAW.

Private listing systems allow homes to be marketed to a limited pool of agents and buyers rather than broadly across MLSs and public portals. The letter notes that such listings often circulate within a brokerage first, giving the listing firm a better chance to represent both buyer and seller on the same transaction. The advocacy groups contend that while this can increase revenue and market share for large firms, sellers may realize lower sale prices and many buyers may never see available homes, a concern in a low-inventory market.

Civil rights concerns raised

The signatories also raise civil rights concerns, pointing to Zillow research on MRED’s existing Private Listing Network in the Chicago metro that found homes in majority-white neighborhoods were disproportionately marketed through private channels compared with homes in majority non-white areas. They warn that limiting who can see listings may lead to selective exclusion of protected classes and “digital redlining” if not addressed. Zillow, who put together the study, is currently suing MRED and Compass over an alleged antitrust conspiracy to withdraw MRED’s listing feed from Zillow. 

The organizations frame the Compass-MLS deals against what they describe as the brokerage’s growing market power. Compass completed its acquisition of Anywhere Real Estate Inc. in January 2026, combining two large national brokerages in a merger that had already attracted scrutiny from some lawmakers. The letter notes that Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden previously raised antitrust concerns about the deal, and a subsequent letter from Warren, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and others questioned its approval process.

The letter concludes by urging federal enforcers to ensure that dominant firms do not use consolidation and exclusive listing practices to “monopolize access to the American Dream” at a time of severe housing unaffordability. It is signed by the Consumer Federation of America, American Economic Liberties Project, Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, Consumer Action, Demand Progress Education Fund, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), Rise Economy and Woodstock Institute.

Compass did not immediately return HousingWire’s request for comment on the letter.

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. 

With warm weather and no state income tax, Florida makes for a prime destination to purchase property. Yet, Florida’s burgeoning real estate market faces a growing problem of deed and property fraud, magnified by the development of AI and the state’s large population of vulnerable individuals, such as senior citizens. This has led some to name South Florida the “title fraud capital of the world.” 

According to 2025 statistics, the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center received over 12,000 real estate-related complaints, representing losses exceeding $275 million. These numbers reflect a profound problem in the United States and Florida that will only become more complicated as AI tools further develop, making deed fraud easier.

Methods to watch out for

Savvy fraudsters use publicly available information and AI tools to perpetrate their schemes, often targeting the most vulnerable property owners. Nonresident property owners, property owners over the age of 65 and owners in financial distress are the primary targets of deed and title fraud schemes, including schemes that utilize AI. 

AI deed fraud can affect any property owner, but fraudsters often focus on properties that are easier to exploit. Common targets include vacant homes, properties in blighted areas, homes that are not actively maintained, properties with delinquent taxes, properties free of liens and properties owned by individuals who do not live nearby.

If you or someone you know is part of a vulnerable population, it is especially important to stay up to date on common AI fraud methods. The most shocking of these methods is “Deepfake” impersonation and voice cloning. These tools have been used to replicate a person’s likeness to trick property owners into revealing sensitive personal information or signing fraudulent deeds or documents. 

AI tools are also used by fraudsters to forge signatures, deeds, closing documents and identification cards that would typically pass inspection by the naked eye. Other fraudsters will launch automated “phishing” and malware attacks through AI-generated, personalized emails and phone calls, which can give them access to passwords and financial information, making fraudulent deed transfers much easier. If a real estate transaction or communication feels suspicious, be sure to do your due diligence before proceeding.

Void vs. voidable deeds and legal action

Florida property owners face different levels of legal strife depending on the sophistication of the AI deed fraud method used by a fraudster. Deeds that are procured by fraud or forgery fall into one of two categories: “void” or “voidable.” 

Category 1: Void deeds

A deed that is void (or void ab initio) is one where the deed is void at its inception. When a fraudster uses AI tools to forge a deed or signature on a deed, that deed is void from the start. Void deeds do not create legal title in the fraudster or anyone to whom the fraudster conveys title. 

For an original property owner to recover the same title and rights to the property that existed before the fraud, the property owner must take legal action to “quiet title” in the property. While seemingly simple, this legal action may prove costly to the property owner who hopes to recover title to his or her property. 

Category 2: Voidable deeds

Alternatively, when a fraudster utilizes an AI Deepfake or phishing scheme to trick a property owner into conveying a facially valid deed, that deed is considered “voidable.” A voidable deed requires quick action because it may technically convey legal title to the property and provide protection to unsuspecting later purchasers of the property. 

The distinction makes legal recovery immensely more complicated and could prevent the original property owner from reacquiring title to the property. In some cases, fraudsters use an AI scheme to induce the transfer of title and subsequently sell the property to a bona fide purchaser, leaving the original property owner and an unsuspecting buyer at odds over the same property. The bona fide purchaser may have legal protections with respect to the property despite also being a victim of fraud themselves. 

This demonstrates the importance of proactivity in defending against AI deed fraud and protecting proper legal title in Florida. It is not uncommon to see litigation in which an unsuspecting purchaser obtains title to a property he or she purchased from someone who acquired it through fraud. In many of those instances, a court must determine who is the “least innocent party.”

Proactive protective actions to take

Florida property owners should be proactive and vigilant in protecting their property. Anyone purchasing a property in Florida should opt to buy owner’s title insurance, which typically requires a one-time payment at closing and can cover legal fees and financial losses arising from fraudulent title activity. Moreover, every Florida property owner should opt into their county’s free property alert service, which alerts property owners to attempted changes to their title 

In South Florida, Broward County is at the forefront of the ever-evolving fight against deed fraud. Specifically, in Broward County, Mila Schwartzreich, General Counsel and Director of Administration for the Office of the Broward County Property Appraiser Marty Kiar, has noted that: 

“Timing is key. The first step South Florida property owners should take is signing up for the Broward County Property Appraiser’s Owner Alert system. After that, vulnerable property owners and their family members should stay vigilant for alerts. If an alert is received reflecting an ownership change they did not make, notify our office immediately for our Crimes Against Property Team to investigate.” 

Limiting deed and property fraud takes a focused effort from property owners, their families, local government agencies, and real estate professionals. Florida property owners should start making this effort as soon as possible. 

Evan Rosenberg is a Florida-based attorney who concentrates his practice on complex real estate and commercial litigation matters in state and federal courts. Ethan Marquis, a summer associate with the firm, assisted with the preparation of this article.
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. 

The mortgage market is producing inconsistent credit decisions on borrower profiles that it will encounter with increasing frequency. Borrowers aged 60 to 69 are currently 1.5% more likely to be rejected for a mortgage than younger applicants. Those over 70 face a 2.7% higher denial rate. These numbers don’t reflect elevated credit risk. They reflect a measurement framework designed for a different borrower population and haven’t been updated to account for how wealth is held in retirement.

The numbers behind that population aren’t small. U.S. retirement assets reached $49.1 trillion at the end of 2025. A record 4.2 million Americans turned 65 that same year. The tools being used to evaluate this segment of the purchase and refinance market are producing results that don’t hold up under scrutiny. 

When sound financial planning looks like a liability

Conventional underwriting was built on a correlation that held for most of the 20th century: income flow and financial strength moved together. Document the salary, run the DTI, and the framework will tell you something meaningful about repayment capacity. For retirees, that correlation breaks down.

Strategic drawdown is the entire point of retirement portfolio management. Retirees take only what they need in a given period to manage tax exposure, preserve capital and maintain flexibility. The result is that their documented income often bears little relationship to their full financial position. A borrower with $1.2 million in liquid assets drawing $2,500 a month looks considerably worse on paper than a salaried employee earning $80,000 a year, despite carrying a fraction of the repayment risk.

Rate and price dynamics have deepened that distortion. DTI ratio was the primary reason cited for mortgage denials in 35% of cases in 2024, up from 29% in 2018. For most borrowers, that reflects actual debt load. For retirees drawing down strategically, it reflects documented income that understates their financial position, a different problem producing the same outcome.

The rate environment has made this worse. Social Security income that cleared DTI on a $400,000 loan in 2020 supports considerably less borrowing at 6% or 7%. Median home equity for Americans 65 and older has risen roughly 47% since 2019, which means the loans retirees need have grown while the income the framework recognizes has contracted. The measurement hasn’t drifted slightly off. For a significant share of this population, it’s producing the opposite of an accurate credit read.

One assumption, two markets

Asset depletion lending addresses this directly, and its basic mechanics are worth understanding clearly because the details are where the market diverges. 

Rather than requiring traditional income documentation, lenders calculate a synthetic monthly income figure from verified liquid assets. Eligible assets, including brokerage accounts, retirement accounts and liquid savings, form the qualifying base. Illiquid holdings are excluded. Retirement accounts are haircut by roughly 30% to account for taxes and withdrawal costs, and the adjusted total is amortized across a set time horizon to produce a synthetic monthly income figure. That figure then runs through standard DTI analysis the same way employment income would.

The methodology is well established. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have provisions for asset-based qualification, which means it carries agency-level acknowledgment. What creates the market divergence is a single variable: the time horizon used to amortize the asset base.

GSE guidelines divide assets over 360 months. On a $1.2 million asset base, after the standard retirement account discount, that produces roughly $2,300 per month in qualifying income. At current prices and rates, that number closes very few loans. 

Non-QM lenders typically use a 60-month horizon. The same asset base generates approximately six times that monthly figure. The underwriting rationale is identical in both cases. So is the borrower. Yet one assumption leads to denial, while the other leads to approval.

This is the mechanism behind a pattern that, from the outside, looks like inconsistent standards. Two lenders evaluating the same retiree applicant can reach opposite conclusions without either making a technical error. Both are operating under frameworks that define the qualifying borrower population differently.  Non-QM rates do run slightly higher than conventional, but for a borrower who qualifies comfortably under one formula and doesn’t qualify at all under the other, the rate differential is rarely what determines the outcome. 

What closing the gap requires

Originator awareness is part of the picture, but the structural work sits elsewhere. Lenders without non-QM asset depletion in their product set are leaving this population unserved, regardless of how well their loan officers understand the mechanics. That’s a product and investor infrastructure issue, and training alone won’t close it.

The secondary market component is worth naming directly: asset depletion loans need consistent investor appetite to scale, and non-QM execution still carries pricing and disposition variability that conventional channels don’t. That’s a reasonable operational consideration, not a reason to avoid the product, but it shapes how lenders need to think about building capacity here.

The agency side of the equation is also in motion. The 360-month horizon is a policy choice, and as the retiree borrower population grows, the case for revisiting it strengthens. The defined contribution shift accelerates that pressure considerably. As defined-benefit pensions continue their decline and 401(k)-based retirement becomes the dominant model, the accumulator profile becomes the default borrower, and qualification frameworks will need to reflect this.

The denial rates for older borrowers do not reflect actual differences in credit performance. They’re tracking a documentation standard built for earned income and applied without adjustment to accumulated wealth. The tools to evaluate these borrowers accurately already exist, and the market pressure to use them consistently is building. The borrower population driving that pressure is moving in only one direction.

By Eric Bernstein, President and Co-founder of LendFriend Mortgage
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. 

Clayton Home Building Group confirmed that its Southeast U.S. powerhouse operator, Mungo Homes has acquired Columbia, S.C.-based McGuinn Homes, a four-decade-old regional builder whose rise in HousingWire’s Homebuilder Rankings reflected a carefully executed growth strategy centered on attainable homeownership, disciplined operations and customer focus.

In announcing the acquisition, Clayton described the combination as built on a “platform of shared values,” emphasizing attainable homeownership, team-member experience, and community stewardship rather than financial engineering alone.

Geoff Shiley, CEO of Mungo Homes, in a provided statement, called the combination “a natural fit,” noting that McGuinn had built “a strong reputation, a values-driven culture, and a genuine commitment to the customers and communities they serve.” He added that those priorities “are the very priorities that have guided Mungo for decades.”

On its face, the acquisition appears to be another successful regional builder joining a much larger enterprise.

Looked at through the lens of the industry’s accelerating consolidation, however, the transaction says something considerably larger.

Over the past two weeks, HousingWire TBD has explored Berkshire Hathaway’s planned acquisition of Taylor Morrison through the themes of governance, scale, vertical integration and patient capital.

The acquisition of McGuinn Homes, while much smaller in financial terms, offers perhaps our clearest window yet into what those forces look like from the seller’s perspective.

“The same company that would buy a small builder in Columbia, South Carolina, bought Taylor Morrison in the same time frame,” McGuinn Homes founder Wade McGuinn said Wednesday in an exclusive interview. “If you don’t think it’s a tsunami … if you’re below No. 50, you really need to think about your family’s future and your company’s future.”

That observation may prove to be the most telling and impactful takeaway from the transaction. This is not just the story of Berkshire Hathaway buying another builder. Rather, it’s the story of one respected founder discerning that the competitive landscape itself has changed.

The view from below the Top 50

McGuinn does not describe the sale as a necessity-driven exit. The opposite. Over the past seven years, McGuinn Homes transformed itself from an approximately $80 million builder into a roughly $200 million enterprise, growing annual production from about 200 homes to nearly 1,000 while sharpening its focus on attainable, market-rate housing across South Carolina.

Yet even as the company accelerated its own growth, McGuinn became convinced that the industry’s economics were changing in ways that would eventually challenge even successful independent builders.

“M&A, which is creating scale, gets to a point where they can just price everybody left out of the market,” he said. “Not everybody’s going to be acquired, but everybody is going to go away. … I’m not talking about next year, but if you’re doing a strategic 10-year plan and you’re a builder, you need to figure out what that’s saying to you.”

Whether you’d agree with that conclusion or not, it harmonizes with a question simmering across residential development and homebuilding.

As larger builders, global housing companies, and institutional investors continue to assemble broader operating platforms, regional builders increasingly compete not only for homebuyers but also for land, labor, trade partners, distribution relationships, and capital. Scale is becoming less about bragging rights and more about operating leverage and navigating a changing ecosystem of partners, trades, manufacturers, land sellers, and financial stakeholders.

If Berkshire Hathaway’s pursuit of Taylor Morrison illustrates scale at the industry’s largest end, the McGuinn acquisition demonstrates that the same strategic logic is working its way through the regional builder landscape as well.

Seven years preparing for one decision

Contrary to what Thursday’s announcement might suggest, McGuinn did not wake up one morning and decide to sell.

The process began seven years ago after hearing Whelan Advisory, LLC. founder and CEO Margaret Whelan deliver a keynote presentation about technology – not as software, but as the force that ultimately enables scale.

“She wasn’t talking about technology,” McGuinn recalled. “She was talking about the technology of scale. How technology affects scale, and how scale is going to change the industry.”

That presentation led not to an immediate sale, but to a recapitalization that fueled McGuinn Homes’ next phase of growth. By the time the company returned to market this year, it had become one of the Southeast’s stronger privately held builders.

According to McGuinn, the company executed multiple confidentiality agreements, received several formal offers and narrowed the field through a competitive process. Remarkably, price ranked fifth among the family’s decision criteria.

“We had five criteria for sale, and the fifth one was price,” McGuinn said. “We wanted culture. We wanted to protect our people… We wanted to get a fair price for the company, but culture was very, very important. Our people are very important.”

That philosophy closely mirrors the acquisition framework Clayton executives have publicly articulated over the past decade.

“Our shared values of attainable homeownership, world-class team member experience and giving back to the people and communities we serve made this partnership an exceptional fit,” Clayton Home Building Group CEO Keith Holdbrooks said in announcing the transaction. “Together, we’ll expand access to affordable homes while serving as a united force for good in the communities where we build.”

For McGuinn, that alignment became tangible during an in-person meeting with Clayton executive Michael Rutherford.

“He said, ‘We’re the right people, we’re the right culture, we’re the right fit, we respect you guys, and we want to do this deal,’” McGuinn recalled. “They did every single thing they said they would do.”

Building platforms, not absorbing companies

During the process, Clayton introduced Mungo Homes into the transaction. Rather than maintaining McGuinn Homes as a stand-alone operating company indefinitely, the business ultimately will become part of the Mungo Homes platform one of Clayton’s largest site-built homebuilding operations across the Southeast.

“This is an exciting and strategic combination, and one we see as a natural fit,” Shiley said. “Over the past 40 years, McGuinn has built something special with a strong reputation, a values-driven culture and a genuine commitment to the customers and communities they serve.”

Historically, large public homebuilder acquisitions often resulted in the acquired company’s identity gradually disappearing inside the parent organization.

Clayton’s site-built strategy has generally followed a different path: preserving leadership continuity, maintaining local operating capability and integrating companies into broader regional platforms while seeking to retain the entrepreneurial culture that made them successful in the first place.

McGuinn says that mattered.

“The legacy wasn’t in my name,” he said. “The legacy… is what this company created for generations for my family, and what we did in the community.”

His son Kelly McGuinn, a veteran homebuilding executive, will remain with Mungo in a senior operating role.

A seller’s market unlike any before

Margaret Whelan believes the McGuinn transaction reflects a much broader shift in homebuilding M&A.

“The M&A markets are alive and well,” Whelan said. “There’s more buyers and sellers. The buyers have more money, more appetite than we’ve ever seen before. They’re coming from more places in the world than we’ve ever seen before… M&A is not going to slow down anytime soon.”

Even more striking, she says, today’s private builders often command valuation multiples above comparable public companies.

“It’s a seller’s market,” she said. “Most of these private builder deals are closing at multiples higher than publics are trading… which is unusual… but it is a function of supply and demand.”

McGuinn’s company, she noted, attracted six serious offers through a structured process before Clayton ultimately emerged as both the highest bidder and the strongest strategic fit.

Perhaps her most telling observation, however, echoes one of the central conclusions emerging from the Berkshire-Taylor Morrison series.

“Scale matters,” Whelan said. “It doesn’t actually matter if you’re public or private.”

She argues that the economics of remaining public have become less compelling than many builders once assumed.

“Going public hasn’t been much fun,” she said, noting that depressed valuations have made public equity a less attractive source of growth capital than many expected.

One regional builder at a time

Builder Advisor Group founder Tony Avila, whose firm has advised on four homebuilder sales to Clayton over the past decade, sees the McGuinn acquisition as another step in a strategy that has been unfolding for years.

“We have been honored to work across the table from Clayton on selling four companies over the past 10 years that have grown substantially with Clayton ownership,” Avila said. “Obtaining scale has been a hallmark of Clayton’s growth strategy both in its manufactured housing business and its production homebuilding investments.”

His observation adds another layer to Berkshire Hathaway’s broader housing strategy. If the pending acquisition of Taylor Morrison represents Berkshire adding one of the country’s premier public homebuilders to its portfolio, the acquisition of McGuinn Homes illustrates the company’s continued deepening of its regional operating platforms.

It’s amassing scale from both directions.

The macro

In conversation, Wade McGuinn offered what may be the most revealing insight.

“The story about Wade McGuinn not very interesting,” he said. “The story combined with the Taylor Morrison idea… that these people racing to the top are creating a scale that the trade partners, the vendors, the suppliers just can’t keep up with… that’s the industry story.”

As Berkshire Hathaway simultaneously expands through Taylor Morrison at the top of the industry and through companies like Mungo Homes across regional markets, the question confronting builders is becoming less about whether consolidation is occurring and more about how it is unfolding.

It is about how they intend to compete in a residential construction landscape increasingly shaped by scale, patient capital and interconnected operating platforms and shared values.

This post was originally published on here. 

Finance of America (FOA) has closed an all-cash acquisition of reverse mortgage servicing rights from Onity Mortgage Corp., adding roughly 20,000 Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs) with a combined $5.2 billion in unpaid principal balance (UPB) to its portfolio, the companies announced Wednesday.

The deal, disclosed by FOA in an 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), transfers Ginnie Mae servicing rights from Onity. Finance of America said in a press release that the acquisition materially expands its servicing footprint and its customer base of homeowners ages 55 and older who use home equity as part of their retirement strategy.

The companies gained approval for the deal from Ginnie Mae in early June. The initial proposal included roughly 40,000 loans with $9.6 billion in UPB, but Ginnie Mae did not grant approval to those terms.

FOA will also acquire Onity’s pipeline of reverse mortgage loans, and Onity will exit the reverse mortgage originations business. Onity expects total proceeds of $70 million to $80 million from the transaction, based on the book value of the assets as of April 30. It expects to use the funds to support growth, reduce debt and for other corporate purposes.

Subservicing agreement solidified

As part of the transaction, Finance of America has retained Onity Mortgage as a subservicer under a three-year agreement. That structure is designed to maintain continuity for borrowers while FOA integrates the portfolio and diversifies its servicing operations with an external partner.

“Completing this transaction represents an important milestone in our growth strategy,” Graham Fleming, CEO of Finance of America, said in a statement. “We are pleased to welcome these customers to our platform while establishing a meaningful servicing relationship with Onity. This acquisition strengthens our market leadership and enhances our ability to deliver innovative reverse mortgage solutions to more American homeowners.”

“We are pleased to complete this transaction with (FOA), which repositions our role in the reverse mortgage market,” said Glen A. Messina, chair, president and CEO of Onity Group. “This strategic transaction establishes a significant subservicing relationship with (FOA), simplifies our business, and enables increased focus on more substantial growth and earnings opportunities. We look forward to our continued partnership with (FOA) and to future opportunities.”

The acquisition comes as more lenders look to scale in reverse mortgages and home equity-based products amid an aging homeowner demographic, high home equity levels, and a purchase and refinance market still constrained by elevated interest rates.

FOA strengthens grasp as Onity pivots

The deal is likely to further strengthen FOA’s position as a leader in reverse mortgage and senior-based lending solutions.

Data published Wednesday by HECMWorld.com and Reverse Market Insight showed the company widened its lead in HECM retail originations leaderboard in the first half of 2026. FOA endorsed nearly 2,500 HECM loans from January through June and currently holds a 23.3% market share.

Last week, the company announced three new hires who will target brand and product alignment. The appointments come roughly six months after FOA hired Angela Tribelli, a former executive at Bloomberg Media, as its chief marketing officer.

For Onity, the sale builds on a recently completed, multistage rebranding effort. The company officially discontinued the PHH Mortgage Corp. and Liberty Reverse Mortgage brands in late March. Last year, Liberty was the fifth-largest HECM originator in the country with 1,166 endorsements, up slightly from 1,125 in 2024.

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. 

California has long been synonymous with high taxes, but new fights over who will pay them are exposing a sharper fault line.

The state increasingly reaches for “tax the rich” tools to fund housing and social programs, while anti-tax forces try to constrain those same tools.

California’s tax fight is unfolding under a national spotlight. Lawmakers and advocates are testing how far “tax the rich” politics can go in expensive states. California needs money for affordable housing and social services, yet risks pushing property and wealth taxes so hard that they slow construction or spook investors.

Other high-cost states, such as New York, are experimenting with higher taxes on luxury homes and high-dollar transactions. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul recently signed into law a tax on luxury New York City homes owned by nonresidents.

What California decides on transfer taxes, “mansion” levies and billionaire wealth measures this year could shape how other states pursue politically viable ways to make homes more affordable.

Transfer tax deal in Sacramento

In late June, that tension surfaced in Sacramento in a deal over transfer taxes. California YIMBY and other housing groups backed Assembly Bill 736.

AB 736 would have set a statewide ceiling on local transfer taxes. It would have limited city and county transfer taxes to 1.5% of a property’s sale price. Supporters said the bill would prevent future local taxes from climbing to levels that could discourage transactions and weaken housing production.

The bill advanced alongside a ballot initiative from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. That measure would have sharply limited transfer taxes and tightened rules for local special taxes. It threatened to dramatically reduce local governments’ ability to raise money from property sales.

Instead of going to the November ballot, the association withdrew the initiative after lawmakers crafted a compromise state constitutional amendment for the November ballot. Voters will decide whether to raise the threshold for future local special taxes to two-thirds, as laid out in Proposition 13, passed in 1978, instead of a simple majority.

The California Association of Realtors opposed the taxpayers association’s initiative and AB 736. The group said the bill would have incentivized cities to increase transfer taxes up to the new cap. It supported the compromise, however.

“While the amendment would apply going forward rather than to taxes already in place, it would protect taxpayers by returning the two-thirds threshold to all ballot measures for all local special tax measures,” it wrote in an update to members.

California YIMBY called the defeat of AB 736 a failure but pointed to one upside. The group noted that cities now face a much higher bar to pass new transfer taxes and existing taxes cannot be undone.

The pro-housing group has vowed to continue the push for transfer tax reform. An initial salvo came in a Washington Post opinion written by Michael Manville, a professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Manville focuses on how Measure ULA – known as the “mansion tax” – was intended to do good but has had a negative impact.

Voters approved ULA in 2022, adding a 4% tax on sales over $5 million. It also imposed a 5.5% tax on sales above $10 million. Supporters promised hundreds of millions annually for homelessness programs and subsidized housing.

“When the tax took effect, higher-end sales plunged and stayed down,” he wrote, based on his own research and a Rand study.

Billionaire wealth tax debate

The statewide fight over taxing billionaires raises similar questions. On November’s ballot, voters will consider a one-time 5% tax on billionaire net worth. The measure applies to residents whose assets exceed $1 billion.

Supporters call it a way to fund health care, education and food assistance. They emphasize that very few taxpayers would pay the levy.

Opponents see another narrow, high-rate tax aimed at a small group. They warn it could encourage avoidance strategies or prompt some billionaires to leave. That, they argue, could destabilize revenue and investment.

Business leaders and taxpayer organizations back countermeasures to limit such taxes. Some proposals would neutralize the billionaire tax if it passes. Others would ban new taxes on personal property and retroactive taxes on accumulated wealth.

These efforts seek to set constitutional limits on how California taxes wealth and savings. Rather than fighting each proposal individually, opponents want durable guardrails.

Housing advocates are trying to balance production concerns with the need for new funding. They support curbing extreme transfer taxes that hit development hardest. Yet they also rely on targeted taxes to finance affordability programs.

Taken together, the transfer-tax negotiations, Los Angeles’s experience with ULA, and the billionaire-tax campaigns show that housing and tax policy are converging. As California searches for ways to finance housing and social services, the design of taxes on property and wealth becomes crucial. Who is taxed, at what rate and with what behavioral effects now sits at the center of the debate.

This post was originally published on here. 

Shilo, an AI conversation analysis platform for real estate and mortgage teams, has launched 1:1 Coaching, an autonomous AI sales coach that conducts voice-to-voice one-on-one sessions with agents without a manager present, the company announced Tuesday.

The Phoenix-based company says the product builds the coaching agenda from each agent’s own call data, runs the session, summarizes action items and carries that context forward to future meetings. Leaders receive a consolidated report across the team, along with a dashboard showing which agents have completed their sessions. The company said sessions are personalized to each agent based on DISC personality insights.

Shilo positions 1:1 Coaching as a way to extend individualized coaching beyond what a solo human manager can achieve without adding headcount in a market where a human sales manager can cost $80,000 to $120,000 a year.

Industry data underscores the stakes. Citing the National Association of Realtors (NAR), Shilo notes that 87% of real estate agents leave the profession within five years and that teams may waste 40% to 60% of their lead investment on inconsistent call execution. 

Before launch, Shilo said it tested the feature with 200 agents in a beta program. Coaching sessions averaged 13 minutes, which the company cited as a signal that agents engaged in a full conversation rather than quickly clicking through. On internal satisfaction metrics — including enjoyment, likelihood to use again, perceived business impact and perceived personalization — no dimension scored below 7 out of 10, according to the announcement.

“For 20 years, coaching a real estate team meant a manager listening to a handful of calls and giving everyone the same pep talk. It didn’t scale, and it was never personal,” Justin Benson, CEO and co-founder of Shilo, said in the announcement. “1:1 Coaching gives every agent a real coaching session built on how they actually sell – and gives the leader their nights and weekends back. We didn’t build a bot that spits out tips. We built a coach that shows up, remembers you, and holds you to it.”

1:1 Coaching is available now to existing Shilo customers as part of their current plans, the company said. Teams already using Shilo can activate the feature for their agents, while new customers can request a demo.

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. 

NAIOP has rebranded as the Commercial Real Estate Development Association (CREDA), a name change the group says better reflects its role as an advocacy and education hub for commercial real estate developers, owners and investors, according to a Wednesday announcement.

The Herndon, Virginia-based trade group, founded in 1967, represents more than 21,000 members through 55 chapters across North America. The organization said the new name clarifies its work to policymakers, business leaders and the public as it continues to focus on commercial real estate development.

The Commercial Real Estate Development Association’s members span a wide range of property types, including multifamily housing, retail, logistics and fulfillment facilities, office, mixed-use projects and data centers, according to the announcement. The rebrand is intended to signal that breadth as capital and development continue to shift between sectors in response to interest-rate policy, e-commerce trends and changing workplace demand.

The association said its mission remains centered on advocacy, research, education and networking. It plans to continue its role as a lobbying voice on land use, tax, environmental and infrastructure policy at the local, state or provincial, and federal levels, while providing professional development and market insight to members.

“For nearly six decades, our association has been the trusted advocate and convening force for commercial real estate,” 2026 association chair Celeste Tanner, who is president and chief development officer of Denver-based Confluent Development, said in an announcement. “While our name is changing, our mission remains the same: advancing commercial real estate development through advocacy, research, education and connections that help our members succeed and strengthen the commercial real estate industry.”

President and CEO Marc Selvitelli said the new name is intended to align more closely with the work members do in communities across North America.

“Our members are creating the housing, workplaces, logistics networks and digital infrastructure that people and businesses depend on every day,” Selvitelli said in the release. “This new name more accurately reflects who our members are, what they do, and the value they bring to communities across North America.”

The rebrand follows a multiyear, research-driven process that included member engagement, stakeholder interviews, focus groups, surveys and strategic planning, the association said.

This post was originally published on here. 

Adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) remain a minority of total agency originations, but they have reemerged in 2026. This time, independent mortgage banks (IMBs) and more leveraged borrowers are driving a rise in market share, according to Polygon Research.

The analysis, updated Monday by Polygon founder and CEO Val Buresch, found that ARMs rose to 3.34% of agency loans through the first six months of 2026, up from 0.31% during the same period in 2021. A total of 39,166 ARM loans were originated from January to May 2026, compared to 35,591 in all of 2021.

The report relied on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities (MBS) loan data through May.

“Agency adjustable-rate mortgages are returning to relevance in a mortgage market defined by elevated rates, high home prices, and persistent affordability pressure,” Buresch wrote.

Market changes drastically

In 2021, five banks — Wells Fargo (6,013 loans), JPMorgan Chase (2,374 loans), Truist Bank (1,154 loans), Citizens Bank (762) and U.S. Bank (645) — ranked among the 10 largest agency ARM sellers/issuers.

But year to date in 2026, all of the top 10 sellers/issuers are nonbanks, with the top five positions held by PennyMac Loan Services (4,675 loans), United Wholesale Mortgage (3,786 loans), Freedom Mortgage Corp. (3,283 loans), Rocket Mortgage (2,887 loans), and Lakeview Loan Servicing (2,605 loans).

The Polygon Research analysis ties the shift, among other things, to the ability of IMBs to operate across retail, wholesal and correspondent channels, allowing them to move quickly on new products and scale when demand shifts.

Borrower profiles

From a borrower perspective, ARMs offer lower initial rates that can improve qualification, reduce early payment burden or allow for preservation of monthly cash flow, according to Buresch.

But the 2026 agency ARM borrower appears more stretched than in 2021 across several credit metrics. The average FICO score dropped 29 points to 737, the average loan-to-value rose from 64% to 79%, and the average debt-to-income (DTI) ratio increased 8.2 percentage points to 40.4%.

The near-zero equity segment has grown sharply. In 2021, just 0.4% of agency ARMs had LTVs between 97% and 100%. Year to date, that share is 15.7%, about 39 times higher. Combined with higher DTIs, this points to thinner borrower cushions if incomes fall, home prices soften or payments step up after the first reset.

“One structural feature of ARM pricing compounds that tension: the rate that gets quoted — by lenders, by the media, and in most borrower comparisons — is always the initial rate, regardless of how short the fixed period actually is,” Buresch wrote.

“A 1/1 ARM and a 7/1 ARM may be quoted at similar rates, but their risk profiles for a borrower planning to stay ten years are entirely different. When affordability pressure is the primary driver of product selection, as the 2026 borrower data suggests it is, that gap between the quoted rate and the true cost of the loan over time deserves particular attention.”

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. 

Harvest Capital, through its exclusive partnership with TPG Credit, closed a $600 million recapitalization and expansion facility for Metro Development Group, the companies announced Wednesday.

The transaction, completed at the end of the first quarter of 2026, recapitalizes a portfolio of 10 master-planned communities in Florida and creates a dedicated capital platform to support Metro’s expansion across the Southeast.

Metro Development Group is one of the largest master-planned community developers in the country, with a concentration in fast-growing Florida markets. Access to large-scale, flexible capital has become critical for land developers as higher interest rates, tighter bank standards and persistent lot shortages pressure the residential pipeline.

The $600 million deal builds on the momentum of the Harvest Capital–TPG Credit platform, which has now surpassed $2.1 billion in acquisition and development commitments since its launch in late 2021. Since its inception, the partnership has financed and managed more than 120 projects representing over 45,000 residential lots for developers and homebuilders nationwide, according to the announcement.

“Our ability to execute a $600 million recapitalization for a top national developer reflects the strength of our exclusive relationship with TPG and the trust we’ve earned from premier market participants,” Danny Sparks, CEO of Harvest Capital, said in the release. “We’re proud to provide the capital that enables high-quality residential communities to come to market.”

Metro’s growth plan centers on large-scale master-planned communities in high-demand markets where single-family inventory remains constrained. By structuring a facility that both recapitalizes existing projects and funds expansion, the transaction is designed to allow Metro to accelerate development while managing balance sheet and execution risk.

“Working with Harvest Capital and TPG has given us the kind of capital solution we’ve been looking for – flexible, scaled, and tailored to how our business actually operates,” John Ryan, CEO of Metro Development Group, said. “This facility lets us focus on what we do best, which is creating high-quality master-planned communities, while giving us the confidence to lean into our growth across the Southeast.”

Nonbank capital providers and credit funds have taken a larger role in land and lot financing over the past several years as commercial banks pulled back from acquisition and development lending. For homebuilders and master-planned community sponsors, that shift has made specialty lenders and institutional credit platforms a key source of scale capital.

“We value our partnership with Harvest Capital and their deep expertise in residential land development financing,” said TJ Durkin, managing partner and head of asset-based finance at TPG. “This transaction exemplifies TPG’s commitment to deploying flexible capital solutions that support the residential sector’s critical role in addressing housing supply needs across growing U.S. markets.”

The Harvest Capital–TPG Credit platform focuses on nonrecourse financing solutions for residential land and lot development. The partners said they are targeting strategic relationships with developers in high-growth regions, with an emphasis on attainable housing.

For land developers and homebuilders, the transaction underscores ongoing investor appetite for scaled land and development exposure tied to population-growth markets, even as for-sale housing faces affordability and rate headwinds. Access to large programmatic facilities can help sponsors secure and develop lot pipelines that support future community and vertical construction starts.

This post was originally published on here. 

Finance of America (FOA) remained the top Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) lender in June 2026 as overall direct retail endorsements increased modestly from May but continued to trail last year’s pace, according to a HECMWorld.com report released Wednesday using data from Reverse Market Insight (RMI).

The top 100 HECM retail lenders logged 2,064 loans in June, up 6% from the prior month but down 9.8% year to date.

FOA closed 481 HECMs in June and has 2,498 through the first half of the year, representing a 23.3% market share. Company volume rose 18.2% from May even as year-to-date production remained 10.8% below the same period last year.

Longbridge Financial ranked second with 407 endorsements in June and 2,101 year to date, good for a 19.7% market share. Its monthly volume increased 14% from May and is essentially flat year to date, down 0.3% from 2025 levels.

Mutual of Omaha Mortgage held the No. 3 spot with 398 June endorsements and 2,567 year to date, equal to 19.3% of the retail market. Its June volume declined 5.9% from May and is down 12.6% year to date.

Fairway Home Mortgage was No. 4 with 112 loans in June and 391 year to date, equating to a share of 5.4%. Fairway’s monthly volume more than tripled from May, up 202.7%, but remains 28.3% lower than the same period last year.

South River Mortgage rounded out the top five with 74 endorsements in June, upping its first-half total to 450, equal to a 3.6% market share. Its production was flat month over month and up 9.5% from last year to date.

The remainder of the top 10 for June included Traditional Mortgage Acceptance Corp. (TMAC), dba GoodLife Home Loans, at 61 endorsements; Guild Mortgage at 49; Plaza Home Mortgage at 37; New American Funding (NAF) at 34; and HighTechLending (HTL) at 32.

NAF and HTL posted some of the strongest monthly gains among all lenders, growing their endorsements by 36% and 39%, respectively, even as volumes for both companies remain down year to date.

Overall, the top 10 lenders accounted for the vast majority of HECM retail volume in June, highlighting continued consolidation in the reverse mortgage market. Smaller lenders and depositories, such as regional banks and credit unions, appear mostly in the lower half of the rankings, with many logging only one or two endorsements for the month.

The report underscores that while HECM demand is stabilizing, higher mortgage rates, tighter Federal Housing Administration (FHA) underwriting scrutiny and ongoing reputational concerns continue to limit growth compared with earlier cycles.

Lenders with established reverse platforms and distribution networks — particularly Finance of America, Longbridge and Mutual of Omaha — are capturing most of the available volume, which may influence how forward-focused lenders evaluate whether to invest in or expand HECM operations.

The HECMWorld report and RMI data covers only direct FHA endorsements and excludes brokered and TPO originations, which RMI tracks in a separate report.

HMBS issuance falls to $456M in June, near historic lows

HECM Mortgage-Backed Securities (HMBS) issuance fell to $456 million in June, down from $500 million in May and well below year-ago levels, according to a New View Advisors analysis of Ginnie Mae data.

The June total was $44 million lower than May and $54 million lower than June 2025’s figure of $510 million. Only 57 pools were issued in June, six fewer than in May. New View said June 2026 ranks as roughly as the 10th lowest month for HMBS issuance since the program began in 2009 and is the second weakest June during that period.

Finance of America was the top issuer in June with $179 million in HMBS, up from $171 million in May. Longbridge followed with $132 million, down $1 million from the prior month. Mutual of Omaha issued $92 million, a $5 million decline from May.

Onity Mortgage Corp.’s issuance dropped sharply to $10 million in June, $38 million less than in May. New View said the decline likely reflects Onity’s sale of HMBS mortgage servicing rights to FOA.

Ginnie Mae/RMF, or “Issuer 42,” again issued no HMBS pools, a trend that began not long after Ginnie assumed control of the RMF portfolio following the lender’s bankruptcy in late 2022.

Original, or first-participation, HMBS production totaled $290 million in June. That was $50 million lower than both May and April — and $60 million below June 2025’s figure of $350 million.

For the first half of 2026, FOA was the top first-participation issuer with $581 million. Longbridge followed with $516 million, Mutual of Omaha with $369 million and Onity with $150 million. Onity did not issue any first-participation pools in June.

Of the 57 pools issued in June, 14 were first-participation pools, 40 were tail pools and three included a mix of first participations and tails. Original pools are backed by first participations in previously uncertificated HECM loans, while tail pools are made up of subsequent participations. Tails do not represent new loans but do reflect additional funds advanced on existing reverse mortgages.

Tail issuance in June totaled $162 million, down from $169 million in May.

New View noted that 12 pools in June had an aggregate size of less than $1 million as issuers utilized Ginnie Mae’s rule allowing pools as small as $250,000. Those small pools represented $6.5 million in unpaid principal balance that might not have been securitized without the flexibility.

Ginnie Mae’s 2023 All Participants Memorandum APM 23-11, which allows multiple participations from the same HECM loan to be pooled more than once in a month, also continued to shape issuance. In June, $62.2 million of participations involved more than one participation from the same loan, including $6.2 million of first participations.

For reverse mortgage lenders and issuers, the June figures underscore that HMBS liquidity remains fragile even with program flexibilities. Persistent low first-participation volume signals muted new HECM production, while concentration among a few large issuers and the absence of Ginnie Mae/RMF issuance keep market risk elevated.

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. 

A lawsuit about private listings and NAR’s clear cooperation policy just turned into a fight about harassment victims’ privacy. That turn did not come from the plaintiffs. It came from the National Association of Realtors, and it should give every member pause.

Here is what happened, in order. NAR is defending itself against an antitrust suit brought by Mauricio Umansky’s private listing network, thePLS.com. The network first sued in 2020 over the Clear Cooperation Policy, the rule requiring a listing be submitted to the MLS within one business day of public marketing. NAR was dismissed without prejudice, and thePLS.com refiled in July 2025. The plaintiffs claim CCP “eliminates the ability of listing networks that compete with the NAR-affiliated MLSs to feature listings that are not on the NAR-affiliated MLSs.” NAR counters that the plaintiffs have suffered no “antitrust injury”.

So far, an ordinary commercial dispute over a rule the industry has argued about for years.

Then, on May 19, NAR issued a subpoena to the American Real Estate Association and its co-founder, Compass agent Jason Haber, with a June 18 deadline. Part of it was routine. Communications among ARA, thePLS.com and its Spanish-language sibling, theNLS.com. Part of it was not. The subpoena also demanded every communication tied to the NAR Accountability Project, reaching back to January 1, 2017.

That project has nothing to do with listings. Haber started it in 2023, after sexual misconduct allegations against then-NAR President Kenny Parcell, who resigned in August of that year. It became a channel for people inside NAR who said they had been harassed.

Haber refused. “The NAR Accountability Project shut down before ARA even existed,” he wrote on Instagram. “I’ll leave it to you to ask what its files have to do with a case about private listings.” The records, he said, “include highly sensitive conversations with victims who came forward about harassment inside NAR,” and ARA “is objecting in the strongest possible terms”.

Powerfact: A subpoena is a window into strategy. You can learn what a party fears by reading what it demands.

Let me be fair to NAR first, because fairness is the point.

The Association built the cooperative MLS framework that CCP protects, and that framework is why a buyer in almost any American market can tour nearly every listed home through nearly any agent. That kind of open access does not exist in most of the world. NAR earned credit for it, and the trade press too often forgets to give it.

Credit, though, does not excuse the ask. Discovery is supposed to be tethered to the claims in the case. The claims here are about a listing rule and competition. Years of harassment-victim communications are not evidence about whether CCP restrains trade. Demanding them anyway, from the co-founder of a rival association, looks less like fact-finding and more like a message. Even if a judge trims the request later, members already saw what the first draft wanted.

Powerfact: NAR can win the legal argument and still lose the trust argument. The second one is the one that pays its dues.

The timing makes it worse. NAR is asking members to believe it can be a fair steward at the exact moment stewardship is under the most scrutiny in a generation. CCP’s future, the Compass and Zillow listing war, the neutrality of the MLS itself, all of it runs through the same question. Does this institution use its power with restraint? A subpoena that reaches for harassment files in a listings case is not the answer members were hoping to read.

So, what do you do with this as a working agent?

First, separate the noise from your obligations. The headlines do not change the rulebook. CCP still applies. Market a listing publicly, and you owe it to the MLS within one business day. A courtroom drama is not a loophole.

Second, read past the spin. Both the subpoena and Haber’s statement are public. Whichever side reaches your inbox first will have a tidy narrative. Build your own from the documents instead.

Third, put it to work in the listing conversation. Sellers are hearing fragments about private networks, lawsuits, and Zillow bans. You can be the calm, sourced voice who explains what is actually settled and what is still being fought over. In a confused market, clarity is a competitive advantage.

The lawsuit will resolve the way these usually do, quietly, in a filing most agents never read. The reputation question will not. Members remember how leadership behaves when no one is forcing its hand. NAR still has time to narrow this request and act like the steward it asks members to trust. Whether it does will say more about the association’s future than any verdict.

Darryl Davis, CSP, is the creator of the POWER Program® and a real estate coach, keynote speaker and bestselling author with more than 40 years in the industry. He helps agents and brokers build careers, and lives, worth smiling about. His guiding principle: Serve, don’t sell. Coach, don’t close. Learn more 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. 

A growing share of Americans now expect financial advisers to handle estate planning, and many would consider switching firms if they do not, according to Trust & Will‘s 2026 Financial Advisor Report.

The survey of 1,500 U.S. adults found that 61% believe estate planning should be part of an adviser’s services, while 68% of clients with advisers say they would consider moving to one that offers it. Among advised Gen Z and millennial clients, roughly 80% say they would consider switching.

The findings, which are based on an online survey conducted from June 4-10 by Talker Research for Trust & Will, underscore a shift in expectations for financial professionals. Younger investors increasingly seek bundled services that include both wealth management and estate planning support.

Growing urgency and importance

The survey is the third installment in Trust & Will’s annual Financial Advisor Report series and compares results to 2025 and 2024 data. “Estate planning has moved from a peripheral offering to a core expectation,” the report states.

Overall, 31.2% of Americans report having a financial adviser, up from 26.9% in 2025. Growth is concentrated among younger adults, reversing a traditional age pattern.

Adviser use among Gen Z rose to 41.7%, up from 28.2% a year earlier. Millennial usage increased from 28.5% to 38.5%. By contrast, baby boomer participation fell to 24.3% from 31.1%.

The report notes that younger clients are now more likely to use advisers and more likely to expect estate planning services as part of that relationship.

Among clients with advisers, 39.7% say they are “very likely” to consider switching to an advisor offering estate planning, and 28% are “somewhat likely.” That puts total switching intent at 67.7%, or more than two-thirds of advised respondents.

The risk is most pronounced among younger clients as 80% of both Gen Z and millennial clients with advisers say they would consider switching, compared with 25.9% of boomers.

More than half of Americans (54%) say their financial anxiety has increased over the past year, and roughly half (49.7%) say economic conditions have made them more motivated to complete estate planning.

Rising costs of living (49.9%) and inflation (38.7%) are the most commonly cited concerns, followed by health care costs, retirement insecurity and job instability.

Nearly half of respondents (47.8%) also say they feel unprepared for the “Great Wealth Transfer,” with an estimated $84 trillion to $124 trillion expected to move between generations over the coming decades.

The survey finds Americans increasingly view financial advisers, not just attorneys, as key estate planning providers. About 27% say they would prefer to create or update an estate plan with a financial adviser, compared with 24% who prefer an attorney and 19% who want both involved.

A majority also expect advisers to play an active oversight role. Roughly 68% say advisers should be responsible for flagging outdated or incomplete estate plans, including 44.7% who say it should be done proactively.

Despite rising expectations, 42% of Americans report having no estate planning documents, and 10.4% are unsure whether they have any. A will remains the most common document (27%), followed by trusts (20.6%) and powers of attorney documents.

The survey also finds persistent gaps by gender and generation. Men are more likely than women to have advisers and estate planning documents, while Gen X reports the highest rate of having no documents at all.

Technology in estate planning

The report also highlights growing openness to technology. About 40.7% of Americans say they would be comfortable using an artificial intelligence tool to help create or update estate planning documents, although most prefer some level of human oversight.

Younger respondents are far more receptive: 57.1% of Gen Z and 52.3% of millennials express comfort with AI-assisted planning, compared with 16.8% of baby boomers.

If a financial adviser proactively offered estate planning help, 63.9% of Americans say they would likely accept.

Advisors are also having an impact when they raise the topic. More than half (56%) of advised clients say these conversations increased their sense of urgency around creating or updating a plan.

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

This post was originally published on here. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision preserving birthright citizenship is unlikely to produce an immediate surge in home sales, but it could bolster something the housing market has lacked — confidence.

For many affected households weighing whether to buy a first home, the ruling removes at least one layer of uncertainty surrounding their long-term future in the U.S.

That reassurance may not outweigh stubborn affordability challenges, but it could encourage some families to move forward with major financial decisions they had delayed, Cotality Chief Economist Selma Hepp told HousingWire.

“The impact is meaningful for confidence for immigrant communities, because it’s not just about citizenship rights, it’s about the financial future and the ability to hold a job in the U.S.,” she said. “[It affects time] spent in deciding where a kid goes to school and all those sort of decisions that feed into households.

“I think maybe the biggest thing is improvement in consumer confidence, rather than some meaningful impact on the economy immediately.”

Research from the American Immigration Council found immigrant households are a major driver of housing demand and neighborhood stability — making confidence and long-term certainty critical to homeownership decisions.

First-time buyers, multi-generation households

While existing homeowners often have more flexibility, Hepp said uncertainty weighs especially heavily on prospective first-time buyers deciding whether to make the largest purchase of their lives.

“It’s still a lot about affordability,” she said. “Maybe you’re talking about Hispanic buyers. Depending on what the income status is, there tends to be multiple co-signers. So, when there’s certainty for each individual within that household, that weighs on their decision, as well. It’s particularly complicated.”

According to the International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, Hispanic households are most likely to co-reside with multiple generations — followed by Asian and African American households.

Hispanic households added a net gain of 441,000 owner-households in 2025 — the largest single-year increase since the U.S. Census Bureau began collecting the data in 1975.

Without Hispanic buyers, the total number of U.S. homeowners would have declined by 125,000 households last year, data from the National Association for Hispanic Real Estate Professionals shows.

Gateway, tech markets may feel greatest effects

Hepp said large gateway cities with sizable immigrant populations could experience the most noticeable effects of the Supreme Court ruling — along with technology-driven metropolitan areas that attract international workers.

“That’s New York, Miami, L.A.,” she said. “You have groups that buy in high-tech markets that are tied to AI and biotech. These are high-income communities like the Bay Area and Seattle or even San Diego and Austin.”

Hepp also noted slowing demand experienced by builders in parts of Texas, but said separating immigration-related uncertainty from broader housing headwinds remains difficult.

“It’s hard to exactly parse out, but I think it’s a significant contributor in markets in which there tends to be higher [immigrant] populations,” she said.

Advice for agents, long-term stability

Hepp cited that the Supreme Court ruling does not alter existing fair housing obligations for real estate professionals.

She advised agents to focus on ensuring clients have access to reliable information while avoiding steering or disparate treatment.

“I think you know the fair housing rules haven’t changed,” she said. “Nothing changes with you being on top of the information that relates specifically to them. Ensure that they have access to the right information through their networks — somebody who they trust.”

Psychological stability reaches beyond housing

Although housing affordability continues to dominate market conditions, Hepp believes broader societal impact of preserving birthright citizenship extends well beyond home sales.

She explained how stability in legal status influences labor markets, household formation, demographic trends and future economic growth — all of which ultimately shape housing demand.

“The repercussions down the road are huge,” Hepp said. “The psychological or emotional immediate impact is really important right now. [The Supreme Court ruling provides] some level of confidence that decisions you made over 30 or 40 years are not going to be changed in a second.”

While mortgage rates, affordability and inventory will continue to determine much of the housing market’s direction, buyer confidence and stability remains an essential ingredient for homeownership.

For many prospective buyers, the Supreme Court’s ruling may not make homes more affordable, but it may provide the certainty needed to begin planning for one.

This post was originally published on here. 

HousingWire is proud to recognize the 2026 Women of Influence honorees, celebrating 100 leaders whose expertise, vision and leadership continue to shape the housing industry. Now in its 17th year, the Women of Influence award honors professionals across mortgage, real estate, fintech and housing whose contributions are driving meaningful progress for their organizations, their customers and the broader industry.

This year’s class includes CEOs, founders, presidents, chief officers and senior executives leading some of housing’s most influential organizations. Their work spans lending, servicing, brokerage, technology, homebuilding and trade associations, reflecting the breadth of leadership guiding the industry through a changing market. Whether driving innovation, leading operations, shaping strategy or advancing the customer experience, these women are helping define the future of housing.

Take a look at the full list of honorees below.

This post was originally published on here. 

Boston-based home equity investment (HEI) provider Hometap is facing multiple lawsuits from customers claiming that the company has violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and is promoting a “predatory and abusive mortgage loan product.”

The latest class-action suit, filed June 23 by plaintiff Marlene Crawford, a Hometap customer and resident of California, accuses the company of violating TILA and engaging in unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices.

The lawsuits allege Hometap improperly structured its home equity investment contracts as “Option Purchase Agreements” to avoid federal and state mortgage lending laws. The plaintiffs say the agreements are mortgages subject to TILA and accuse the company of marketing them as “not a loan” to circumvent required consumer protections.

Hometap did not immediately respond to HousingWire‘s requests for comment regarding the litigation. But in one of the class actions — filed in April by Seattle plaintiffs Richard and Romy Hoffman — Hometap contends the dispute over whether the contracts are subject to TILA should be decided by an arbitrator.

“TILA does not bar enforcement of the arbitration agreement because the Agreement does not fit within TILA’s scope,” the motion to compel arbitration and stay action reads. The Hoffmans, however, counter that TILA prohibits mandatory arbitration clauses in residential mortgage agreements.

The litigation adds to ongoing scrutiny from the Massachusetts attorney general, who has separately alleged that Hometap’s products are illegal, high-interest mortgages.

National Mortgage News first reported on the four separate pieces of litigation that Hometap is facing in 2026 alone.

Other class actions

Another of the four suits, filed in February by New Jersey homeowners Ryan Billey and Keicha Greenidge, alleges Hometap advanced about $98,000 in exchange for a 10-year agreement tied to 13% of their home’s appraised value without evaluating their income or ability to repay.

Billey and Greenidge allege that they were unaware that settling the agreement within its 10-year term could require them to repay Hometap up to twice the amount they received. Under the contract, repayment is triggered by events including the sale of the home, a default on property taxes or insurance, the homeowner’s death or the expiration of the agreement.

The plaintiffs claim they would owe roughly $177,000 to $199,000 based on their home’s current estimated value of about $800,000, which they allege exceeds New Jersey’s legal interest rate limits.

“Plaintiffs will be forced to pay Hometap roughly a third of the value of their home subject to an ‘annualized rate of return’ cap of between 17.936% and 21.523% annual compound interest,” the suit states.

As requested in their class action, Billey and Greenidge “respectfully ask the Court to issue an injunction ordering defendants to cease using their Option Purchase Agreements.”

In a separate complaint filed in May in Pennsylvania by plaintiffs Roberta and John Ruane, the borrowers say Hometap “acted in bad faith and with intent to defraud,” and that the company “never revealed to Plaintiffs and Class members that an HEI was actually a predatory high-interest loan that was carefully crafted with illusory contract language to avoid regulation.”

The Ruanes also allege that upon entering the HEI contract, they would have owed Hometap 15.845% of their home’s value, or $64,964.50, to exit the agreement. That’s in addition to closing costs, an amount totaling about 67% more than their original investment.

Based on the home’s current estimated value of $571,600, the plaintiffs would owe $90,570.02 to pay off and exit the contract today, plus closing costs. That figure is about 132% higher than the initial investment amount.

At the projected 10-year appreciation rate, the home could be worth $797,000. If Hometap exercised its option at that point, the plaintiffs would owe $126,284.65, excluding closing costs, or roughly 224% more than the original investment.

HEIs under scrutiny

Like Hometap, other home equity investment providers like Unison Agreement Corp. have come under fire over allegedly deceptive practices.

In June, two additional plaintiffs joined a federal class-action lawsuit in Colorado against Unison and affiliates. The original suit, filed in April of this year, alleges Unison misled borrowers by marketing its agreements as debt-free financing.

A separate class-action suit filed earlier this year in California alleges the company uses equity-sharing contracts that function as unlicensed, high-interest mortgages disguised as investment partnerships.

In a related case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year in Olson v. Unison that the company’s product operated as a reverse mortgage under Washington state law and involved deceptive marketing practices, although the matter was later settled.

This post was originally published on here. 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Wednesday released historical credit score data for FICO Score 10T and additional data for VantageScore 4.0, giving lenders a window into how the new models perform compared to the legacy Classic FICO model.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and Fair Isaac Corp. (FICO) agreed to terms for the release of the historical FICO Score 10T data in December. The release of VantageScore 4.0 data was previously announced in July 2024, covering individual mortgage scores from 2013 to 2023.

FHFA Director Bill Pulte announced the adoption of the new credit scoring models in April, noting at the time that the data would be available this summer. Access to historical credit data is a critical step for the mortgage industry’s transition. It allows lenders, investors and risk modelers to validate score performance and ensure regulatory compliance.

The currently available data represents loans acquired by the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) from approximately April 2013 to September 2025, closely aligning with applications and originations from January 2013 to June 2025.

“Trended data is a key component of the new scoring models and, following discussions with the credit bureaus, it was confirmed that they do not have consistent trended data to support the calculation of FICO 10T and VantageScore 4.0 prior to 2013,” the GSEs said in an FAQ published on their websites.

The anonymous data relies on an “Average then Average” loan-level score calculation methodology — meaning the available credit scores from each credit bureau are averaged for each borrower.

For loans with multiple borrowers, a simple average of all borrowers’ credit scores is calculated. If a loan lacked a FICO Score 10T or VantageScore 4.0 credit score from any bureau, it was excluded from the historical file.

But the current tri-merge “Middle/Lower then Lowest” methodology is also available. Under that system, the middle of three (or lower of two) credit bureau scores is selected for each borrower, and the lowest score among all borrowers on the loan is ultimately chosen.

“The Classic FICO calculation methodology will not be changing, and the data is already available through the existing disclosure datasets,” the GSEs said.

VantageScore 4.0 is currently available to a limited number of lenders, while FICO Score 10T will be made available at a later date, according to the enterprises.

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 Houston-based Antinozzi Group has returned to Compass after a stint at REMAX, according to an announcement on Wednesday.

In 2025, the team closed 35 transaction sides totaling $30.80 million in sales volume, earning the team the No. 190 rank among small teams in Texas for sales volume in the 2026 RealTrends Verified rankings. 

The three-person team, led by Houston-area real estate agent Joe Antinozzi with team member Kristin Weaver specializes in residential sales across Greater Houston, including The Woodlands, Spring and Montgomery.

“We are thrilled to welcome The Antinozzi Group back to Compass,” Seita Jongebloed, the managing director of Compass Greater Houston, said in a statement. “By pairing their local expertise with our end-to-end technology platform, they are primed to elevate the buying and selling experience for their clients across Greater Houston.”

Antinozzi, originally from the Maryland/Virginia area, relocated to Houston with ExxonMobil before shifting into real estate. He spent his first seven years in the business with REMAX.

During a prior stint at Compass, Antinozzi said he was drawn to the company’s technology, marketing and data tools — factors that ultimately prompted the team’s move back.

“We’ve built our business by constantly looking for ways to provide more value to our clients,” Antinozzi said in the release. “Returning to Compass was a strategic decision because no other brokerage offers the combination of technology, marketing, data and collaboration that Compass does.”

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. 

Congress is finally treating housing affordability as a production problem rather than simply another demand problem. Much of the attention surrounding the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act has focused on its restriction against additional single-family home purchases by large institutional investors.

That provision makes for a compelling political headline: Homes should be owned by families, not corporations.

But it is not the most important part of the bill.

The legislation’s bigger breakthrough is that Congress is finally acknowledging the root of America’s housing affordability problem: We do not have enough homes where people need them, in the types and price ranges they can afford.

Congress passed the package with overwhelming bipartisan support. At the time of writing, however, it has not been signed into law after President Trump canceled a scheduled June 24 signing. Whatever happens next politically, the policy direction deserves the housing industry’s attention.

For too long, Washington has approached affordability primarily as a demand-side problem.

Give buyers a larger tax credit. Create another down payment assistance program. Expand subsidized financing. Find a way to help consumers borrow more money.

Those policies may help selected buyers, but they do not create additional housing.

When more purchasing power is introduced into a market with chronically limited inventory, buyers are simply given more money with which to compete against one another. That can increase demand without addressing the underlying shortage.

The ROAD to Housing Act begins with a better premise: Affordability cannot be meaningfully improved without increasing supply.

The unglamorous reforms may matter most

The bill includes dozens of housing and banking provisions, but several of its least sensational ideas may ultimately produce the greatest results.

It directs HUD to develop best-practice frameworks for zoning and land-use policies. It supports faster environmental reviews for smaller and infill projects. It encourages communities to create preapproved housing designs. It establishes a pathway for converting vacant and abandoned buildings into attainable housing.

None of these ideas will generate the attention attracted by restrictions on institutional acquisitions. Yet these are precisely the changes that could reduce the time, uncertainty and expense involved in creating homes.

Consider preapproved housing plans.

A local government could approve a catalog of designs for accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhomes, cottage courts and other smaller-scale housing. A builder using one of those plans would not need to begin every architectural and regulatory review from scratch.

That can be particularly valuable to smaller local builders.

Large developers can absorb years of entitlement work, legal expenses and redesigns. Smaller builders often cannot. Reducing those preliminary costs could allow more local companies to build on individual lots and pursue infill projects that are too small for national builders.

It is not a dramatic reform. It is a practical one.

The same is true of requiring certain communities receiving federal funding to maintain searchable databases of undeveloped publicly owned land. Housing cannot be built on land that builders do not know is available.

Factory-built housing needs a fairer opportunity

The legislation also attempts to expand the role of manufactured and modular housing.

It updates the federal definition of manufactured housing, directs FHA to examine barriers to modular-construction financing and modernizes financing standards for factory-built homes.

The housing industry should pay close attention to this section.

Factory-built housing is still burdened by outdated consumer perceptions and inconsistent local treatment. Yet modern manufacturing could help the industry reduce weather delays, control material waste and address parts of the skilled-labor shortage.

This does not mean factory-built housing will replace traditional construction. It means the industry may gain another tool for producing attainable homes in markets where conventional building costs have made entry-level construction nearly impossible.

Expanding housing supply will require more than one type of builder and more than one method of construction.

Small mortgages are an overlooked affordability issue

The bill also recognizes a problem that real estate agents and lenders in lower-priced markets have understood for years: A home can be affordable to the buyer but uneconomical for the lender to finance.

A $75,000 or $100,000 mortgage may require nearly as much processing, compliance and staff time as a significantly larger loan. The lender, however, earns less revenue from the transaction.

The result is a market failure. Lower-priced properties exist, qualified buyers want them, but suitable financing is difficult to obtain.

The legislation authorizes an FHA pilot for mortgages of $100,000 or less and directs regulators to examine compensation, points and fee rules that may discourage smaller loans.

This will not transform lending overnight. Regulators must develop the details, and lenders must decide whether the resulting economics make sense.

Still, acknowledging the problem is meaningful. Affordability is not only about the price of a home. It is also about whether financing is actually available for homes at the lower end of the market.

Do not overstate the institutional-investor provision

Restricting large institutional investors may modestly reduce competition for certain single-family homes in markets where those buyers have been especially active.

It may also be politically popular. But it should not be mistaken for a complete housing-supply strategy.

Preventing one buyer from purchasing an existing home does not create another home. Nor does it automatically make that property affordable to a first-time buyer facing high interest rates, insurance costs, property taxes and repair expenses.

The investor provision may change who is able to bid on some existing inventory. The supply provisions could change how much inventory exists.

That distinction matters.

Passage would only be the beginning

If the bill becomes law, no one should expect a sudden national decline in home prices.

Many of its provisions depend on federal rulemaking, agency execution, local participation and future funding decisions. Local governments will still control most zoning and development approvals. Construction will still face labor, material, infrastructure and insurance costs.

The results, where they occur, will be gradual and uneven.

Some communities will embrace preapproved designs, infill development and factory-built housing. Others will accept federal assistance while resisting the local changes needed to produce meaningful inventory.

That makes implementation the next major test.

Federal agencies should measure success by homes produced, approval times reduced and financing obstacles removed—not by reports written, programs announced or grants distributed.

State and local leaders should be expected to show that regulatory changes result in actual permits and construction.

The real estate and mortgage industries should participate constructively while resisting the temptation to protect outdated processes simply because they are familiar.

The ROAD to Housing Act is not a complete answer to America’s housing crisis.

It is, however, an important change in diagnosis.

Housing affordability is ultimately a supply problem. Until America can build more homes, more quickly, in more forms and at more attainable price points, every other affordability policy will remain incomplete.

Congress appears to have finally understood that.

Now the industry must make sure implementation does not lose sight of it.

Tim and Julie Harris are co-founders of Tim & Julie Harris Real Estate Coaching, bestselling authors and hosts of Real Estate Coaching Radio. For daily news, analysis and strategies for real estate professionals, visit Harris Real Estate Daily.

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. 

Loan analysis and technology firm Reverse Market Insight (RMI) on Wednesday announced an expansion of its Reverse Qualifier tool, giving reverse mortgage originators the opportunity to price and model the benefits of proprietary products from SmartFi Home Loans alongside existing capabilities for Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs).

RMI initially launched Reverse Qualifier in October 2025, offering demonstrations to attendees at the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association (NRMLA) Annual Meeting. At that time, the tool only covered traditional HECM loans, HECM-to-HECM refinances and HECM for Purchase transactions.

Roughly nine months later, the product has become more inclusive. RMI President John Lunde and director of client relations Jon McCue spoke with HousingWire‘s Reverse Mortgage Daily (RMD) about the benefits of the platform, noting that plans to include more private-label offerings from other leading reverse mortgage lenders are in the works.

RMI spent more than a year building the Reverse Qualifier tool, which uses some of the same technology that powers its HECM Loan Comparison and Underwriting Tool (HLCUT). While Reverse Qualifier largely targets loan officers in the forward mortgage space who are less familiar with reverse mortgages, it has also proven valuable to experienced reverse LOs as they model loan options for clients and seek clarity on compensation.

C2 Financial Corp., a top-five broker in the HECM space, has been using RMI’s tool across a swath of its roughly 1,000 originators.

According to Shain Urwin, C2’s national reverse mortgage director, it functions similarly to Optimal Blue‘s Loansifter as brokers can compare compensation levels and identify the best deal for borrowers across multiple lenders — including Finance of America, Mutual of Omaha Mortgage and Traditional Mortgage Acceptance Corp.

“No. 1 is the simplicity and flow — it makes it so easy, it’s very simple, it flows well. Two is, I like how you can illustrate and drop off different things — like the fees and the insurance — through different parts of this little pie chart they built that allows you to tell the story and add the layers of the story as you need to,” Urwin said.

“Really, the biggest takeaway for us was the fact that you could see your revenue. You can see as an LO, do I have a deal, am I going to be compensated on this deal and what is that compensation?”

Earlier this year, REVERSE plus launched a similar integration for its ANALYZER PRO platform, allowing originators to model HECM options and Smartfi proprietary products in a single system.

Intuitive interface

Reverse Qualifier is able to compare loan options side by side for easier explanations to clients, and LOs can filter options to show only the products that best match an individual borrower’s scenario.

The dashboard-style tool includes the ability to drag and drop products to compare features. Users can see which loan option has the highest maximum proceeds over a specific term and can automatically flag key benefits such as the lowest closing cost.

By entering some basic borrower information — including the property address, estimated home value and any required debt payoffs — the technology can determine whether a homeowner qualifies for a given product. It shows the value of a reverse mortgage by modeling how a line of credit can grow over time based on home price projections and potential voluntary borrower payments.

Along with loan officers, the tool is designed for use by closed loan sellers and issuers of HECM Mortgage-Backed Securities (HMBS).

“We’re trying to keep it super simple and boil it back to the real-world implications of what this loan does for you versus this (other) loan,” Lunde said. “How much equity do I have at the end of 10 years and how much cash can I get access to? And it’s dramatically different in some of these situations between the different loan products.”

Proprietary channel growth

Reverse Qualifier is one of the tools that aims to complement reverse-specific loan origination systems like QuantumReverse. It arrives at a time when private-label reverse mortgages are in growth mode and account for a larger market share by dollar volume than federally insured HECMs.

Smartfi has leaned into proprietary offerings through its Choice loan. While endorsement data for individual companies in the proprietary channel is not publicly available, Smartfi was the nation’s 15th-largest lender by HECM count through the first five months of the year with 120 endorsements, according to RMI.

“We are thrilled to expand the reach of Choice, our industry-leading proprietary reverse mortgage loan program, through the launch of Reverse Qualifier. Smartfi believes reverse mortgages should be a part of all retirement planning conversations, and new technology solutions such as this make that possible,” Kim Smith, Smartfi’s senior vice president of wholesale lending, told RMD in a statement.

Urwin said the tool has made a difference for C2’s forward loan officers who rarely do reverse mortgages. The company created a “Does My Client Qualify?” button on its internal site, which routes LOs into Reverse Qualifier. Additionally, Urwin said he uses it to present to every client as he seeks to break down closing costs, Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance and line-of-credit details in digestible fashion.

The platform also has a “short to close” feature that lets all parties know when a borrower doesn’t qualify for a given scenario, highlighting the exact shortfall in red letters. LOs have the ability to adjust their margin downward to find a workable scenario.

“In the broker world, we have to disclose what we make on a loan,” Urwin said, adding that he estimates the company’s typical margin at roughly 1.8% versus an industry average of 2.25% to 2.5%. “The lenders don’t, so being a principal agent or closed loan seller, you could be making 10 grand more than I’m making on the loan — which many of them are, because they charge higher margins.”

McCue said he feels vindicated having top originators in the reverse space adopt the tool and find value in it.

“Prior to Shain signing on with us for this, he had a 45-minute pricing video people had to watch on how to price a loan,” McCue said. “It took us about two years to really get to this — the actual loan revenue piece.”

This post was originally published on here. 

For years, the amenity playbook in multifamily was simple: build it, bundle it, absorb the cost and call it a competitive differentiator. Rooftop decks, co-working lounges and resort-style pools have all been baked into the rent, and all have been treated as overhead. The logic made sense when lease-ups were the priority and operators could pass the cost on to base rents without residents noticing. 

That era is ending. 

A convergence of forces in the form of municipal fee restriction laws, growing resident backlash against nickel-and-dime charges and tightening net operating income (NOI) margins in a high-rate environment is pushing operators to fundamentally rethink the amenity model. 

The question is no longer “what amenities do residents want?” It’s “which amenities can generate revenue on their own terms?” 

The fee law reckoning 

Over the past two years, a wave of state and local legislation has targeted junk fees in housing. From California’s fee transparency requirements to proposed federal rules on mandatory disclosures, the regulatory environment is making it harder to layer ancillary charges onto leases without scrutiny. Operators who built their revenue models around application fees, administrative fees and convenience charges are finding that well running dry. 

The instinct to replace that revenue with new line-item fees like pet rent tiers, package locker fees and parking premiums is running into a second problem: Residents are paying attention now in a way they weren’t before. Renter advocacy has grown alongside rent growth, and the tolerance for fees that feel punitive rather than value-added has dropped considerably. 

The operators catching on earliest aren’t fighting the trend. They’re pivoting around it. 

Pay-to-play as a business model, not a perk 

The model gaining traction looks less like an apartment community and more like a hotel. Not only in aesthetics, but in economics.

Hotels have long understood that amenities exist on a spectrum: some are table stakes included in the room rate (Wi-Fi, the gym), and some are revenue-generating experiences that guests opt into (the spa, the rooftop bar, the mini-bar). The key distinction is that the latter are priced, positioned and operated as actual businesses within the property. 

Forward-thinking multifamily operators are applying the same logic. Instead of a pool that costs $80,000 a year to maintain and gets bundled into rent, consider a pool with private cabana rentals, guest passes and weekend programming that generates bookable revenue. 

Instead of a fitness center that sits half-empty, a studio with paid fitness classes, personal training slots and on-demand wellness content. Instead of a co-working lounge that nobody manages, curated private office hours and dedicated desk memberships. All are available to residents and, in some cases, the surrounding community. 

The shift isn’t about charging residents more for what they already have. It’s about creating genuine value at a price point people will choose to pay. 

The NOI case 

The math is compelling. A well-run amenity profit center doesn’t just offset its own operating costs; it adds meaningful NOI without requiring new units or rent increases. In a market where organic rent growth has moderated, and expense inflation remains stubborn, that’s not a nice-to-have, it’s a strategic priority. 

Food is perhaps the clearest example of the model working as intended. A building that partners with a quality meal service, one that residents actively choose over delivery apps, isn’t just generating ancillary revenue. It’s instead solving a real daily problem and building retention through daily habits. That’s the difference between an amenity that gets used once and photographed for marketing, and one that touches residents three times a week. 

More importantly, this model aligns incentives in a way that fee-stacking never did. When an amenity has to earn its keep through voluntary adoption, operators are forced to make it genuinely good. That quality feedback loop produces resident experiences worth talking about, and in a market where review culture drives lease decisions, that matters. 

What it requires 

Executing this well isn’t just a programming decision. It requires operators to think differently about staffing, technology and the physical design of amenity spaces. Booking infrastructure, capacity management and dynamic pricing (capabilities borrowed wholesale from hospitality) become operational necessities. 

It also requires a change in how deals are underwritten. Treating amenity revenue as a real line item in pro formas, rather than a rounding error or an afterthought, is a discipline that acquisition teams and asset managers will need to build. 

The communities doing this well aren’t the largest portfolios, not yet. They tend to be mid-size regional operators with the flexibility to experiment and the proximity to their residents to understand what experiences people will actually pay for. But the institutional players are watching, and the pilots underway today will inform the standard operating model for the next development cycle. 

The bottom line 

The amenity arms race rewarded whoever could build the most impressive list. The emerging model rewards whoever can build the best experience and charge for it honestly. 

For multifamily operators navigating fee law headwinds and margin compression simultaneously, that’s not just a trend worth tracking, but a business model worth building. 

Evyn Blackwell is a strategic GTM and revenue leader who currently leads strategic partnerships at CookUnity.
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. 

A major shift has happened inside American housing finance, and it should have the full attention of lenders, regulators and policymakers. For the first time on record, Americans 70 and older hold a larger share of the nation’s real estate wealth than Americans aged 40 to 54. That crossover happened in 2025. Older homeowners now control roughly 26% of America’s $48 trillion in real estate wealth. Homeowners 62 and older hold $14.66 trillion in home equity, an all-time high.

These are not abstract numbers. They represent roofs, lots, neighborhoods, tax bills, repairs, insurance payments and decades of financial discipline. Yet when many of these same homeowners try to access a responsible portion of that wealth, the mortgage system often treats them as difficult borrowers. Not because they lack equity. Not because they lack credit. Because their income no longer looks like a paycheck.

That is the contradiction at the center of retirement housing finance. 

Measuring wealth in an income-obsessed system 

America has built a system that recognizes monthly income more easily than accumulated wealth. For decades, underwriting has been organized around employment, debt-to-income ratios (DTI) and the assumption that monthly earnings are the clearest measure of repayment ability. That framework works reasonably well for a salaried worker. 

It works less cleanly for a retired homeowner whose strength may lie in home equity, retirement accounts, Social Security, pension income, investment assets, reserves and a long record of payment performance.

In other words, the borrower may be strong. The system just may not be built to see that strength clearly.

A fragmented product menu 

The product menu reflects the blind spot. In a low-rate world, the answer was often a cash-out refinance. Today, that answer can look more like a penalty. A homeowner with a 3% first mortgage should not have to refinance the entire loan into a 6%-plus rate to access a limited amount of liquidity.

HELOCs and home equity loans help some borrowers, but they still run through income and DTI frameworks that may misread retirement cash flow. Reverse mortgages are appropriate for some homeowners, and the HECM program remains important. But reverse mortgages are not the whole answer. Many seniors do not understand them, do not trust them or do not fit the product cleanly.

The rate environment has turned senior equity access from a niche product conversation into a mainstream housing-finance problem. The market already sees the gap. Private capital has begun building second-lien reverse products that allow older homeowners to access equity without disturbing a low first-mortgage rate. Asset-depletion underwriting already exists in agency guidelines, converting verified assets into qualifying income.

So the issue is not that no tools exist. The issue is that the tools are fragmented, inconsistent and unevenly understood. They vary by lender, investor, product type and overlay. There is no common standard. There is no shared rulebook. There is no uniform method for translating senior housing wealth into responsible, underwritable liquidity.

The verification bottleneck 

Underneath that missing standard is the deeper issue: verification. A retired borrower’s strength is real, but it is scattered across multiple places: assets, liabilities, income sources, property value, equity position, tax status, insurance, title, occupancy and reserves. No two lenders always verify that picture the same way. The facts may be there, but they are rarely assembled into one clear, trusted view.

That is the bottleneck. Not merely credit. Not merely collateral. Verification.

The answer should not be another one-off product. The answer should be a standard. A Senior Equity Access Standard should be considered: a partially insured, agency-backed second-lien framework for qualified older homeowners, built around a uniform verification protocol—one rulebook. Clear eligibility. Verified ownership, available equity, credit history, title status, property condition, occupancy, tax compliance, insurance compliance and the borrower’s ability to maintain the home.

Partial insurance would give lenders a reason to participate at scale. Standardized verification would give regulators and investors a clearer view of risk. Strong borrower protections would reduce the risk of senior homeowners being pushed into products they do not understand.

Smart underwriting, not weak underwriting 

The federal government already underwrites housing risk through FHA, VA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. The question is not whether public policy belongs in mortgage finance. It already does. The question is whether that policy has kept pace with an aging country. Right now, it has not.

This is not a call for weaker underwriting. It is a call for smarter underwriting. Weak underwriting ignores risk. Smart underwriting verifies it. The guardrails should be built in from the start: independent counseling, suitability standards, ability-to-maintain analysis, proceeds limit, fee transparency, servicing protections, fraud controls and safeguards against undue influence.

A real standard would protect both borrowers and lenders. It would create a safer channel for senior liquidity, rather than leaving older homeowners to navigate a patchwork of credit cards, high-cost loans, deferred maintenance, family pressure or poorly explained financial products.

Not every senior should borrow. Some should downsize. Some should use other assets first. Some should avoid additional debt altogether. A serious standard must acknowledge that. But a serious standard would also recognize that many older homeowners are not weak borrowers. They are under-recognized borrowers. Their financial strength exists in a form the current system does not consistently measure well.

Looking beyond the front door of housing 

The economic logic is straightforward. Equity sitting idle on a balance sheet does not repair a roof, cover a medical bill, replace an HVAC system, pay property taxes, or help someone age in place. When responsibly accessed, that same equity can support households, preserve properties, strengthen local economies and put already-earned capital back to work.

The mortgage industry spends enormous energy on the front door of homeownership: first-time buyers, affordability, access and inventory. That conversation matters. But housing policy cannot stop at the front door. It must also account for what happens after Americans spend a lifetime building equity.

Baby Boomers helped build the modern housing market. Now they hold a record share of its wealth. The equity is real. The borrowers earned it. The credit is often there. The collateral is there. What is missing is a system that can verify the full picture and a standard built to act on it.

That is a solvable problem. We should solve it.

Gerald M. Green is the Founder of Veri-Search.
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. 

This time last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a state budget that included sweeping housing reforms that allowed urban residential developers to avoid rigorous environmental reviews.

This year’s budget, which Newsom signed on Monday, does not carry the same historic housing reforms as last year. Instead, it is historic for balancing the budget.

“For the next two years, California will have a zero-dollar deficit,” Newsom said in a video statement.

While balancing the budget, the plan still allocates nearly $1.7 billion toward housing and homelessness programs. The budget signing also comes as hundreds of additional housing reform bills work their way through the legislature, with the Sept. 12 end of the session looming.

Lawmakers are targeting construction costs, permitting delays and wildfire insurance. Two bills aim to revive condo construction by reforming defect liability and raising deposit caps.

Budget details on housing dollars

The budget’s most significant housing intervention nearly doubles the homelessness funding the governor sought. Lawmakers approved $900 million in Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants.

It also allocates $500 million for state Low-Income Housing Tax Credits for calendar year 2027, $200 million for the Multifamily Housing Program and $100 million in housing stability funding aimed at keeping renters housed.

The budget also sets the stage for a November ballot measure dubbed the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026. Voters will decide whether to authorize $11.25 billion for affordable housing construction, rental assistance and homeownership programs.

California’s 2026 housing push targets costs, permits and insurance

Last year, the most significant change came from historic reforms to the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act. The overhaul shields apartment and residential projects from lengthy environmental reviews, aiming to boost housing supply and improve affordability.

Developers moved quickly to take advantage of the change, though implementation has not been entirely smooth. Local governments have continued to find ways to delay projects.

California’s legislature is juggling hundreds of housing bills this session, with lawmakers shifting focus from land-use reform to reducing construction costs, cutting permitting delays and shoring up the state’s home insurance market.

One marquee item is already done. Newsom signed Senate Bill 417 in June, placing an $11.25 billion affordable housing bond on the November ballot. The measure includes $10 billion for rental and homeownership programs and $1.25 billion for veterans’ home loans.

On the permitting front, Assembly Bill 1294 would create a standardized statewide housing entitlement application and limit cities’ ability to stall projects by disputing the completeness of applications. Senate Bill 1014 would require cities to disclose infrastructure requirements within 30 days of a housing application and bar them from adding new conditions later.

Several bills target development costs. Assembly Bill 2252 would allow four-story-and-taller buildings to use a single staircase, reducing construction expenses. Senate Bill 1036 would require impact fee credits for projects redeveloping previously developed sites.

On accessory dwelling units, Assembly Bill 956 would allow homeowners to build two detached ADUs per lot and prohibit homeowners associations from blocking compliant units.

Post-wildfire insurance legislation is also moving. Senate Bill 1076 would bar insurers from dropping homeowners who meet fire-safety standards. Assembly Bill 1680 would expand coverage options under the FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort.

Condo reform bills advance in the legislature

In addition to these measures, two bills targeting California’s near-dormant condominium market cleared the lower chamber and now face Senate scrutiny ahead of the Legislature’s Sept. 12 adjournment deadline.

Assembly Bill 1903, which passed the Assembly 68-0 in May, would give builders the right to repair construction defects before homeowners can sue. Supporters say the change would revive condo construction, which has fallen by roughly 90% over two decades.

A Senate committee postponed its hearing on the bill, a warning sign that Consumer Attorneys of California’s opposition is making headway.

Assembly Bill 1406, which passed the Assembly 41-14 in January, was assigned to a Senate committee. The bill would raise the cap on liquidated damages in new condo sales from 3% to 6% of the purchase price, making it easier for developers to secure construction financing. On Monday, the bill’s author canceled the first Senate hearing on the legislation set for June 30, reflecting opposition influence.

The California Association of Realtors opposes the measure, saying in a notice to members that it “dismantles strong, long-standing consumer protections for buyers, putting their savings, life-changing sums of money, at risk to finance the condominium projects.”

This post was originally published on here. 

In my last HousingWire column, I focused on reviewing AI-generated listing remarks before they reach the MLS. That was about what AI says about a property. This follow-up is about the line between effective marketing and misrepresentation.

A listing video may show a drone-style approach, a smooth walkthrough, or a perfectly furnished interior. But what if the drone never flew, the camera never moved, or the furnishings were digitally added?

That is the disclosure problem agents need to solve — now.

AI-assisted visual marketing helps buyers understand a property’s potential. Virtual staging, photo-to-video reels, and AI-generated tours make listings more appealing. But when technology changes a buyer’s perception of condition, features, surroundings or the way the media was captured, disclosure becomes more than simple compliance. It becomes a matter of trust.

The law is beginning to catch up

California’s Assembly Bill 723, effective January 1, 2026, requires real estate brokers, salespersons or those acting on their behalf to disclose when digitally altered images are used and to provide access to original, unaltered versions. The law applies when software or AI adds, removes, or changes visible elements such as furniture, appliances, flooring, landscaping, façades, floor plans, window views or neighboring properties.

At the same time, California draws an important line. Basic edits — lighting, cropping, sharpening, and color correction — are permitted as long as they do not change how the property actually looks.

Wisconsin goes further. The 2025 Act 69, effective in 2027, requires disclosure when advertising is altered using technology, including AI, in a way that creates a false or misleading impression. The scope matters. Marketing no longer ends with photos — it now includes reels, animations and generated video.

New York is moving in the same direction. Regulators have already warned that AI-generated listing imagery can produce misleading or exaggerated representations. A pending bill, S9584, would go further by defining “digital representations” to include images, video and immersive media — and requiring disclosure when those include material alterations or generated elements.

The details vary by state. The professional standard should not: do not let AI create a false impression.

The question is not whether AI was used

Agents use technology every day to increase clarity, exposure, and presentation. The better question is this: Did the technology change what a reasonable buyer would believe about the property or how the media was captured?

A virtually staged room can help buyers visualize space — when it is clearly labeled.

A repaired roof that has not been repaired, a greener lawn that does not exist, a removed utility pole, or an improved view creates a different issue.

So does an AI-generated video that appears to show a drone approach or a walkthrough when the source material was only still photography. The images may be real. The experience is not.

If a buyer believes they are watching actual footage, that is a disclosure issue.

Before publishing AI-assisted listing media, agents should apply a five-part test.

First, did technology add to, remove or materially change anything about the property? Review the final asset as a buyer would. If visible features, condition, layout, or surroundings have been altered, treat it differently from ordinary photo enhancement.

Second, does the video present movement or perspective that was never actually captured? If it shows aerial-style motion, camera transitions, or a walkthrough created from still images, disclose that directly: “AI-generated video created from property photographs. No drone or walkthrough footage was captured.”

Third, could the change affect how a buyer understands the property? Some edits are cosmetic. Others can affect perceived value. Condition, landscaping, views, room size, nearby properties, signs of damage, or features that do not actually exist should be treated carefully. If the visual change could influence whether a buyer schedules a showing, writes an offer, or negotiates price, it should be disclosed.

Fourth, will the buyer actually see the disclosure? Disclosure should travel with the media. A virtually staged image should be labeled near the image. An AI-generated listing video should include clear language in the video, caption, or description. The point is simple: buyers should not have to hunt for the explanation.

Fifth, can the agent show what was real and what was changed? Agents should keep the original photos, edited versions, generated videos, and disclosure language used with each asset. Even when a specific law does not require that documentation, it is a smart professional habit. If a question comes up later, the agent and brokerage should be able to explain what was original, what was altered, and how it was disclosed.

The disclosure does not need to sound like it came from a legal department. In most cases, plain language is better.

An agent could say:

“Virtually staged. Furniture shown is not included.”

“Image has been digitally altered. Original photo available on request or at the provided link.”

“Video was created from listing photos using AI.”

“Drone-style movement is simulated. No drone footage was captured.”

The wording can vary by platform, brokerage policy, and state law. The important part is that a buyer can quickly understand what was real, what was staged, and what was generated.

That kind of clarity does not hurt the marketing. It makes the marketing more trustworthy.

AI allows agents to produce more polished marketing faster than ever. But the goal is not to create the most impressive version of a property. It is to represent the property accurately.

In the last column, the focus was on reviewing AI-generated language before it reaches the public. The same principle applies here.

The advantage is not using AI. It is using it with judgment.

Show the home. Show its power. But if AI invents part of the experience, make sure the buyer knows where reality ends and technology begins.

Paul Parker has spent over 25 years in sales and sales management. He is the founder of AIandRealtors.com and author of Crypto Confidence.

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. 

President Donald Trump on Monday characterized the 21^st Century ROAD to Housing Act as “a yawn,” following an abrupt cancellation of a signing ceremony for the legislation last week.

The comments came as Trump reinforced prioritization of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act as his top domestic priority.

“It’s so unimportant compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office regarding the 21^st Century ROAD to Housing Act. “When I look at the bill, it’s a bill. When I look at the SAVE America Act, it’s about saving America.”

He added, “It’s a yawn. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

The president also expressed doubt about the SAVE America Act’s prospects in the Senate.

“[It’s] probably not going to happen because we have four Republican senators, maybe five, that just won’t vote for it. It’s crazy,” Trump told reporters.

Legislation hold-up

Last Wednesday, Trump halted plans for a signing ceremony tied to the 21^st Century ROAD to Housing Act — after announcing on Truth Social that he would not sign it into law until Congress passed the SAVE America Act

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency,” he wrote.

The housing measure — aiming to expand housing supply and reduce homeownership costs — had passed the House 358-32 after clearing the Senate.

Passed by the House in February, the the SAVE America Act would impose nationwide voter identification requirements and proof-of-citizenship standards.

It has drawn near unified Republican support but faces Democratic opposition that makes it unlikely to clear the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold.

What comes next

Under congressional procedure, if the president neither signs nor vetoes a bill within 10 days, excluding Sundays, while Congress remains in session, it automatically becomes law.

The 21^st Century ROAD to Housing Act had been seen as a rare compromise product between Republicans and Democrats.

Lawmakers involved in housing negotiations have emphasized a months-long effort to craft a package acceptable to both chambers — part of a broader push to address supply constraints and affordability pressures in the national housing market.

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. 

As homebuilders grapple with questions of scale, access to capital and long-term competitiveness, many of their largest suppliers appear to be navigating similar strategic pressures.

Carlisle Companies‘ unsolicited pursuit of Owens Corning, reported Monday by the Wall Street Journal, suggests that the forces reshaping homebuilding boardrooms are also beginning to reshape the building-products companies that supply them.

Whether the transaction ultimately succeeds may prove less important than the question it raises: Has scale itself become one of the industry’s most valuable strategic assets?

While the exact value of the latest bid isn’t disclosed, it would reportedly be a “well-over $10 billion deal”. However, Owens Corning has yet to engage in meaningful discussions with Carlisle, suggesting that any potential deal remains highly preliminary and far from a slam dunk.

While the bid’s fate is uncertain, it has the potential to transform Carlisle into a far larger and more diversified building products manufacturer.

That logic increasingly resembles the thinking emerging elsewhere across residential construction.

Homebuilders, distributors and manufacturers alike are confronting a business environment where growth through operating execution alone is becoming more difficult. Technology investment, supply-chain resilience, customer concentration, labor shortages, insurance costs and capital requirements increasingly reward organizations capable of operating broader platforms rather than simply larger businesses.

In that sense, Carlisle’s interest in Owens Corning appears to reflect more than a desire to add revenue. It reflects an effort to assemble a more comprehensive building-envelope platform capable of serving customers across a wider range of residential and commercial applications.

If the acquisition gains steam, Carlisle could expand upon its current offerings, which include commercial roofing and waterproofing, and grow its presence in residential construction. 

Owens Corning’s points of strength

Owens Corning primarily operates in residential construction, but it also has a significant commercial presence, bringing something increasingly valuable to any strategic acquirer: optionality.

Rather than depending on a single end market, its revenue spans new residential construction, residential repair and remodeling, commercial construction and non-discretionary repair activity. That diversification helps reduce cyclicality while providing exposure to multiple spending streams across the built environment.

According to an Owens Corning Q2 2026 investor presentation from May, 26% of the company’s revenue comes from non-residential projects. Meanwhile, 23% of revenue comes from new residential construction, 17% from the roughly $500 billion residential R&R sector and 34% from non-discretionary repair.

In today’s uncertain construction economy, that balance may be every bit as valuable as market share. Owens Corning focuses on three categories. 

Insulation

The company is a leader in insulation for both residential and commercial products, with slightly more revenue coming from residential. According to company materials, Owens Corning’s insulation revenue has been relatively flat at about $3.7 billion annually since 2022. About 80% of that revenue comes from North American sales, while 20% derives from Europe. 

Grand View Research reports that the North American insulation market is about $16.7 billion as of 2025, indicating that Owens Corning commands nearly 18% of the market. 

Building code changes have increased demand for higher-performance insulation in North American homes, creating a favorable market opportunity. Owens Corning estimates that the average home now contains roughly 30% more insulation by weight than it did 10 to 15 years ago, indicating a growing market opportunity. 

Roofing

Owens Corning’s roofing business, which peaked at $4.6 billion in revenue in 2024, generated $4.4 billion last year, nearly 90% of which came from business within the United States. Based on estimates that value the U.S. roofing market at about $33.5 billion in 2026, Owens Corning accounts for roughly 11% to 12% of the overall market.

About two-thirds of the firm’s roofing revenue comes from shingles, while the rest comes from components sales. 

Evercore ISI’s Stephen Kim, in a research note, wrote that the takeover bid, even if it doesn’t come to fruition, reveals the “undervalued nature of the company’s roofing business.”

“Over the past year, the segment’s resilience in the face of declining industry volume set the stage for investors to rethink what is an appropriate multiple for this business. And while near-term challenges in the industry might prove to be a distraction over the next few months, we now believe the increased focus on roofing long-term earnings potential provides the missing catalyst for the shares,” Kim wrote. 

Doors

Owens Corning entered the door business after it acquired Masonite International for $3.9 billion in 2024. In 2025, doors generated just over $2 billion in revenue, about 75% of which came from the United States, representing a small slice of the roughly $30 billion U.S. doors-and-windows market. 

Why Owens Corning?

While Carlisle Companies has a well-established track record of acquiring smaller rivals, an acquisition of Owens Corning would be by far its largest deal to date. Carlisle generated about $5.0 billion in revenue in 2025, roughly half of Owens Corning’s top line. However, Carlisle’s $15.7 billion market capitalization exceeds Owens Corning’s roughly $11 billion valuation.

If the potential moves forward, it would significantly increase Carlisle’s scale. It would also broaden its product portfolio and greatly expand its exposure to the residential market. About 82% of Carlisle’s revenue came from commercial projects, with only 18% from residential. 

Carlisle has significantly more strength in areas like waterproofing systems, building envelope technologies, commercial reroofing and replacement and single-ply commercial roofing membranes, which are designed to protect flat roofs. 

Owens Corning, meanwhile, finds its strength in residential asphalt shingles, composite materials, doors and fiberglass insulation. 

If the two businesses merge, Carlisle could expand into these product niches and gain significant exposure in the residential market, both new construction and repair. The combined business would create a leading roofing and insulation supplier, with additional offerings like composites, weatherproofing and doors. 

Increasing M&A in building materials

Carlisle’s bid to acquire Owens Corning, even if it proves unsuccessful, signals that the highly fragmented building products distribution industry could undergo increasing consolidation in the years ahead. 

The industry has already experienced significant M&A activity in recent years, led by the likes of QXO. The Brad Jacobs-backed company announced in April that it will acquire TopBuild for $17 billion, a deal that the two companies’ stockholders approved on Monday. QXO also bought Kodiak Building Partners for $2.25 billion earlier this year. 

The Webb Analytics 2025 Deals Report found that 2025 generated the highest level of building materials M&A activity in a decade based on facilities acquired. Even though deal volume declined 30% and there were fewer acquirers, larger transactions played an outsized role. 

Just four of the 120 reported deals last year represented 85% of all supply facilities acquired. This suggests that the industry’s largest players, like QXO, The Home Depot, Lowe’s and Builders FirstSource, are becoming increasingly influential in driving consolidation and capturing market share.

Another boardroom question

Carlisle’s unsolicited approach also arrives at a moment when public-company boards across housing-related industries are increasingly confronting similar strategic questions.

For homebuilders, recent transactions involving Taylor Morrison, Tri Pointe Homes, Landsea Homes and others have underscored how boards are weighing independence against the benefits of larger capital platforms.

Building-products manufacturers appear to be entering a comparable phase.

The question is no longer simply whether companies can continue growing independently.

It is whether shareholders may ultimately be better served through combinations capable of accelerating growth, broadening product portfolios and improving long-term competitive positioning.

Whether Owens Corning’s board reaches that conclusion remains to be seen.

But Carlisle’s proposal suggests those conversations are no longer confined to homebuilders.

This post was originally published on here. 

With less than 48 hours to go before the start of a two-day hearing regarding Zillow’s preliminary injunction motion in its antitrust lawsuit against Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) and Compass International Holdings, the Chicagoland MLS is seeking to compel arbitration with the listing portal giant. 

In documents filed on Monday, MRED told the court that Zillow had agreed to arbitrate any disputes that came out of its IDX and VOW agreements in its contract with the MLS. 

Zillow has argued that these arbitration agreements are unenforceable because of ambiguity in the agreement’s language.

In contrast, MRED wrote in its filing that the “nature of intended third-party beneficiary status, as well as treatises and case law all confirm” that the MLS is entitled to enforce these arbitration clauses. 

Additionally, MRED has argued that its “Participation Agreement,” which governs access to the MLS’s database, is separate from its IDX access agreements, which are central to the lawsuit and have their own mandatory arbitration clauses that Zillow must abide by. 

Due to this, MRED has asked Judge John Tharp, who is overseeing the case, to stay all non-arbitrable claims and to deny Zillow’s preliminary injunction request. In the filing, MRED argued that the preliminary injunction would be redundant, as the court has already prevented MRED from suspending its listing feed to Zillow, as the preliminary injunction seeks to do, through a temporary restraining order. 

In an emailed statement, a Zillow spokesperson told HousingWire that this was an attempt by MRED to “move this case behind closed doors, away from the public scrutiny that anticompetitive conduct deserves.” 

“The public has a right to know what MRED and Compass did to Chicagoland buyers and sellers, and a right to see it resolved in open court,” the spokesperson added. 

As of Tuesday afternoon, the court had not ruled on MRED’s motion. A two-day hearing regarding Zillow’s preliminary injunction motion, which was filed in mid-May, is set to begin on Wednesday. 

The hearing is just one part of an antitrust lawsuit Zillow filed in mid-May, claiming that MRED and Compass conspired to withhold listing data and pressure Zillow to carry private “hidden” listings nationwide.

This post was originally published on here. 

Nonqualified mortgage (non-QM) originations are on track to set another post-crisis record in 2026, as debt-service-coverage ratio (DSCR) and investor loans fuel growth in a still high-rate environment, according to a new Bank of America Securities report.

In terms of non-QM securitizations, insurance demand for bonds remains strong and investors are looking for high-quality, jumbo-like loans flowing through the channel — referred to in the report as “fumbos.”

Non-QM production is expected to reach $175 billion in 2026, compared to $108 billion in 2025. DSCR and investor products now account for about half of all non-QM collateral.

Meanwhile, non-QM securitization issuance will rise from $80 billion in 2025 to roughly $100 billion in 2026. About 70% of non-QM loans are securitized, with the remaining loans primarily purchased by insurance companies.

“Year to date, securitization volumes are running at $57 billion, and we think higher mortgage rates should result in a modest slowdown in the second half of 2026,” BofA analysts wrote on Monday.

High-quality asset pools

Part of the increase in non-QM securitization volumes stems from high-quality, jumbo-like loans flowing through the channel. These large-balance loans are sometimes referred to in the market as “fumbo” loans, they said.

For 2026 originations, loans with balances above $1 million account for about 28% of new non-QM production, and loans above $1.5 million make up 15%, the report said. That is up from 20% and 10%, respectively, in 2018.

This shift means that more prime-quality, high-balance mortgages are being financed via non-agency shelves rather than held on bank balance sheets or placed in traditional jumbo programs, changing both the credit and prepayment profiles of non-QM pools.

In general, non-QM resecuritizations have increased following a pickup in deal calls since 2025. Year to date in 2026, about $4 billion of non-QM paper has been resecuritized, versus $5.5 billion of so-called collateral, the strategy team said.

Weakening performance?

Prepayment behavior in non-QM has shifted over time. S-curves have become steeper, a trend Bank of America attributes to the changing mix of high-FICO, high-balance and full-documentation loans in non-QM shelves, as well as differing concentrations of these loans across issuers. An increase in larger loans in recent deals has amplified that effect.

Delinquencies have continued to creep up in the 2022-2024 vintages across documentation types, the report said. The strategists point to cash-out refinances, weaker performance on bank statement underwriting, and multiple loans extended to single borrowers as primary drivers. By contrast, the 2025 vintage has performed better as lenders tightened credit boxes.

“Overall, cumulative losses in non-QM remain low at 3.6 basis points across vintages for the roughly $281 billion of cumulative originations and securitized since 2018,” the report explains. “A total of about 1,000 out of 580,000 loans have incurred cumulative loss greater than $10,000.”

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. 

California Regional MLS (CRMLS) is creating more options for home sellers looking to market and sell their properties. Earlier this month, CRMLS debuted a Limited Exposure Coming Soon listing option for home sellers and real estate professionals in California. 

In a post on the MLS’s Knowledgebase blog, it said the new option “can exclude listings from designated third-party sites at the client’s request without limiting the ability to share the listing on broker-controlled websites and/or social media platforms.” According to CRMLS, the default for coming soon listings is “Internet: Yes,” which means that these listings will be distributed for display on third-party sites via IDX feeds. 

CRMLS subscribers whose sellers choose the limited exposure coming soon option, are now able to set internet display on the coming soon listing to “No,” preventing the listing from being included in IDX feeds. Once a listing swaps from coming soon to active status, CRMLS said subscribers must manually swap the “Internet: No” to “Internet: Yes,” if the seller wants the listing displayed on the internet. However, the MLS said that if the seller instructs there to be no internet distribution of the listing, their agent must remove the listing from all social media platforms and any broker controlled websites. 

CRMLS first debuted its coming soon status for listings in May 2020. Listings are allowed to stay in a coming soon status for up to 21 days. The MLS did not start automatically syndicating coming soon listings via IDX feed until the end of March this year. 

“Our new form for limiting exposure of coming soon listings is a natural progression of giving sellers and their brokers greater choice in listing distribution,” Art Carter, the CEO of CRMLS, wrote in an emailed statement. “CRMLS’s coming soon policies have always been flexible over the years to address broker requests, AOR policies, and practices from neighboring MLSs to keep a fair and representative marketplace. This is just another step towards giving brokers flexibility while maintaining a transparent marketplace.”

The California-based MLS is not the only MLS that has explored the creation of more listing options for sellers. North Carolina-based Canopy MLS, as well as other MLSs across the country, have created a variety of listing options for consumers including Coming Soon/No-Show, limited-exposure and office-exclusive listings. 

This post was originally published on here. 

Reps. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.) and William Timmons (R-S.C.) introduced bipartisan legislation on Tuesday to help local governments invest in disaster prevention rather than focusing solely on post-disaster recovery.

The “Ounce of Prevention Act” would expand eligible uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to include pre-disaster mitigation projects, a shift supporters say would allow cities, counties and states to harden infrastructure and reduce risk before storms, wildfires or floods occur.

The bill also seeks to streamline federal rules that can slow approval of proactive resilience projects.

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” Liccardo said, adding that every $1 spent on mitigation can save roughly $13 in post-disaster costs. He said communities “should not have to wait for the storm, fire or flood to hit” before accessing federal support for resilience projects.

Timmons said the legislation gives local governments “commonsense flexibility” to use existing federal dollars more effectively, arguing that proactive investment is “better for taxpayers, better for communities and better for the people who call those communities home.”

Under current law, CDBG funds are generally reserved for community development and post-disaster recovery efforts, with Congress typically approving supplemental allocations after major disasters. Since 2020, lawmakers have appropriated about $22 billion in disaster recovery funding through the program.

The bill’s co-sponsors include Reps. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.) and Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii).

The proposal has drawn support from a broad coalition of housing, insurance and local government groups, including the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA), which said expanded mitigation funding could reduce long-term disaster losses and strengthen community resilience.

“Property casualty insurers are working to reduce losses and protect families and communities from the growing impact of hurricanes, wildfires, and other severe weather. APCIA supports this legislation because expanding federal investment in mitigation will help lower the economic toll of natural catastrophes and save lives,” said Sam Whitfield, APCIA senior vice president of federal government relations and political engagement.

The Council of State Community Development Agencies said the bill would give states and cities “needed flexibility” to address disaster risks before they occur, while the Local Initiatives Support Corp. said it would help direct resilience investments toward the most vulnerable communities.

County officials echoed that support. The National Association of Counties said the measure would help local leaders invest in preparedness rather than wait to rebuild after disasters strike.

Other industry trade groups, including the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the bill could reduce losses, protect homeowners and improve resilience in low-income communities.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors said the legislation reflects the reality facing local leaders, who “don’t have the luxury of waiting until after a disaster” and must instead prioritize prevention and preparedness.

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

This post was originally published on here. 

Figure announced Tuesday that it has closed a $300 million fully prefunded securitization for loans that will trade on its blockchain-based marketplace, Figure Connect.

The company said the transaction departs from the traditional securitization process by securing funding from institutional investors before loans are originated rather than after they close.

According to Figure CEO Michael Tannenbaum, the approach provides originator partners with committed liquidity in advance, helping lock in pricing and execution while reducing uncertainty in their production pipelines.

“It’s all about the perspective of the originator,” Tannenbaum said in an interview with HousingWire. “Knowing that the loans are spoken for before you even fund them just gives you added certainty because, as you know, markets can change on a dime.”

Figure said the upfront fixed-rate capital establishes what it hopes will become a repeatable funding model for loans traded through Figure Connect.

The company compared its long-term vision to the liquidity provided by Fannie Mae and the agency mortgage-backed securities to-be-announced (TBA) market, which allows lenders to secure financing before loans are delivered.

“Having investors prefund and preaccept those loans before the loans are even funded, it’s just a function of the marketplace that adds value to the originator, and I think it also reflects the scale, consistency, and quality that Figure is operating in because we’re so mature in it from a capital market standpoint that people are so comfortable with what we’re doing that they’re willing to buy these loans before they even are originated,” Tannenbaum said.

Not a one-time thing

Tannenbaum called Figure “a version of Fannie Mae, but on modern blockchain rails,” and one that can support multiple asset classes rather than a narrow slice of mortgage products.

“I think that speaks to an opportunity for Figure to expand into a broader capital market offering and services for our customers as they’re looking to build their business on the back of not only the Fannie Mae ecosystem but also now the Figure ecosystem. People could, over time, start to use this to hedge as well,” he said.

From the investor side, Tannenbaum said the willingness to prefund stems from comfort with Figure’s “shelf,” meaning its brand, technology and track record in the capital markets.

“Investors want return on time; they want return on effort,” he said, noting that Figure is executing securitizations “almost every month” and is growing volumes by more than 100% at scale. “Investors want to buy repeatable and consistent assets, and Figure’s bringing those.”

The $300 million transaction is Figure’s first prefunded securitization, and Tannenbaum stressed it is not a one-off.

“This is a part of our strategy,” he said. “We are constantly investing to make sure that our originating partners have guaranteed liquidity and have consistent access to the capital markets. … This is big. No one’s ever done anything like this.”

Rather than a single forward buyer, Tannenbaum said that the capital comes from the “institutional bond market,” with a broad investor base purchasing AAA-rated bonds.

“The whole value of a securitization is that you’re transforming loans that are relatively chunky and sort of sitting around into a security that’s liquid, has a CUSIP and can be bought by anybody who buys bonds of that nature,” he said. “It’s a much more liquid approach.”

For lenders, the structure is less about richer economics and more about liquidity and certainty, including a fixed execution price. But borrowers could ultimately see downstream benefits as well, he added, as stronger liquidity and capital markets efficiency translate into lower system costs and, over time, better rates.

Tannenbaum also highlighted Figure’s scale, noting that Figure Connect originated $1.4 billion in May, with the $300 million prefunded deal representing a meaningful slice of that volume. The company recently announced its intent to acquire Kiavi in a $717 million deal, with plans to integrate its RTL platform and DSCR rental loans into Figure Connect and Democratized Prime.

This post was originally published on here. 

Nearly a year after Rocket Companies closed its acquisition of Redfin in an all-stock transaction valued at $1.75 billion in equity, Joe Rath, the former Redfin senior director of operations and current head of industry relations at Rocket, says that things “could not have gone better” with the integration of the two firms. 

“We have our swagger back. It feels so good to be building things again,” Rath said. “At Redfin, it wasn’t for lack of want, it was more for lack of resources, but we stopped innovating at some point, and I think that is the biggest difference between a year ago and now, is that we are part of this larger homeownership platform and building and innovating again.” 

Back to building

One of the things Rath is most excited about is how Redfin, with the support of Rocket, has been able to play with the idea of what it means for a home to come to market. 

“We have been able to think about the existing structure of how homes come to market today, where being on the market has almost become synonymous with being on the MLS, and we just view things differently. There are these would-be sellers on the sidelines,” he said. “We surveyed them and found that three-quarters of prospective sellers would move today if friction disappeared, and 58% say moving feels riskier than staying put. So, there’s this market that exists on the sidelines, and we’re fascinated by that group and how we can help them come onto a platform to actually test that market out.” 

This, he said, is what led to Rocket’s partnership with Compass International Holdings to display the firm’s coming soon listings on Redfin, as well as the launch of Redfin Early Access. 

The flywheel in full effect

While Rath has enjoyed innovating around these products and partnerships, he said he has also enjoyed exploring the flywheel effect Redfin is now part of as a portion of a company that includes everything from home search to mortgage origination and mortgage servicing. 

“The housing transaction was split across a dozen separate industries, so what buyers and sellers think of and call ‘moving’, we call it a lot of different things and costs begin to multiply through all of these handoffs and the consumers were basically stuck,” Rath said. 

This is why Rath believes more and more firms are creating “vertical stacks,” because they are enabling companies to solve these challenges in ways the “horizontal” companies never could.

“We had all of these horizontal layers and companies. That was failing consumers, and I think that is why the consumers and the dollars are flocking to this idea of an ecosystem. We have this infrastructure with portals, MLSs and associations that were all building toll roads and not highways, and I think over time that friction has been slower to be removed than in other industries, but if we work together we can help solve this.” 

Over the next decade, Rath said he feels the companies that will be rewarded will be those that remove steps and costs for consumers. 

More opportunities for agents

In addition to creating a smoother and more cost-effective transaction for consumers, Rath also said this vertical business model also offers benefits for real estate professionals. 

“If it’s a consumer we transacted with in the past and we service their loan, we have a data advantage that allows us to see their behavior maybe 12 to 15 years later when that homeowner goes onto Redfin and begins looking for a home,” he said. “Our agents can see that behavior in real time and then reach out and see if they can help them.”

As an industry and as a company, Rath believes real estate professionals could do a much better job of becoming part of a homeowner’s or family’s conversation around moving much earlier on in the process, opening up the conversation about what a possible move would look like. 

Looking ahead, Rath said he wants to continue building and innovating at Redfin and for the company to continue telling its story to the public in ways they were previously unable to.

“This was the first year we saw a Super Bowl commercial featuring Redfin, and we sponsored the Cleveland Cavaliers playoff run in the Eastern Conference Finals. To see Redfin plastered all over Rocket Arena was a surreal experience for me,” Rath said. “Like I said, we have our swagger back, and I want to see more of that over the next year.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc. has appointed Ann Morey as its head of product, the mortgage subservicer announced Tuesday.

Morey will oversee the company’s product management strategy, including setting product vision, developing product road maps, improving cross-functional collaboration and leading product teams.

She joins Dovenmuehle with more than 15 years of experience leading digital product and technology teams across the financial services, logistics and government sectors.

Most recently, Morey served as vice president of product delivery at Tria, formerly known as Softrams, where she managed a team of more than 200 employees and oversaw three enterprise software contracts with annual revenue totaling about $70 million. She previously held product leadership roles with the U.S. Air Force‘s Kessel Run software development unit, XPO Logistics and First Data.

“Ann brings exactly the kind of product leadership we need as we continue to evolve our platform and capabilities,” senior vice president Matt Budy said in a statement. “Her track record of cultivating high-performing teams, driving measurable outcomes and translating complex client needs into effective technology solutions makes her exceptionally well-suited to lead this function at Dovenmuehle.”

According to the company, Morey has implemented product development and prioritization frameworks throughout her career and has focused on talent development, including launching mentorship programs and reducing employee turnover at a previous employer.

“I’ve spent my career at the intersection of complex operations and digital products, and Dovenmuehle sits squarely in that space,” Morey said in a statement. “The company has built an impressive legacy, and I’m looking forward to building on that foundation with modern product practices alongside a team focused on continuous improvement and client value.”

According to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, Dovenmuehle represents 7.3% of the residential subservicer market. The company ranked fifth among the top 25 subservicers on IMF’s list with a value of $310 billion in first-quarter 2026, but its portfolio declined 1.3% from the previous quarter and 6.3% from a year earlier.

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. 

In housing, there are a few words that get tossed around so often they start to lose all meaning.

“Affordability” is one of them. “Sustainability” is another. Near the top of the list is “density.”

Say the word at a city council meeting, and half the room hears “traffic,” “apartments,” “school overcrowding,” and “there goes the neighborhood.” Say it at a development meeting, and someone inevitably points to a zoning chart as if a spreadsheet could tell you whether a neighborhood will actually be worth living in.

That is where much of the affordability conversation goes off the rails.

A spreadsheet is not a neighborhood. A zoning chart is not a community. And a higher unit count does not automatically make a place better, more affordable or more livable.

The better question is not simply how many homes can fit on a piece of land. Rather, it is about how people should live on that land. That is where design matters. If a city’s zoning allows 3.5 units per acre and a developer proposes a plan at two units per acre, the immediate reaction should not be that the site is underbuilt. That is zoning-table thinking.

It is also how good plans get killed before anyone understands them. What local stakeholders should ask is, “Does the trade deliver?”  If the lower-density plan creates more parks, more trails, more preserved trees, better drainage, better gathering places and a neighborhood people will still value in 20 years, that may be the smarter, more affordable outcome.

That sounds counterintuitive only if affordability is treated as a simple math problem based entirely on units per acre. It is not.

Affordability is land cost. Affordability is an infrastructure cost. Affordability is entitlement risk. Affordability is time. Affordability is product size. Affordability is lot configuration. Affordability is how much street, pipe, curb, drainage and concrete it takes to deliver each home. Affordability is whether the political process takes six months or three years. Affordability is whether the neighborhood accepts a plan or fights it until the project dies.

Importantly, affordability is whether families actually want to live there when it is built.

In Texas, affordability is not just the price of the steak. It is the whole tab – to mix the metaphors, it is the land, the kitchen, the waiter, the lease, the electric bill, the parking lot, the property tax, and the guy at the next table explaining why he could have done it better.

The real mistake localities make

Cities often say they do not like density. That is not quite right. What many cities actually dislike is the appearance of density at the lot level. Smaller lots look dense. Tight setbacks look dense. More homes visible from the street look dense. So the instinctive answer becomes: less. Less intensity. Less small-lot product. Less change.

But when a city focuses on lot size rather than acreage density, it can end up rejecting the better plan for the wrong reason. That is the blind spot.

Too often, the review begins and ends with a single line on the zoning table: minimum lot size. If the lot is smaller than the number on the page, the reflexive answer is no. It does not matter what the gross density is. It does not matter how much open space is preserved. It does not matter whether the plan uses less infrastructure per home or creates a stronger public realm.

The conversation stops because the lot is “too small.” That makes no sense if the real goal is affordability, livability, and long-term fiscal health. A 7,500-square-foot lot backing up to a fence can be approved with little debate, even if it requires more street, more pipe, and more long-term maintenance per home.

A 3,000- to 4,000-square-foot lot fronting a park or green can be rejected on sight, even if it supports a lower price point, less infrastructure per unit and a better neighborhood experience.

On paper, the bigger lot looks safer.

On the ground, a smaller lot within a better plan can be more attainable for the buyer, more efficient for the builder, and more valuable to the city over time. In other words, many cities do not really hate density. They hate the optics of a smaller yard.

They are looking at the wrong side of the fraction. If a city first looked at acreage density, infrastructure per home, usable open space and long-term value per acre, many “too dense” objections would fall apart faster than a cheap lawn chair in an August Texas sun.

What better math looks like

This is not just a homebuilding issue. It is a land-use issue. Groups such as Strong Towns and Urban3 have spent years making a similar point in a different context: cities should focus on value per acre, not just total value. Compact, traditional development patterns often generate far more taxable value per acre than large-format, spread-out patterns dominated by surface parking and excessive land consumption.

The lesson is straightforward: larger footprints and greater land consumption do not automatically translate into more fiscal value for a city. The same principle applies within a subdivision.

A small lot fronting a park can feel larger than a larger lot backing up to an eight-foot fence. A cottage home on a green can feel more valuable than a larger home buried in a repetitive street grid. A compact home next to trails, water, trees, and shared open space can offer a better life than a larger home with no neighborhood nearby.

That is not theory. That is design, and it is also math.

A conventional subdivision layout often features long local streets, deep driveways, larger lots, oversized cul-de-sacs, and leftover open space across the site. That means more curb, more inlets, more pavement, more water line, more storm pipe, more grading and more long-term maintenance.

A more thoughtful plan featuring smaller lots, shorter streets, connected open space and improved block structure can reduce that burden while delivering a stronger public realm.

Less linear street per home. Less pipe per home. Less wasted land. More usable open space. More walkability. More identity. That is a much better affordability equation than simply arguing over whether a lot is 30 feet or 75 feet wide.

Density is not the same as livability

This is where the housing conversation often goes wrong. People talk about density as though it were the same as design quality. 

It is not. A badly designed plan at 3.5 units per acre is still badly designed. A thoughtful plan at 2 units per acre can create a far better neighborhood if it uses the land strategically. Smaller lots around parks. Trail systems that connect the entire community. Preserved natural features instead of unnecessary clearing. Open space used for drainage, recreation, beauty and identity all at once.

Not every family needs a giant backyard. Every family benefits from a nearby park. Not every child needs a private soccer field behind the house. Every child benefits from a trail, a lawn, a playground, a shaded walk, a fishing pond and a place to ride a bike. Not every home needs to sit on the largest possible piece of dirt. Every home benefits from being part of a place that was actually designed.

That is the part too many review processes overlook. They see a smaller lot and assume it means lower quality. They see open space and assume it is a luxury. They see a lower gross density number and assume the plan is less efficient. In reality, the opposite may be true.

Texas understands land better than most places.

We know the difference between land that is useful and land that is just sitting there wearing a big hat. Open space should not be decoration. It should work. It should drain. It should connect. It should create value. It should improve the homes around it. That is how green space becomes infrastructure for affordability.

What cities should measure instead

If cities are serious about housing affordability, they need to upgrade their metrics. Minimum lot size is a blunt tool. It may be easy to administer, but it does not tell a city whether a plan is affordable, fiscally productive, or livable over the long term. A better approval framework would start with a different set of questions.

What is the plan’s gross density, not just the minimum lot size? How much infrastructure per home is being built, including streets, curbs, drainage, and piping? What percentage of homes are within a short walk of a real park, trail, or usable open space? How much of the open space is central, visible, and functional rather than hidden in leftover corners? What long-term maintenance burden will the city inherit per acre? What value per acre will the neighborhood create over time?

Those are the questions that link design to affordability. They also connect today’s approval decision to tomorrow’s municipal balance sheet. Greater distance and more pavement usually mean higher costs. More pipe, more curb, more detention, more road, and more dead-end streets are not free. 

Someone pays for them. At first, the builder pays. Then the buyer pays. Eventually, the city pays. That is why land planning matters so much. Cities do not just inherit rooftops. They inherit streets, drainage systems, traffic patterns, maintenance obligations and complaints. They inherit the neighborhood forever.

Improve the conversation for builders and cities

Builders already understand that every unnecessary foot of street, every oversized lot, every inefficient layout, every entitlement delay, and every political fight gets baked into the final home price. The buyer pays for it all. Cities should understand that the same costs are also baked into long-term public obligations.

That is why a blanket “no small lots” rule is not a safeguard against bad development. It often blocks some of the most thoughtful and attainable neighborhood plans. It treats lot size as a proxy for quality, even though quality is really a function of design, land planning, infrastructure efficiency, and what the city will own and maintain over time. The opportunity is not to choose between affordability and livability. The opportunity is to combine the two.

Smaller lots. Better parks. More trails. Less wasted land. More thoughtful infrastructure. More beauty. More attainability. That is where housing needs to go. The future of affordability is not just more rooftops. It is a better neighborhood. And better neighborhoods require more than zoning math. They require design.

This post was originally published on here. 

With mortgage rates on an upward trend in recent months, housing professionals got a welcome respite this week as the costs of a home loan declined.

On Tuesday, HousingWire‘s Mortgage Rates Center showed that 30-year conventional loan rates averaged 6.73% — down 6 basis points from one week ago. Rates for 30-year jumbo loans dropped to 6.66% — down 15 bps — while rates for 30-year loans through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) were down 9 bps to 6.29%.

At the midpoint of the year, housing demand remains resilient despite ongoing affordability constraints, including mortgage rates near 6.7%.

HousingWire Lead Analyst Logan Mohtashami wrote this week that purchase loan applications — which tend to lead closed home sales by 30 to 90 days — are up from last year’s levels. But the weekly application numbers have bounced around through the first half of 2026, with 12 negative prints, 10 positive prints and two neutral prints.

“This year’s growth is a bit more legit than last year’s, which was working from an extremely low base, so the percentage growth needs context,” Mohtashami wrote in this week’s Housing Market Tracker. “The Iran conflict didn’t damage this data line too much on the negative side; a better premise is that the growth rate was probably slowed just a tad.”

Higher rates, muted refis

Bob Broeksmit, president and CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) said mortgage market participants are still digesting the policy decisions and comments of the Federal Reserve under new Chair Kevin Warsh. Last week’s mortgage application data from the MBA saw 1% growth from the prior week, adjusted for the Juneteenth holiday, led by a 3% rise in refinance applicants. Refi and purchase loan demand is 17% and 3% higher, respectively, than year-ago levels.

“While mortgage application activity was mixed, overall demand continues to outpace last year’s levels, reflecting the underlying strength of the housing market. As economic conditions continue to evolve, greater certainty around the interest rate outlook should help foster increased borrower confidence and support sustained housing market activity,” Broeksmit said in a statement.

The Fed held benchmark rates steady two weeks ago — the central bank’s fourth straight rate pause — but indications point to monetary policymakers being more likely to raise rates in 2026 than lower them.

Quarterly projections released by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) at their prior meeting showed that nine of 12 voting members anticipate a rate hike by the end of the year. The federal funds rate, currently pegged at 3.5% to 3.75%, is expected to rise to 3.8% in six months, up from an estimate of 3.4% in March.

The refi wave that briefly materialized earlier this year when rates dropped below 6% has already crested, according to an analysis released last week by Cotality. The report explained that as of April, 3.7% of outstanding mortgages have rates above 7%, while another 10.5% of loans have rates above 6.5%. This is limiting the incentives for most potential refi candidates.

“But the opportunity is concentrated in recent vintages, with post-2022 borrowers carrying much higher rates and poised to refinance first if rates move even modestly lower,” Cotality said.

‘Masking a widening divide’

Home-price appreciation has generally been a tailwind for the housing market in 2026. Annual growth across much of the country has floated near 1%, well below the double-digit growth of the COVID-19 pandemic that was viewed as unsustainable. On Tuesday, the S&P Cotality Case-Shiller Index for April posted yearly growth of 0.8%, up slightly from the 0.7% figure in March as inflation accelerated to 3.8% in April.

But HousingWire Data, which reflects more current market conditions, reveals softer home-price appreciation for the week ending June. 26. The median list price of $450,000 was down 3.2% year over year and flat over the prior month. Some major metros were bucking the trend, led by Chicago at 7.3% annual growth, Atlanta (+3.2%) and Miami (+3.1%).

“National house prices are making history in slow motion,” Mark Fleming, chief economist at First American, said in commentary released this week. “While annual house price growth remains below 1 percent, the price level reached a new historical peak this month. Unlike the pandemic-era housing boom, when double-digit appreciation quickly pushed prices higher, today’s record reflects the cumulative effect of small monthly gains rather than rapid price acceleration.

“Although inventory continues to increase compared with a year ago, the pace of inventory growth nationally has moderated, and supply remains below pre-pandemic norms, limiting both upward and downward pressure on prices.”

Cotality’s analysis also found muted home-price growth of 0.3% for the year ending in March. But it concluded that the “national housing market is masking a widening divide” as there is sharp movement at the local level.

Home prices in San Francisco were up 8.1% from January to April, Cotality said, followed by Newark, New Jersey (+6.4%); Boston (+5.9%) and Rochester, New York (+4.3%). At the other end of the spectrum, prices declined in other markets during the four-month period, led by Cape Coral, Florida (-4.7%); New York City (-2.3%); Buffalo, New York (-2.1%); and Washington, D.C. (-1.3%).

“Home price appreciation is pushing more homeowners above long-standing capital gains tax exclusion thresholds, increasing the share of sellers who owe taxes when they move,” Cotality said. “Those thresholds, $250,000 for single filers and $500,000 for married couples, have remained unchanged since the late 1990s, despite significant gains in home values.

“Cotality analysis shows roughly one in 12 sellers now exceed these limits, with the burden most pronounced in high-cost markets like California. As a result, more owners are staying put, limiting resale supply even as prices remain elevated.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Hometap is expanding its home equity investment product (HEI) into five additional states, extending its reach to markets that represent more than half of U.S. homeowners.

The Boston-based financial technology company announced Tuesday that its HEI product is now available in Georgia, Montana, Tennessee, Idaho and Delaware.

CEO Jeffrey Glass told HousingWire that the company chose the states after seeing strong consumer demand there. Nearly 10,000 homeowners in the five states contacted Hometap over the past two years seeking alternatives to traditional home equity financing, he said.

“Homeowners are facing rising insurance premiums, higher property taxes and increasing maintenance costs, and traditional loan options don’t work for many of them,” Glass said. He said the company also weighs regulatory considerations and market size before entering a new state.

The expansion comes as homeowners continue to look for alternatives to home equity loans and cash-out refinancing, particularly in a higher interest rate environment.

Hometap‘s HEI product provides homeowners with cash in exchange for a share of their home’s future value. Unlike traditional home equity loans, the product requires no monthly payments. Homeowners repay the investment when they sell or refinance the home, or at the end of a 10-year term, with no prepayment penalty for settling earlier.

Consumers call for alternatives

“The details differ by state, but the underlying story is the same: home values have climbed significantly, and the costs of staying in those homes have climbed right alongside them, while wages haven’t kept pace,” Glass said, citing recent data from ATTOM and Cotality showing property taxes in Georgia have climbed more than 50% since 2019, while nearly half of homes in Tennessee and more than half of mortgaged homes in Idaho are considered equity-rich.

In Montana, home values have risen substantially faster than wages, while Delaware has one of the nation’s fastest-growing mortgage debt burdens.

“The opportunity we see is giving homeowners a flexible way to access their equity,” Glass said.

The company cited a recent survey showing growing consumer interest in alternatives to conventional borrowing. According to the survey, 75% of homeowners said they want options beyond traditional mortgages and home equity loans, while nearly 80% described the process of accessing home equity as outdated or difficult.

The survey also found that 87% of respondents would prefer to access their home equity without taking on monthly payment obligations.

Hometap also pointed to data from the Urban Institute showing that 35% of mortgage applications seeking to extract home equity were denied in 2024.

Response to regulatory concerns

Home equity investment products have drawn scrutiny from some consumer advocates, who argue homeowners may not fully understand the amount of future home appreciation they are giving up. Glass said Hometap has sought to address these concerns by simplifying its pricing model, providing online calculators, requiring investment managers to explain multiple repayment scenarios and encouraging customers to consult financial advisers before closing.

Homeowners also receive disclosure documents before closing and a three-day rescission period, he said.

“Our commitment doesn’t end at closing: homeowners have ongoing access to their dashboard to monitor their investment status and model settlement scenarios, along with monthly newsletters and quarterly account statements,” Glass added.

Glass said Hometap plans to continue expanding “responsibly” into additional states, with future launches depending on homeowner demand, regulatory conditions and market opportunities.

“We’re continuously evaluating new markets, and the same framework applies: we’re looking at homeowner demand, regulatory alignment, and opportunity scalability. Each state often has its own nuances. Sometimes it’s a regulatory question about how HEIs are treated under existing law; sometimes it’s a matter of working through requirements needed in a new market,” he said. “What I can say is that we’re committed to reaching more homeowners across the U.S. We tripled our state count between 2019 and today, but we’re not done.”

The expansion follows Hometap’s announcement earlier this month of a new pricing structure intended to simplify and broaden access to its home equity investment products.

This post was originally published on here. 

LodeStar Software Solutions, a provider of mortgage closing cost and fee data, said that purchase loan closing costs at the national level fell 2.9% year over year in 2025, driven largely by declining home prices that reduced transfer tax burdens in many markets.

The findings, which come from the company’s Year-Over-Year Mortgage Closing Cost Report, published Tuesday, compare 2024 and 2025 data across all 50 states and the District of Columbia using quotes generated through its closing cost calculator platform.

Overall, 27 states and D.C. saw declines in closing costs, while 23 recorded increases.

The most significant change occurred in Washington, D.C., where closing costs dropped 21.1%. LodeStar said the decline was tied to lower average home prices, which reduced transfer tax costs in a jurisdiction known for some of the highest such fees in the country.

Despite the drop, D.C. still ranks as the most expensive market nationally in dollar terms for closing costs.

Delaware saw the largest increase, with closing costs rising 4.5% as home prices edged higher. The state also remained the most expensive in the country relative to sale price at 3.06%.

Other findings from the report showed refinance activity rising 7.8% year over year, with refinance closing costs averaging less than half those associated with purchase loans.

LodeStar also found that refinance costs were notably higher in New York and Florida, where taxes are structured around loan or note amounts rather than property transfers, affecting both purchase and refinance transactions.

In addition, the company said it’s seeing a growing trend of recording fees being redirected to fund non-real estate programs such as affordable housing and homelessness services, often with limited borrower awareness.

“The connection between closing costs and housing affordability is often overshadowed by other components of the equation, like interest rates and down payments,” said Ron Carvalho, director of data operations at LodeStar.

“However, our data shows that decisions made at the state level on recording taxes and document fees have a direct impact on borrowers’ total financial ability to purchase or refinance their home. Knowing what’s happening with these costs helps lenders provide accurate guidance to their borrowers in their homeownership journey.”

LodeStar said its dataset is drawn from its closing cost calculator platform used by mortgage lenders nationwide. Each record represents a distinct quote rather than a funded loan, and duplicate quotes for the same loan scenario are excluded.

Closing costs are reported both with and without recording fees and transfer taxes due to significant jurisdictional variation that can distort cross-state comparisons. The report uses state-level averages, and results may vary depending on loan amount, property value, transaction type and title provider selection. Average figures represent the mean of state-level averages.

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

This post was originally published on here. 

LodeStar Software Solutions, a provider of mortgage closing cost and fee data, said that purchase loan closing costs at the national level fell 2.9% year over year in 2025, driven largely by declining home prices that reduced transfer tax burdens in many markets.

The findings, which come from the company’s Year-Over-Year Mortgage Closing Cost Report, published Tuesday, compare 2024 and 2025 data across all 50 states and the District of Columbia using quotes generated through its closing cost calculator platform.

Overall, 27 states and D.C. saw declines in closing costs, while 23 recorded increases.

The most significant change occurred in Washington, D.C., where closing costs dropped 21.1%. LodeStar said the decline was tied to lower average home prices, which reduced transfer tax costs in a jurisdiction known for some of the highest such fees in the country.

Despite the drop, D.C. still ranks as the most expensive market nationally in dollar terms for closing costs.

Delaware saw the largest increase, with closing costs rising 4.5% as home prices edged higher. The state also remained the most expensive in the country relative to sale price at 3.06%.

Other findings from the report showed refinance activity rising 7.8% year over year, with refinance closing costs averaging less than half those associated with purchase loans.

LodeStar also found that refinance costs were notably higher in New York and Florida, where taxes are structured around loan or note amounts rather than property transfers, affecting both purchase and refinance transactions.

In addition, the company said it’s seeing a growing trend of recording fees being redirected to fund non-real estate programs such as affordable housing and homelessness services, often with limited borrower awareness.

“The connection between closing costs and housing affordability is often overshadowed by other components of the equation, like interest rates and down payments,” said Ron Carvalho, director of data operations at LodeStar.

“However, our data shows that decisions made at the state level on recording taxes and document fees have a direct impact on borrowers’ total financial ability to purchase or refinance their home. Knowing what’s happening with these costs helps lenders provide accurate guidance to their borrowers in their homeownership journey.”

LodeStar said its dataset is drawn from its closing cost calculator platform used by mortgage lenders nationwide. Each record represents a distinct quote rather than a funded loan, and duplicate quotes for the same loan scenario are excluded.

Closing costs are reported both with and without recording fees and transfer taxes due to significant jurisdictional variation that can distort cross-state comparisons. The report uses state-level averages, and results may vary depending on loan amount, property value, transaction type and title provider selection. Average figures represent the mean of state-level averages.

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

This post was originally published on here. 

For decades, leverage has been one of the greatest wealth-building tools available to real estate investors. The ability to control a large asset with a relatively small amount of cash has helped countless investors build portfolios, generate passive income and create long-term wealth.

But somewhere along the way, many investors began treating leverage itself as the investment strategy. In today’s market, that approach can be dangerous.

With property values near historic highs, interest rates significantly above the levels investors enjoyed during the 2010s and operating expenses continuing to climb, investors who maximize real estate leverage often discover that their “cash-flowing asset” produces little cash flow at all.

The difference between a successful rental property and a struggling one is often not the property itself—it is how much debt is attached to it.

Why buying right matters more than ever

Older generations of investors often referenced the “1% Rule.” The concept was simple: A rental property should generate monthly rent equal to at least 1% of the total acquisition cost, including renovations.

A property purchased and renovated for $200,000 should ideally generate $2,000 per month in rent. The rule was never perfect, but it served as a useful screening tool because it provided a margin of safety.

Today’s investors face a much different environment.

Rapid appreciation over the last several years has pushed property values higher than rents in many markets. As a result, finding properties that meet the 1% benchmark has become increasingly difficult. Many investors respond by accepting lower returns while simultaneously increasing real estate leverage to make deals work.

That combination can be particularly dangerous.

When investors pay premium prices and then finance 75%, 80% or even more of the property’s value, they leave little room for error if rents soften, vacancies increase or unexpected repairs occur.

The expenses many investors underestimate

One of the most common mistakes made by new investors is focusing solely on the mortgage payment while ignoring the true cost of ownership. 

Rental properties generate far more expenses than principal and interest payments. Owners must account for:

• Property taxes
• Insurance
• Maintenance and repairs
• Capital expenditures
• Vacancy losses
• Leasing costs
• Property management
• Legal and accounting expenses
• Utilities and common-area costs (multifamily)

In practice, operating expenses consume a significant portion of rental revenue. Industry benchmarks often place multifamily operating expense ratios between approximately 35% and 50% of gross income, with many larger or older properties trending toward the higher end of that range.

Single-family rentals vary considerably by market and property type, but many investors underestimate how much income is lost to taxes, insurance, maintenance, vacancy and reserves over time. Industry analyses commonly place operating expenses in the 35% to 50% range before debt service.

The problem is not merely expenses. The problem occurs when investors layer excessive debt on top of those expenses.

A property may appear profitable before financing costs, yet become a break-even or negative-cash-flow investment once a highly leveraged mortgage is added.

The BRRRR strategy’s most overlooked risk

Few investing strategies have gained more popularity than BRRRR: Buy, Rehab, Rent, Refinance, Repeat. At its best, a BRRRR strategy can be an effective method for recycling capital and expanding a rental portfolio. At its worst, it can encourage investors to extract every dollar of available equity from a property.

Many BRRRR investors focus heavily on one question: “How much cash can I pull out during the refinance?”

A better question may be: “How much debt should I leave on the property?”

The refinance stage is where many investors unintentionally create future problems.

By refinancing to the maximum loan-to-value ratio, investors increase monthly debt service while reducing future cash flow. What initially feels like a successful refinance can become a long-term burden if rents fail to rise as projected or expenses exceed expectations.

The irony is that many investors celebrate getting all of their cash back out of a deal while ignoring the cumulative cost of doing so.

The transaction costs nobody talks about

Every stage of a heavily leveraged real estate investment carries costs.

An investor may incur:

• Acquisition closing costs
• Loan origination fees
• Hard-money interest
• Construction financing costs
• Appraisal fees
• Refinance closing costs
• Title expenses
• Recording fees
• Additional lender reserves

Individually, these costs may seem manageable. Collectively, they can consume tens of thousands of dollars.

Many investors become so focused on recovering their original cash investment that they overlook the fact that every refinance effectively restarts portions of the financing process and adds new transaction expenses. Over time, these costs reduce overall returns and increase the amount of leverage attached to the asset.

Cash flow is more important than maximum leverage

The ultimate purpose of a rental property is not simply to own real estate. It is to produce sustainable returns.

A property that generates strong, consistent cash flow with moderate leverage is often a superior investment to a highly leveraged property with little or no monthly profit.

Investors should stress-test every acquisition by asking:

• What happens if rents decline?
• What happens if vacancy doubles?
• What happens if insurance increases?
• What happens if a major repair occurs during the first year?
• What happens if interest rates remain elevated longer than expected?

If the investment only works under perfect conditions, it may not work at all.

A margin of safety never goes out of style

Real estate investing has always rewarded patience and discipline.

The investors who survive multiple housing market cycles are rarely the ones who maximize real estate leverage. They are typically the ones who maintain adequate reserves, buy at reasonable prices, and leave enough equity in their properties to withstand unexpected challenges.

In today’s environment of elevated values, higher borrowing costs and increasing operating expenses, conservative underwriting is no longer optional.

The goal should not be to borrow the most money possible. The goal should be to build a portfolio that remains profitable even when things do not go according to plan.

Because in real estate investing, leverage can accelerate wealth creation—but it can accelerate mistakes just as quickly.

Jesse Brewer is a local county commissioner in Boone County, Kentucky, and has been serving his constituents for 8 years. 
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. 

For decades, leverage has been one of the greatest wealth-building tools available to real estate investors. The ability to control a large asset with a relatively small amount of cash has helped countless investors build portfolios, generate passive income and create long-term wealth.

But somewhere along the way, many investors began treating leverage itself as the investment strategy. In today’s market, that approach can be dangerous.

With property values near historic highs, interest rates significantly above the levels investors enjoyed during the 2010s and operating expenses continuing to climb, investors who maximize real estate leverage often discover that their “cash-flowing asset” produces little cash flow at all.

The difference between a successful rental property and a struggling one is often not the property itself—it is how much debt is attached to it.

Why buying right matters more than ever

Older generations of investors often referenced the “1% Rule.” The concept was simple: A rental property should generate monthly rent equal to at least 1% of the total acquisition cost, including renovations.

A property purchased and renovated for $200,000 should ideally generate $2,000 per month in rent. The rule was never perfect, but it served as a useful screening tool because it provided a margin of safety.

Today’s investors face a much different environment.

Rapid appreciation over the last several years has pushed property values higher than rents in many markets. As a result, finding properties that meet the 1% benchmark has become increasingly difficult. Many investors respond by accepting lower returns while simultaneously increasing real estate leverage to make deals work.

That combination can be particularly dangerous.

When investors pay premium prices and then finance 75%, 80% or even more of the property’s value, they leave little room for error if rents soften, vacancies increase or unexpected repairs occur.

The expenses many investors underestimate

One of the most common mistakes made by new investors is focusing solely on the mortgage payment while ignoring the true cost of ownership. 

Rental properties generate far more expenses than principal and interest payments. Owners must account for:

• Property taxes
• Insurance
• Maintenance and repairs
• Capital expenditures
• Vacancy losses
• Leasing costs
• Property management
• Legal and accounting expenses
• Utilities and common-area costs (multifamily)

In practice, operating expenses consume a significant portion of rental revenue. Industry benchmarks often place multifamily operating expense ratios between approximately 35% and 50% of gross income, with many larger or older properties trending toward the higher end of that range.

Single-family rentals vary considerably by market and property type, but many investors underestimate how much income is lost to taxes, insurance, maintenance, vacancy and reserves over time. Industry analyses commonly place operating expenses in the 35% to 50% range before debt service.

The problem is not merely expenses. The problem occurs when investors layer excessive debt on top of those expenses.

A property may appear profitable before financing costs, yet become a break-even or negative-cash-flow investment once a highly leveraged mortgage is added.

The BRRRR strategy’s most overlooked risk

Few investing strategies have gained more popularity than BRRRR: Buy, Rehab, Rent, Refinance, Repeat. At its best, a BRRRR strategy can be an effective method for recycling capital and expanding a rental portfolio. At its worst, it can encourage investors to extract every dollar of available equity from a property.

Many BRRRR investors focus heavily on one question: “How much cash can I pull out during the refinance?”

A better question may be: “How much debt should I leave on the property?”

The refinance stage is where many investors unintentionally create future problems.

By refinancing to the maximum loan-to-value ratio, investors increase monthly debt service while reducing future cash flow. What initially feels like a successful refinance can become a long-term burden if rents fail to rise as projected or expenses exceed expectations.

The irony is that many investors celebrate getting all of their cash back out of a deal while ignoring the cumulative cost of doing so.

The transaction costs nobody talks about

Every stage of a heavily leveraged real estate investment carries costs.

An investor may incur:

• Acquisition closing costs
• Loan origination fees
• Hard-money interest
• Construction financing costs
• Appraisal fees
• Refinance closing costs
• Title expenses
• Recording fees
• Additional lender reserves

Individually, these costs may seem manageable. Collectively, they can consume tens of thousands of dollars.

Many investors become so focused on recovering their original cash investment that they overlook the fact that every refinance effectively restarts portions of the financing process and adds new transaction expenses. Over time, these costs reduce overall returns and increase the amount of leverage attached to the asset.

Cash flow is more important than maximum leverage

The ultimate purpose of a rental property is not simply to own real estate. It is to produce sustainable returns.

A property that generates strong, consistent cash flow with moderate leverage is often a superior investment to a highly leveraged property with little or no monthly profit.

Investors should stress-test every acquisition by asking:

• What happens if rents decline?
• What happens if vacancy doubles?
• What happens if insurance increases?
• What happens if a major repair occurs during the first year?
• What happens if interest rates remain elevated longer than expected?

If the investment only works under perfect conditions, it may not work at all.

A margin of safety never goes out of style

Real estate investing has always rewarded patience and discipline.

The investors who survive multiple housing market cycles are rarely the ones who maximize real estate leverage. They are typically the ones who maintain adequate reserves, buy at reasonable prices, and leave enough equity in their properties to withstand unexpected challenges.

In today’s environment of elevated values, higher borrowing costs and increasing operating expenses, conservative underwriting is no longer optional.

The goal should not be to borrow the most money possible. The goal should be to build a portfolio that remains profitable even when things do not go according to plan.

Because in real estate investing, leverage can accelerate wealth creation—but it can accelerate mistakes just as quickly.

Jesse Brewer is a local county commissioner in Boone County, Kentucky, and has been serving his constituents for 8 years. 
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. 

I watched mortgage leaders embrace AI at The Gathering in Austin. And for good reason: The tools are getting good, the productivity math is starting to math and the competitive pressure is doing what classic IMB horse races do. I left more bullish about AI in the industry than when I arrived.

I also left with a concern that I didn’t hear enough airing. The AI conversation in mortgage is currently first-order focused: efficiency, automation, cost reduction. The harder question of how to instill confidence across the many constituencies that must trust these systems has yet to hit the headlines.

Regulatory confidence is one of those constituencies. Capital markets is another that operates on a shorter clock. Investors price execution confidence directly, without waiting for an examination to show up in spreads and bids. The industry has had binges before – let’s figure out how to prevent the hangover. 

The pattern, and the pause

Credit scoring and fair lending. Quantitative models and the financial crisis. Fintech partnerships and third-party risk. The plot is consistent: new capabilities outpace governance, leading to loss events, followed by regulation written around the worst observed behaviors. Those who built governance before the barn doors closed wrote their own narratives. Those who did not had it written for them.

The AI cycle is a breathtakingly up-tempo game whose pace is only quickening. Up-tempo play creates coverage gaps. In our industry, compliance is coverage. And we are only starting to see the broken coverage.

Four things I observed at The Gathering gave me reason for concern, ordered by how directly they touch the regulated core of the business.

1. Vendors casually dismiss how AI implementations brush up against RESPA, ECOA and Fair Lending. These are not background constraints; they define the structure inside which any decision affecting a borrower’s price, product fit or approval must be defensible at that moment. The lenders buying these tools own the regulatory exposure regardless of how the vendor characterizes the product.
2. A proliferation of point AI solutions with no coherent lender strategy. Every vendor on the demo floor had its own AI implementation in its own corner of the workflow. The architectural question of which layers of the stack are appropriate homes for probabilistic AI, and which require deterministic commitments that probabilistic systems are incompatible with, is not being asked. Every lender is making locally rational vendor decisions that, in aggregate, produce a model risk and fair lending surface area no one has mapped.
3. The emergence of Model Context Protocol (MCP) layers across platforms, opening broader AI tool access in ways most have yet to register – agentic promiscuity? AI capability is no longer arriving as a discrete product. It is arriving as an interface inside something else. A governance program built for a world of discrete vendor AI tools is already obsolete for the world in which it is being deployed.
4. Pervasive personification masks real gaps in accountability. “AI will review the file. AI will flag the exception.” Models do not bear regulatory obligations. Institutions do. Every “AI will” sentence describes an action that, when an examiner or litigant arrives, will need to be traceable to a person, a control or an artifact.

A different first principle

The operating principle today – unstated but real – is deploy fast, govern later. The hangover is what gets built when that approach collides with post-mortem examination or enforcement. The principle I am proposing is scalable, compliant AI adoption. Not slower deployment, but a different underlying foundation, with a more precise unit of analysis.

Scalably compliant means governance infrastructure that is proportionate to systemic consequence, built at the layer where decisions are actually made and designed to adapt as both AI deployment and regulatory expectations evolve, rather than governance retrofitted after the fact to the worst observed behavior.

The examination frameworks governing mortgage lending were designed around visible, document-level artifacts: the loan file, the disclosure, the appraisal. Those are the right units for a world of human decision points and paper audit trails. They are the wrong units for a world where consequential decisions are being made one layer beneath them; in model weights, confidence thresholds and agentic handoffs that no examination manual currently names. Governance drawn at the wrong boundary produces the compounding error of over-restricting what doesn’t need it while under-governing what does.

In practice, scalably compliant means three things. First, know what you have, including what arrived as a feature in a platform upgrade or was activated when a vendor updated a product you’ve used for years. This inventory has to be a live register, not an episodic exercise. Knowing what’s in your shop creates a firebreak that doesn’t just protect upward, it licenses execution velocity downward. The institutions treating this as a compliance exercise are solving half the problem. The institutions treating it as infrastructure are building a competitive asset.

Second, govern the vendor relationship, not just the vendor contract. The regulatory obligation – fair lending testing, adverse action documentation, ongoing monitoring – sits with the institution regardless of who built the model. Most contracts today don’t provide model documentation, right-to-audit or cooperation when regulators come. Fixable now. Meaningfully harder once switching costs are high.

Third, build to principles, not to rules. The specific rules will change. Governance built around transparency, auditability, accountability and resilience survives those changes. Governance built around specific rules becomes obsolete the day the rule is revised.

The regulatory channel is the threat most governance programs are designed to see. It moves slowly –  exams, findings, remediation cycles. The capital markets channel moves faster and doesn’t announce itself. When investors and counterparties begin to question the integrity of AI-enabled origination processes, the signal arrives as spread widening and tightening bid interest, not as a formal inquiry.

Scalably compliant governance is not just a posture toward regulators. It is the operational evidence that capital markets counterparties need to sustain execution confidence in an environment where they are increasingly sophisticated about how loans are made.

The question to take back

Every leader will leave the AI Summit later this summer with a list of AI tools to deploy or refine. That list needs to be paired with answers to a harder question: if a regulator, or a counterparty conducting diligence, asked you tomorrow to produce your AI governance file, how long would it take, and who would you call?

Worth saying plainly: Scalably compliant is not a synonym for cautious. Overcorrection and undercorrection can produce the same strategic outcome. Indiscriminate restrictions without credible substitutes are their own form of paralysis. And unlike an enforcement action, paralysis generates no incident report and no visible cost. The deployment simply doesn’t happen at the pace it needed to, and the competitive window closes quietly. The goal is precision: concentrate governance where systemic consequences are highest, accept managed exposure where they aren’t and sequence investment so that governing the decision-logic layer enables rather than constrains everything beneath it.

If the answer is uncomfortable, it is not too late. The binge is the deployment. The hangover accumulates under adversarial conditions because the deployment ran ahead of governance. One is happening already. The other is still optional.

 Marvin Chang is Executive in Residence and Associate Director of the Master of Engineering in FinTech program at Duke University’s Pratt School of Engineering, and Principal of Mercer Knoll Strategies.

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. 

At the start of 2026, many homebuilding industry leaders anticipated that falling mortgage rates would revitalize consumer interest. Instead, rates have remained stubbornly elevated, with the 30-year fixed rate expected to stay in the 6%-6.5% range over the next three years. Home price appreciation has moderated, and consumer confidence has softened, creating a spring selling season that has fallen short of expectations.

With fewer opportunities to grow through volume alone, many builders are shifting their attention to the focus they can control. Rather than waiting for market conditions to improve, they’re focusing on increasing operational efficiency in homebuilding, reducing unnecessary costs and improving homebuilder margins throughout the process. 

Reclaiming profit through smarter design

For many builders, margin erosion begins long before construction starts. Over time, floor plan libraries often become fragmented as similar plans are modified, renamed and duplicated across divisions. That complexity creates downstream challenges for estimating, purchasing and construction, increasing the likelihood of material waste, pricing inconsistencies and costly rework. 

Spatial AI is helping builders simplify that process by standardizing product offerings and generating more accurate material takeoffs earlier in the design process. Instead of continually expanding plan libraries, builders can focus on repeatable products that improve estimating accuracy, purchasing efficiency and field execution.

As a result, many builders are prioritizing technology that improves execution and reduces rework rather than simply driving additional sales volume.

Reducing carrying costs before construction begins

Financing costs are rising, and construction material costs increased 9.6% over the past year. Every additional day spent in permitting increases carrying costs and delays revenue. In today’s higher-rate environment, builders have far less room to absorb schedule overruns, making every week saved in preconstruction more financially meaningful.

Automating plan generation and creating permit-ready documentation tailored to local jurisdictions can help reduce friction throughout the review process. Shortening the time between contract and construction lowers carrying costs, improves capital efficiency and helps builders recognize revenue sooner without increasing home prices.

Connected workflows create operational leverage

Efficiency gains don’t stop with design and permitting. Sales, drafting, purchasing and construction often work from different versions of project information, creating manual updates, communication gaps and costly downstream errors.

“For decades, homebuilding has relied on teams passing drawings, spreadsheets, and PDFs from one department to the next,” said Conor Sedam, former homebuilder and Director of Strategic Partnerships. “The next generation of builders is replacing those handoffs with intelligent building data. When a home is generated as 3D spatial data, design, estimating, sales, and construction all work from the same living model, eliminating rework, reducing costly mistakes, and protecting margin through the product lifecycle.”

When buyer selections automatically update drafting plans, purchasing orders and construction schedules, every department works from the same source of truth. Eliminating manual handoffs reduces errors and allows builders to accomplish more without adding headcount.

Looking ahead: Improving homebuilder margins

As financing pressures continue into 2026 and construction material costs remain elevated, protecting homebuilder margins will depend less on market recovery and more on operational execution. 

“Builders can’t control mortgage rates or consumer confidence, but they can control how efficiently they deliver a home,” said Sedam. “The companies protecting margins today aren’t waiting for demand to return; they’re using this period to optimize their product portfolio, standardize operations, and remove unnecessary complexity. When the market rebounds, they’ll be positioned to grow without adding overhead.”

Within an ever-changing market, operational efficiency in homebuilding is rising as the ultimate competitive edge. Builders that streamline design, accelerate permitting and connect workflows will be better positioned to preserve profitability today and scale efficiently when demand returns.

Click Here

This post was originally published on here. 

A national survey commissioned by LogicMark Inc. paints a stark picture of the nation’s caregiving crisis, finding that 90% of family caregivers report symptoms of burnout. And younger adults, particularly Gen Z, are carrying an outsized share of the burden.

The survey, conducted in April 2026 by Talker Research among 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide, comes as roughly 63 million Americans — or nearly one in four adults — are serving as family caregivers.

Researchers found that 20% of caregivers describe their burnout as severe. The findings challenge long-held assumptions about who is most affected by caregiving. Gen Z caregivers reported greater professional and personal strain than older generations.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents said that caregiving hurts their job performance, compared with 44% of millennials and 45% of Gen X respondents. Half of Gen Z respondents said caregiving has damaged personal relationships, exceeding the rates reported by millennials (41%) and Gen X (38%).

“Most people picture caregiving as a middle-aged concern and, alarmingly, they are avoiding conversations around this phenomenon,” said Chia-Lin Simmons, CEO of LogicMark. “The data says something totally different. Gen Z adults are quietly carrying one of the heaviest loads, and doing it without paid leave, any financial cushion or the support systems older generations had time to build. This is a generational emergency hiding in plain sight.”

Financial strain, cost of care

The survey also highlights the economic consequences of caregiving.

Nearly three in four respondents said caregiving has had or will have a significant impact on their financial stability, while 67% reported a direct effect on their careers.

Women and younger caregivers were among the groups most likely to report financial and professional setbacks — and lower-income families were disproportionately represented among caregivers facing the greatest strain.

These pressures are occurring alongside rising long-term care costs and limited institutional capacity.

Industry experts have warned that shortages in skilled nursing and assisted living are pushing more families toward in-home care as a necessity rather than a preference, even as home environments often require costly modifications.

Men were more likely to describe caregiving as rewarding while women were more likely to describe it as overwhelming and worrying. Women also reported greater concern about their own future care needs, with 43% saying they frequently think about the impact on their families, compared with 29% of men.

When asked about their greatest fear, caregivers most often cited a loved one refusing help, selected by 29% of respondents.

Aging in place is a structural reality

That shift is fueling growth in aging-in-place technology — a trend increasingly tied to housing economics and health care delivery.

Experts say American homes are not typically designed for long-term accessibility, with some estimating that fewer than 5% of U.S. homes are fully suitable for aging in place without modifications.

Cameron Carter, founder and CEO of Rosarium Health, recently told HousingWire that most families do not recognize the issue until a health crisis forces it.

“There’s a misunderstanding of who the buyer is,” he said. “There’s still an assumption that we build homes and when someone turns 65, they sell it to a family in their early 30s who is going to renovate it for aesthetic needs. Then they’re going to live the next 30 years and it’s just going to rinse and repeat.”

Carter argued that aging in place is becoming less about lifestyle choice and more about financial necessity as institutional care costs rise and waitlists for assisted living grow.

“You’re trying to find ways to age in place before you’ll even be able to get into preferred institutional care,” he said, citing growing delays in access to long-term care facilities.

Technology and the home as care infrastructure

More than three-quarters (77%) of caregivers in the LogicMark survey said they would embrace or try AI-powered health monitoring systems for a loved one.

That openness aligns with a broader shift in how experts view the home itself.

At a recent meeting of the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association, experts described a growing ecosystem of aging technology — from passive monitoring systems to transportation services and medication management tools — designed to keep older adults safely at home.

“Technology is not a panacea; it’s not a perfect solution, but it will play a part in the shortages that we face for health care providers,” said Chris Spearman, chief strategy officer for ScaleHealth. “Many of those shortages are being addressed at home because we don’t have enough places to put people.

“We’re far beyond grab rails, wider doorways and safety infrastructure. … New technologies can really take the home from being a place of entrapment or burden to a place that can help you live longer, healthier, more satisfying lives.”

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 phone rang on Sept. 8, 2022, and Britany Boatwright put the doctor on speakerphone, expecting routine news from a second biopsy.

Instead, she heard words that would redefine everything; breast cancer.

Sitting in her office with her director of operations planning a team meeting, Boatwright’s first thought wasn’t about her brokerage or her growing real estate business. It was about her 6-month-old son, Malcolm.

“He needs me, he seeks my soul. I can’t imagine living without my mom as a kid, you know,” Boatwright recalled in a conversation with HousingWire.

Just months earlier, she had launched a boutique brokerage with the grand opening weeks away. Her team was growing. Her vision was expanding.

Today, Boatwright leads MaX House, brokered by eXp Realty, which reported $103.32 million in 2025 volume across 264 transaction sides to RealTrends Verified.

Those numbers were good enough for No. 4 in sales volume and No. 5 in transactions sides, ranking among mega teams in Tennessee. MaX House affiliated with eXp in June of last year.

After studying psychology and education at the University of Tennessee (UT), Boatwright sensed that she was destined for an alternate career path.

“I just knew I was great at talking to people and caring, and I went to school initially to be a teacher and also I studied psychology,” she said. “I’ve always loved to understand the inner workings of people, like, ‘Why do you think you behave the way you do?’ Very fascinating stuff. But then, when I graduated from UT, I quickly realized I did not want to be in the classroom setting.”

She also worked with AmeriCorps in inner-city schools before an internship at State Farm proved to be an initial step toward real estate.

Boatwright became a top producer across auto, casualty, life and health insurance lines — buying her first home in early 2017.

However, that transaction left her with a sense that something was lacking.

“I didn’t feel like my agent did that much and was sure I could provide a much better experience to clients,” Boatwright  said. “So, I just started to get my real estate license, and I got that June 19, 2017. My mom thought I was absolutely insane to quit a full-time job and have a mortgage and to say, ‘Hey, I’m going to be unemployed, we’ll see how this goes.’”

The Boattright Group launched in June 2021 and by 2022, she had opened her own team.

Then came the diagnosis that forced her to confront whether she could — or should — continue growing her real estate presence.

The staging appointment

Boatwright’s mother had breast cancer and her aunt died from stage four breast cancer in the 1990s.

Her family history prompted doctors to take her concerns seriously when her husband urged her to call the breast clinic after their son kicked her in the chest.

The staging report delivered worse news than expected. The tumor measured 8 centimeters and had spread to a lymph node.

“Do me a favor and don’t look up numbers based on that again,” Boatwright recalled the doctor saying. “My husband leans towards science, and he’s going to go look and see the data is, so he Googles and then he freaks out.”

At that point, Boatwright was ready to abandon her business plans.

“I didn’t want to open up a firm. I was about to have to fight for my life,” she said. “I was thinking, ‘I can’t do this all. I can’t raise a son who just turned six months, fight for my life and have a brokerage. I just can’t do it.”

A coach’s call changed everything

Boatwright’s coach called unexpectedly that day — connecting her with a Florida team leader who had survived cancer.

“You don’t have to sacrifice one for the other, and at the end of this, you have a really great story, and you’ll write a book one day,” Boatwright said the coach told her.

The advice was practical; identify top producers, formalize training systems and limit direct interactions with personnel.

“[The Florida team leader] and I talked that Saturday,” Boatwright said. “I still live by her advice to this day.  It started with identifying people to replace my production because I was still a producing team leader, like most team leaders start out as.

“I was like, ‘I have all new agents, I wasn’t attracting producers at that point.’”

Boatwright followed through with the plan and her grand opening Sept. 19, 2022 — the same day she underwent full-body scans to determine if the cancer had spread.

Only four people in the crowd knew she what she was dealing with.

“I think that people thought that I was crying because I was first generation for everything, going to college, buying a home, having a business,” Boatwright said. “There’s been a lot of stuff in my background that I’ve had to overcome.”

Chemo and clarity

Boatwright began chemotherapy shortly after he 2022 diagnosis.

Her first four rounds are nicknamed “the Red Devil” in the medical community — with particularly harsh side effects. The oncologist told her upfront the treatment only worked about 30% of the time for her hormone-positive cancer.

“I told them to throw the kitchen sink at it, because I have a whole lot of life ahead of me and I had a baby at home,” Boatwright said.

She had chemotherapy at least every other Thursday while maintaining a regular office schedule and keeping her diagnosis hidden from most colleagues.

That was until Dec. 29, 2022, when she rang the bell signaling the end of treatment.

“A lot of the real estate community did not know until I shared with them that December,” said Boatwright. “They said, ‘You showed up online. You showed up to trainings. You were at the Halloween party.

“You were signing listings, your team was growing and you guys were breaking records. What do you mean you were just going through cancer treatment?’”

The good news

In January 2023, follow-up scans delivered an unexpected result.

“We cannot see any trace of cancer in your body,” Boatwright said doctors told her. “That said the chemo did its job.”

On Feb. 9, 2023, Boatwright underwent a bilateral mastectomy. Surgeons couldn’t find the cancer trail when they put dye in before surgery. Pathology reports confirmed it — no signs of cancer remained.

“I must have over 10,000 photos and videos of my son, because with his first year of life, I didn’t remember a lot of it,” she said. “People will now ask me, ‘How did you manage all that?’ I’m like, ‘I had the most joyful thing to come home to; a smiling, freaking happy, fat baby.’ He kept me grounded and pushing forward.”

Boatwright later learned she is BRCA2 positive, increasing her risk for ovarian, liver, pancreatic and skin cancers — later having surgery to remove her ovaries and fallopian tubes.

“Going into menopause as a 33-year-old woman, I’m like, ‘I don’t know how I did all this stuff,’” she said.

Advice for others

Boatwright is now more than six months off her two-year medication and continues taking a 10-year pill.

She’s also writing a book called “The Five-Year Fire” — a reference to the five-year survival mark many cancer survivors chase.

Today, Boatwright runs a $100 million team, watches her son grow and is thriving with agents who share her vision.

While taking pride in her ability to fight through a life-threatening ordeal, she’s thankful for support that stretched across her real estate and personal life.

“The day I got diagnosed, I went to this networking group for women at a local church I’ve never been to,” she said. “My neighbor invited me. They’re like, ‘How can we pray for y’all today?’ I just met them that one time and they delivered dinner to my house every Thursday when I was going through chemo.

“They had something at my door. They sent me flowers. They checked in on me and sent care packages, hydration packages, everything. Get a community that understands you’re going through and will hold you close.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. provided new details on Monday regarding the homeownership platform it plans to build, a few weeks after entering the real estate space with its $53.4 million acquisition of Fathom Holdings Inc.

The management team — led by chairman and CEO Marcus Lemonis — outlined in a paper that over the next year, the company plans to test at least three pilots built around municipal partnerships, consumer-facing valuation tools and home services delivery. The moves align the company with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a bill that sits on President Donald Trump’s desk after passing in Congress last week.

The road map explicitly ties the company’s future to what it describes as “21st-century housing” and places its ambitions alongside data-driven competitors such as Zillow.

“For decades, the housing economy has been treated like a series of disconnected events,” Lemonis wrote. “We believe that we should not read this as a narrow housing bill but rather as a market signal that the future of homeownership will be more data-driven, more transparent, more locally informed, more connected to services, more connected to finance, and more dependent on trusted operating partners. That is exactly where we see our future business model.”

Strategic initiatives

Bed Bath & Beyond plans a “Neighborhood Intelligence” pilot with municipalities and developers, using neighborhood scorecards, public land and infill mapping, and housing demand analytics.

It will also launch a “Home Value Guide” consumer pilot tied to renovation return on investment and home services, as well as “Beyond Home Services,” a pilot expected to focus on repair or renovation work targeted at aging housing stock, affordable homeownership and disaster recovery.

By the end of year one, management expects to have either formal partnerships or active talks with community banks, credit unions, modular and manufactured housing operators, municipalities, housing authorities and service provider networks.

Over three years, the company’s stated destination is to become what it calls “America’s homeownership platform,” rather than a traditional retailer, a standalone services company or a pure data provider.

“Neighborhood Intelligence would tell us where demand exists, what a home is worth, what a neighborhood needs, where supply can be created, and what services will matter,” the paper explains.

“Beyond Omni would supply the products and commerce. Beyond Home Services would execute repairs, renovation, installation, organizing, moving, and maintenance. Beyond Home would become the long-term relationship with the homeowner. The Home Value Guide would become the daily reason for the homeowner to trust us. That is the company we should be building.”

Bed Bath & Beyond has strongly advanced into the homeownership space. The Fathom acquisition is part of an “Everything Home” strategy introduced in a letter sent to shareholders from Lemonis in early January 2026.

In the past six months, Bed Bath & Beyond has acquired Lumber Liquidators and Cabinets To Go parent company F9 Brands, as well as The Container Store, Installed Right and SFV Services.

The company said its proposed acquisition of Fathom Holdings adds to its homeownership and transactions pillar “by adding Fathom’s capabilities across brokerage, mortgage, title, insurance and homeowner financial services.” 

In February, its parent firm reached an agreement to acquire Tokens.com as part of its plan to launch an investment and personal finance platform, which will also offer home loans through a partnership with Figure Technologies.

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 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), amid months of uncertainty under the Trump administration, is moving to pursue changes to mortgage regulations, most recently by advancing a request for information (RFI) intended to expand access to mortgages.

The RFI was sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on June 22 and follows President Donald Trump’s March 13 executive orders aimed at opening the credit box — particularly for community banks with less than $30 billion in assets and smaller banks with less than $100 billion)

But with the CFPB operating with reduced staffing, mortgage industry experts said the bureau will need to prioritize.

“They would like to do a bigger rewrite of several things, but I don’t know that ultimately they’ll have time — or the capacity,” attorney Colgate Selden, a founding member of the CFPB and a shareholder at Baker Donelson, said in an interview with HousingWire.

Selden said the most realistic near-term changes are incremental — including tweaks to the loan officer compensation (LO Comp) rule adjustments to ability-to-repay (ATR) and timing changes to TRID (the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule). These updates would not require major technology overhauls.

A full TRID rewrite is unlikely in the near term, Selden said, because industry participants would likely push back given the cost of retooling compliance systems at a time of low volumes and tight margins.

The LO Comp rule is gaining traction, he added. Some sources see the topic not moving forward, but the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) has pushed for allowing lenders to reduce LO compensation when borrowers present competing loan estimates from unaffiliated companies. Selden said the bureau could consider allowing different compensation structures for state housing finance agency bond loans — an industry request that has circulated for years.

The CFPB did not immediately reply to HousingWire’s request for comments.

What’s harder to lift?

Kris Kully, a partner in Mayer Brown’s consumer financial services group, said the CFPB may use the RFI process to explore how the ATR rule could be tailored to small creditors such as community banks. This would potentially offer more flexibility when loans are held on balance sheets.

“They’ll also likely to address ways that they can open up the regulation to easier refinancing transactions,” Kully said. “Some refis, just by definition, put the borrower in a better position, but it’s pretty narrow in the regulation. So I would be very surprised if they don’t ask for information about how they can broaden that concept, making it easier for borrowers who want to refi.”

Kully said that with a smaller workforce, the bureau appears to be prioritizing items it can do “quickly and efficiently,” though some areas will be more difficult than others.

One example is the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). Trump’s executive order references easing HMDA reporting obligations, but prior attempts to scale back data collection drew litigation. which argued that the CFPB did not adequately support the changes with data gathering and cost-benefit analysis. With limited staff, building that record could be a heavier lift.

Industry experts also said ongoing litigation tied to CFPB layoffs could complicate deregulatory efforts.

In the latest development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a request by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to allow layoffs at the bureau to proceed while litigation continues. Instead, the court sent the case back to District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson to determine whether a preliminary injunction issued last year should be modified in light of the CFPB’s revised reduction-in-force plan and other developments.

Leadership and direction

Industry sources view Elie Greenbaum, an adviser to CFPB acting director Russell Vought, as a key point of contact on mortgage regulation. Greenbaum previously held senior roles on congressional committees and served at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), where he advised the secretary. At housing events, attendees said he has signaled openness to industry input.

Vought currently serves as both OMB director and acting CFPB director, meaning the RFI effectively goes from Vought to Vought.

Meanwhile, Brian Johnson — who is expected to be confirmed by the Senate before Vought’s term ends in August — is expected to pursue Vought’s agenda across regulation, supervision and enforcement, experts said. Johnson previously served as deputy director of the CFPB during Trump’s first term.

“The CFPB is concentrating on supervision activities that are more in the realm of corrective action and less in the realm of significant civil money penalties,” Kully said.

Selden said Johnson would represent a “return to a rule-of-law operating posture,” similar to the Mick Mulvaney and Kathy Kraninger eras, with enforcement focused on measurable consumer harm rather than technical or theoretical violations.

“There are people who wanted to shut the CFPB down,” Selden said. “But sometimes there’s a way of negotiating around Washington — there were also voices in the administration talking about having the right people at the agencies.”

This post was originally published on here. 

While the typical midwestern city doesn’t offer the glamor and sunshine of South Florida, the growth profile of the Carolinas, the tech pedigree of Austin or the music scene of Nashville, the Midwest can provide build-to-rent (BTR) developers strong rental growth and lower costs. 

Sun Belt markets have long dominated the BTR conversation, but a growing body of research suggests the Midwest may present the sector’s most compelling growth story in the years ahead. 

After navigating legislative uncertainty for much of 2026, the BTR industry may be set for renewed growth, thanks in part to the version of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act passed by Congress last week. While the bill still needs President Trump’s signature, it would strip out onerous provisions and bans that industry participants say have largely stalled BTR construction since the beginning of the year. 

With greater policy certainty potentially on the horizon, stakeholders may want to consider taking a close look at the Midwest, according to a new report from BTR developer Cavan Companies. 

The report argues that while the Sun Belt overpowered the most recent BTR growth era, the Midwest is ripe to offer investors and developers arguably the most reliable returns in the coming years. Specifically, the research claims that the strongest opportunity in the Midwest lies in low-density, professionally managed BTR communities. 

However, BTR is only part of the story. Multifamily investors and developers can also find attractive opportunities in the Midwest, supported by consistent returns, healthy rent growth and relative affordability. 

The Midwest advantage

While the Sun Belt continues to benefit from strong population and job growth, a wave of new build-to-rent supply has weighed on rents. The Midwest, by contrast, remains more balanced and is generating much stronger rental growth.

A Yardi Matrix May 2026 report, which found that national BTR rents fell a slight 0.1% year over year, underscored this trendline. Sun Belt and Mountain West markets like Austin, Phoenix, Denver, Greenville, DFW and San Antonio posted the biggest rental declines. However, markets with the highest rental growth were overwhelmingly located in the Midwest, with Chicago, South Dakota, Columbus, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Cleveland and Indianapolis leading the way. 

Cavan Companies’ report argues that the Midwest’s rent-growth advantage over the Sun Belt should persist for some time because Midwest construction pipelines remain relatively minimal, while high-growth Sun Belt markets continue working through excess supply.

To exemplify this, the report noted that the Midwest accounted for only about 13% of national BTR units under construction as of early 2026. Meanwhile, the Phoenix market alone had a pipeline roughly equivalent to the entire Midwest region combined. 

Beyond rental growth and supply constraints, the report highlighted several advantages that the Midwest offers BTR developers and investors:

• Lower land costs, which reduce overall project costs and lower breakeven rents.
• More measured supply pipelines, meaning fewer risks of oversupply and rent concessions.
• Diversified local economies, supported by industries such as healthcare, logistics, manufacturing and finance.
• Lower operating cost volatility, especially for taxes, insurance and labor.

Why low-density may reign supreme

The research also concluded that, in the Midwest, low-density communities with detached homes and cottage-style product types may offer the best returns. These communities typically have 8-10 units per acre with sub-1,400-square-foot homes that offer private yards, garages and shared amenities. 

Cavan Companies argued that this type of community is best positioned to serve the growing “renter-by-choice” demographic. Detached homes and cottages of this size generally appeal to renters who want a bit more space than an apartment but are not in the market for a for-sale home. 

This type of community also provides strong operational performance for a few main reasons:

• Turnover is low, at roughly 14–18% annually versus 20–30% for conventional multifamily communities. 
• Rent premiums of 10–20% are possible because residents value private yards, larger floor plans, and community amenities.
• Operating efficiencies improve through standardized floor plans, centralized maintenance and bulk purchasing.

As the report noted, these cottage-style, low-density communities are already quite common. The challenge is not in simply constructing these communities but in executing them at scale.

“The product is not complicated. What is complicated is executing it at scale with the site discipline, cost control, and leasing consistency that converts the format’s structural advantages into realized returns,” the report read. 

The report argued that differences in BTR performance increasingly come down to three main factors:

• Site selection: choosing markets with employment diversity, population growth, schools, and limited new supply.
• Cost control: accurate budgeting and construction management.
• Lease-up strategy: effective marketing, renewal management, and disciplined use of concessions.

The multifamily opportunity

The Midwest’s appeal extends beyond build-to-rent. According to Yardi Matrix, six of the ten U.S. markets with the strongest multifamily rent growth between May 2025 and May 2026 were located in the region. 

Similar supply dynamics are at play in the multifamily market. 

“We haven’t gotten out over our skis as far as deliveries of new units. Sure, we’re a little bit oversupplied, but if you juxtapose that to, say, Austin or Nashville, we’re way less oversupplied and more balanced,” Ivan Barratt, founder and CEO at BAM Capital Founder and CEO told HousingWire TBD. 

And Midwest markets, unlike the Sun Belt, offer more moderate yet consistent growth patterns. 

“The Midwest doesn’t boom, but it doesn’t bust either,” Barratt said. 

Yet another advantage that the Midwest offers is its relative affordability. 

“We’ve now got more mobility with the labor force. What we predict is that we’ll see more in-migration into the middle of the country,” Barratt said. “That affordability might not last forever as demand increases, but for the foreseeable future, you’ve got quite a bit of stronghold in the Midwest.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Tavant has introduced a new enterprise platform that uses agentic AI to accelerate software development, data modernization and automation. The California-based technology firm positions the Tavant Platform as an alternative to proprietary AI stacks and high recurring platform fees, the company announced June 23.

The Tavant Platform brings together three core layers: a suite of agentic engineering tools built on top of coding agents from major artificial intelligence labs; an optional cloud-native runtime foundation; and a set of domain-specific automation components, models, agents and specifications, according to a company press release.

The platform incorporates Tavant’s existing AIgnite agentic engineering tools and can be deployed either on Tavant’s own runtime or on a customer’s preferred technology stack. Tavant said this approach is designed to keep enterprise architectures portable and reduce vendor lock-in, an ongoing concern as more organizations embed generative AI into core business processes.

Rethinking pushed by LLM disruption

Tavant is initially targeting use cases in mortgage lending and the equipment aftermarket with enterprise automation products that now run on the Tavant Platform. For housing and mortgage firms, the company said the platform is aimed at modernizing legacy loan origination and servicing systems; automating workflows such as underwriting, risk and fraud checks; and building custom applications when licensed point solutions are too costly or inflexible.

“The Large Language Model disruption is forcing enterprise leaders to rethink everything from workforce productivity to legacy system modernization, the level of enterprise automation, the platforms they rely on, and the governance and security needed to use AI safely,” CEO Sarvesh Mahesh said in the release.

Mahesh said general-purpose coding agents need domain-specific specifications, skills and architectural patterns to deliver productivity gains inside large organizations, which the platform is intended to provide.

Tavant framed the launch within a broader shift from AI pilots to production deployments. Chief technology officer Manish Arya said the main challenge for enterprises is “execution at scale with the right architecture, governance, and operational rigor.”

AI-enabled mortgage workflows

Tavant recently achieved the Amazon Web Services‘ (AWS) Generative AI Services Competency, which the company said supports its ability to help clients move from early-stage concepts to production AI systems.

Agentic engineering refers to using AI “coding agents” that consume detailed specifications to generate software, data pipelines, models and workflows with less manual coding. Tavant said its platform applies this approach to three main areas: modernizing legacy applications and data platforms; automating business processes with AI; and building custom applications where off-the-shelf products are not economical.

For financial services firms, including mortgage lenders, the company said the platform is intended to support AI-enabled workflows in risk, fraud detection, underwriting, customer service and back-office operations. The platform is built using cloud-native and open-source components, and it offers customers the option to obtain runtime and tool source code if they later choose to operate independently of Tavant’s managed stack.

Tavant calls the platform a “true alternative” to existing enterprise AI automation platforms by combining a pre-integrated agentic engineering toolchain with optional runtime and services support.

For lenders and servicers weighing AI investments, the company is emphasizing lower development and maintenance costs, reduced dependency on proprietary platforms and faster deployment of automation around legacy mortgage technology.

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

This post was originally published on here. 

Taylor Morrison’s proxy outlining the history and process behind its recently announced acquisition by Berkshire Hathaway makes for interesting reading, especially because the process differed from what many had assumed.

It was far more of a deliberate sale than a case of Berkshire Hathaway swooping in to buy the company. The transaction, and the path by which it came about, reveal 1) a more-limited-than-expected acquisition appetite among large homebuilders and other likely buyers, and 2) a sale that may not have been strictly necessary, but enabled Taylor Morrison to control its own destiny and potentially avoid a hostile transaction.

Berkshire Hathaway didn’t charge in on horseback to save Taylor Morrison from a hostile buyer, but the arrangement may have enabled Taylor Morrison to avoid needing such a white knight and to control its own destiny.

The story unfolded in three acts: 1) an initial offer to purchase Taylor Morrison by another builder, 2) Taylor Morrison’s advisors reaching out to six other likely acquirers – both other homebuilders and private equity firms – with all of these potential buyers passing on the opportunity, and 3) Taylor Morrison meeting with Berkshire Hathaway to seek a transaction.

Act 1

In September 2025, another homebuilder approached Taylor Morrison at the Zelman Housing Summit to discuss a potential purchase of Taylor Morrison. At the time, Taylor Morrison found itself in an enviable but awkward position. Despite an affordability-challenged sales environment, the company was on track to deliver just under 13,000 homes in 2025 and generate a 23.0% gross margin, excluding charges, while maintaining a strong balance sheet with net debt to capital below 20%.

And while it wasn’t trading at an excessive valuation, it traded at 1.19x book value and 1.33x tangible book value, which were respectable levels. However, it was also clear that its goal of reaching 20,000 annual deliveries by 2028 would be challenging, as additional sales would require ever-greater incentives, resulting in a negative impact on margins.

From an operations perspective, as a standalone company, Taylor Morrison had a choice. It could either revise that 20,000-home goal or steel itself for what would have been the “margin limbo” if it attempted to generate enough sales to reach that 20,000-delivery goal in 2028.

When making that determination, Taylor Morrison’s executive team and board could see that the equity markets were not especially receptive to homebuilders that prioritized volume at the expense of margins. However, it also needed to contend with the worry that either lowering its expected 2028 closings or extending the timeline to reach 20,000 deliveries would leave it at a suboptimal scale and make it a potential acquisition target.

Regarding interest from its initial suitor, Taylor Morrison decided that a transaction did not make sense because of the “insufficient valuation and considerable leverage of the potential pro forma company.”.

From the outside, it would have been understandable if Taylor Morrison had quickly rejected the initial offer as an opportunistic lowball. The proposed $71.00 offer presented in November was just below Taylor Morrison’s closing price of $71.13 on September 11th, the day of the initial meeting.

Act 2

Despite rebuffing its initial suitor and potentially fearing that the suitor was motivated and might pursue a public, hostile transaction, Taylor Morrison chose to reach out to other potential buyers as part of its strategic review. While Dream Finders’ pursuit of Beazer appears to be the most recent example of a hostile M&A attempt in the homebuilding industry, Taylor Morrison’s actions suggest it may have feared becoming the first such target.

Taylor Morrison’s strategic review, which began shortly after the initial suitor’s formal offer, appears to have intensified following the February 13th announcement of Sumitomo Forestry’s purchase agreement with Tri Pointe Homes.

Taylor Morrison held a special board meeting on February 24th, which appeared to prompt efforts to gauge interest among other potential buyers. The Tri Pointe / Sumitomo announcement was relevant to Taylor Morrison because it raised the bar for the smallest of the highly profitable independent homebuilders – Tri Pointe delivered nearly 5,000 homes in 2025 and achieved a 21.9% gross margin excluding inventory charges.

Taylor Morrison was then left to occupy the spot as solidly profitable (a 23.0% gross margin excluding inventory charges and minor warranty charges in 2025), but it was just a bit too small, even as it delivered nearly 13,000 homes in 2025.

Taylor Morrison, despite its desert base in Scottsdale, likely recognized that it was the next vulnerable village on the coastline. Possibly concerned about its initial unsolicited suitor, it decided to reengage and enter discussions with six other potential buyers between February and April.

Because Taylor Morrison and Moelis & Company (Taylor Morrison’s advisor) were well acquainted with the landscape of potential buyers, our sense is that the six potential buyers Taylor Morrison then spoke with included the leading publicly traded homebuilders in the US, the acquisitive Japanese homebuilders, and a large private equity firm. Taylor Morrison’s executives and board were likely surprised by the caution shown by those potential buyers, as all six chose to pass despite their past interest and activity in the homebuilding sector. The reasons varied and included macro concerns – understandable given the uncertain environment following the start of the war in Iran – execution risk, and the size of the transaction.

Act 3

As detailed in the proxy, Taylor Morrison did not hold its initial meeting with Berkshire Hathaway until May 6th, after the other six potential buyers had passed, which would have provided a clear indication of the industry’s acquisition appetite. Was this a paradoxical hope of securing a far-higher offer from value-conscious Berkshire Hathaway?

Unlikely.

Or was it more about securing an offer that would allow Taylor Morrison to choose its own path and avoid the risk of a hostile transaction, whether from the homebuilder that made the initial offer or from one of the other potential buyers once they’re more confident in the outlook?

Probably so.

In the end, the $72.50 per share offer from Berkshire Hathaway was just $1.50 per share higher than the initial suitor’s offer, but it was lower on a multiple of book value (1.13x) and tangible book value (1.27x) because book value had increased due to earnings in the intervening quarters.

All’s well that ends well

Among the six potential buyers Taylor Morrison approached to gauge interest, some may have appreciated further scaling up, but  it wasn’t something they needed. For Berkshire Hathaway, partnering with Taylor Morrison broadened its housing portfolio. For Taylor Morrison, aligning with Berkshire Hathaway enables the company to pursue growth under Berkshire’s umbrella.

Given the evolving M&A environment, it wouldn’t be surprising to see other homebuilders seek safe harbor with larger partners.

This post was originally published on here. 

QXO Inc. and TopBuild Corp. investor shareholders have overwhelmingly approved QXO’s acquisition of TopBuild, clearing a key hurdle for one of the largest recent combinations in the North American building products and insulation markets, the companies said in an announcement on Monday. 

At QXO’s special meeting, about 99% of the votes cast supported issuing QXO common stock to fund the transaction. At TopBuild, approximately 78% of votes cast favored adopting the merger agreement, representing roughly 65% of all outstanding shares, the announcement stated. 

The $17 billion acquisition, initially announced in April, is now expected to close on or around July 1, 2026, subject to customary closing conditions. TopBuild, once the deal closes, will represent QXO’s third acquisition since its founding in 2023. 

The deal will combine QXO, the largest publicly traded distributor of roofing, waterproofing and related products and the second-largest publicly traded distributor of lumber and building materials in North America, with TopBuild, the continent’s largest distributor and installer of insulation and related building products.

QXO is targeting $50 billion in annual revenue within the next several years through a mix of acquisitions and organic growth, in a bid to consolidate the fragmented $800 billion building products distribution industry. The acquisition of TopBuild, which operates more than 450 locations across the U.S. and Canada and serves residential, commercial and industrial end markets, would be a significant milestone in that strategy.

For homebuilders, further consolidation among distributors and installers could influence everything from the cost of envelope materials in single-family and multifamily construction to the availability of specialized systems used in large commercial and industrial projects like warehouses and logistics facilities.

This post was originally published on here. 

The Center for Affordable Housing Lending, the 501(c)(3) research and policy partner of the National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders (NAAHL), announced Monday that former U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) official Julia Gordon has been named as its inaugural senior fellow.

Gordon, who most recently served as HUD assistant secretary for housing and commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), is the first appointment under the nonprofit’s new Housing Supply Research & Fellowship Program that aims to address challenges in affordable housing finance.

Gordon formerly served as president of the National Community Stabilization Trust. She also previously held senior roles at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the Center for American Progress and the Center for Responsible Lending.

In her new role, Gordon will focus on barriers to affordable homeownership, including increasing the supply of starter homes and addressing rising property insurance costs. The center said her research will be geared toward developing policy recommendations for lenders, developers and government officials.

“Families can’t buy homes that don’t exist, and the homes that do exist are increasingly unaffordable and uninsurable,” Gordon said in a statement. “I look forward to digging into both these challenges with the Center and developing real solutions that policymakers and lenders can realistically use.”

The fellowship is the first initiative under the center’s Housing Supply Research & Fellowship Program, which was launched with a $1 million grant from the Citi Foundation.

The fellowship is part of the Citi Foundation’s Blueprint for Housing Opportunity initiative — a five-year commitment that includes $60 billion in financing to support the creation and preservation of at least 250,000 housing units nationwide, as well as $50 million in grants to nonprofit organizations working on housing affordability.

The program is designed to bring together housing practitioners and policymakers to develop research that can be translated into policy proposals. Fellows will work with the NAAHL’s network of banks, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and housing lenders to test ideas before publication, with the association’s policy team helping advance recommendations with lawmakers.

The first phase of the program also includes a report examining the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act on affordable housing and community development, along with a series of policy briefs covering topics such as the role of CDFIs and the nation’s shortage of starter homes.

Sarah Brundage, president and CEO of NAAHL and the Center for Affordable Housing Lending, said Gordon’s experience in federal housing policy and community development makes her well suited to lead the initiative.

“Julia Gordon has spent her career fighting to make homeownership a real possibility for more people who have too often been left out. Her experience – from the federal level to the community level — makes her exactly the kind of bold, experienced thinker the Center needs to ensure policy and practice go hand-in-hand,” Brundage said.

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

This post was originally published on here. 

The agent who stands out in any market is the one who can read the risk inside an offer, not just the price on top of it. That is a skill, and it is one of the most underrated tools you carry as a real estate professional.

Here is the issue. When your seller receives multiple offers, the instinct, theirs and sometimes ours, is to sort by price and call the highest one the winner. But price is a promise, and a promise is only worth the likelihood that it will be kept. The terms of the contract are what tell you that likelihood. If you evaluate an offer on price alone, you leave your seller exposed and you leave a good deal vulnerable.

Think of it the way a lender thinks about a borrower

No underwriter approves a loan based on the amount requested. They assess the risk profile behind it, the credit, the income, the debt, the capacity to actually repay. An offer deserves that same scrutiny, and in that moment you are the underwriter. The price is the loan amount. The terms are the risk profile. And just as in lending, the deals that fall apart are almost never the ones that looked bad on paper. They are the ones nobody underwrote carefully.

The data makes this concrete. According to the National Association of Realtors’ most recent Realtors Confidence Index, roughly 5% of contracts were terminated in the latest three-month period and about 13% experienced delayed settlements. NAR has repeatedly identified the same culprits behind stalled and dead deals: home inspections, buyer financing, and appraisals. Notice what is not on that list. Price. Deals do not usually die because the number was wrong. They die because something in the terms gave way. And when a deal dies, it is your commission that evaporates, your weeks of work, your listing back on the market with a stale clock and a seller who is now harder to reassure.

When you evaluate an offer, here are the risk factors to underwrite, and to translate for your seller.

Financing strength is the foundation, so treat it that way. Pre-approval and pre-qualification are not the same thing, and you should never let them blur together in your seller’s mind. Credit profile, down payment, and the reputation of the lender all matter. An experienced local loan officer with a track record of closing on time is a tangible asset. An unknown name from an online portal is an unanswered question. Pick up the phone and find out who is writing this loan. That call is part of the job.

Contingencies are exit doors, and someone has to count them. Every contingency a buyer keeps, inspection, appraisal, financing, attorney review, the sale of an existing home, is an option to walk away. That is not inherently bad, but your seller is entitled to know precisely how many doors are open. NAR’s most recent data shows buyers waiving contingencies somewhat less than a year ago, with around 18% waiving the inspection contingency, which means a genuinely clean offer carries more weight than it did twelve months ago.

A home-sale contingency deserves special attention, because it imports a second transaction. When a buyer must sell their own property in order to close, your seller is no longer betting on one deal. They are betting on a second buyer, for a second home, that no one in the room has met. Sometimes that is a risk worth taking. The point is that it should be your seller’s decision, made with eyes open, not a surprise three weeks in.

Timing is a term, and it is the one your seller feels in real life. A strong price on a strong contract can still be the wrong offer if the closing date collides with your seller’s plans. Maybe the buyer wants to close in three weeks and your seller needs 90 days to find their next home. Maybe it is the reverse. Synchronizing the closing date with what your seller actually needs is not a clerical detail. It is part of what makes an offer genuinely good.

Inspection posture is the quiet variable that surfaces late. There is a real difference between a buyer who inspects for major defects and a buyer who is prepared to nickel and dime every minor flaw into a credit. You will not always know in advance, but you can read the signals, from the lender, from the cooperating agent, from the tenor of the offer itself, and prepare your seller before the report ever lands.

This skill pays off on both sides of the deal. Whether you are listing or selling, the same discipline makes you better.

As the listing agent, investigate the entire offer, not just the top line. Who is on the buyer’s team? What bank are they using? Which inspection company? Those answers exist, and when you gather them and translate them into plain language, you are giving your seller advice, not just paperwork. That is the difference between an order taker and a trusted advisor, and it is the version of you that earns repeat business and referrals.

As the buyer’s agent, this is where you create an edge. Do not just submit a number and hope. Make the affirmative case: that your buyer is fully underwritten, that the lender has a reputation for closing on schedule, that your buyer is flexible on timing, that they are not going to litigate every small repair. When you proactively validate the strength of your terms to the listing agent and the seller, you make your buyer’s offer easier to say yes to, even when it is not the highest number on the table. That is how you win in a competitive market without asking your buyer to simply overpay.

The throughline is simple. When you learn to see the whole offer, you protect your seller, you close more of the contracts you write, and you build the kind of reputation that compounds, deal after deal. When you fixate on price alone, you celebrate a number and then scramble when the deal that looked best on paper quietly comes undone.

Any agent can identify the highest offer. The professional who can identify the best one is the agent a seller remembers, and refers.

Darryl Davis, CSP, is a real estate coach, speaker, and bestselling author with more than 40 years in the industry. Through his POWER AGENT® Coaching Program, he helps real estate professionals build careers and lives worth smiling about. Learn more 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. 

In a report published last week, The Agency examined trends that are currently impacting the luxury real estate market including multigenerational living, the new wave of AI/technology millionaires searching for properties and how climate change and lifestyle choices are impacting buyer demand. The 2026 Red Paper Mid-Year Report was The Agency’s first ever mid-year luxury report. 

“Let’s be honest, markets don’t wait for year-end to make moves, and we can’t either. What’s emerging now demands attention. The largest wealth transfer in modern history is actively reshaping buyer behavior. Climate is driving permanent relocation. A tech-native generation is entering the market with a new list of non-negotiables,” Mauricio Umansky, the founder and CEO of The Agency, wrote in the report’s introduction. 

Multigenerational living

The first trend identified by the report is the rise in popularity of multigenerational compounds. According to the report, over the next roughly two decades nearly $100 trillion in wealth will be transferred to Gen X and millennials from baby boomers and older generations. 

“With Generation X and millennials projected to inherit so much, a new asset class is emerging: the multigenerational compound. Far more than a large house, this is a “family alignment asset”—a strategic vehicle designed to preserve both financial capital and family connection,” the report states. 

The report found that high-net-worth individuals are beginning to see their properties as assets “designed to preserve wealth, accommodate multiple generations and reinforce long-term family cohesion,” explaining the rise in popularity of the multigenerational compound. 

The report cites a study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) that found in 2024, 17% of homebuyers purchased multigenerational homes, up from 14% the year prior, with Gen X buyers leading this trend at 21%. The NAR study attributed this increase to savings (36%), care for aging parents (25%) and adult children returning home (21%). 

According to The Agency’s report, homebuyers interested in purchasing a multigenerational compound are frequently looking for things like guesthouses or accessory dwelling units in addition to a primary residence, as well as shared amenities like kitchens or recreational spaces and  working land or income-producing elements. 

The report anticipates interest in this trend accelerating over the next few years, due to the scale of the coming wealth transfer, as well as economic pressures like overall housing affordability and changing cultural attitudes toward multigenerational living. 

“For affluent families, the compound is emerging as a quasi-family office tool—a physical anchor for broader wealth planning. But when structured intentionally, a shared property can also serve as a governance mechanism,” the report states. “Without clear agreements, properties often end up sold or neglected as heirs disagree or drift apart. The compound model attempts to pre-empt that outcome by aligning incentives and expectations from the start.”

The “billionaire effect”

The Agency’s report traces how a single trophy transaction can temporarily distort local pricing, then reset the long-term ceiling for ultra-luxury housing in markets that can sustain demand from ultra-high-net-worth buyers. The report examined how the purchase of a $27.75 million, 1.65 acre bay-front property in Islamorada, Fla. sparked “a shift in seller psychology” and tightened already scarce prime inventory as homeowners waited to see whether the record price would stick. 

The report argues that response is typical. After a headline transaction, nearby owners often anchor to the new price per square foot and assume their homes can command similar numbers, regardless of the unique attributes that drove the trophy sale. Listings come to market at aspirational prices and sit. According to the report, sellers who simply use price-per-square-foot to benchmark their home against a nearby ultra-luxury property ultimately fail because they are ignoring what made the record setting property unique.

However, the report notes that for some buyers price does not matter, so they will purchase a property even if it is potentially overpriced, generating a “repricing cycle” in markets that see several of these transactions. 

Once a destination repeatedly validates ultra-luxury price points, the report argues, wealth reshapes the local ecosystem. In the Florida Keys, the report said the higher-end demand is encouraging investment in marinas, private aviation access and white-glove, concierge-style service. These shifts matter to developers and operators planning future product, as standards for “acceptable” luxury continue to rise.

Affordably luxury

The report also found that the demand for so-called “affordable luxury” homes between roughly $1 million and $5 million has surged in both North American and Europe. However, inventory has not kept pace, creating longer marketing times in some regions, price pressure in others and a widening mismatch between what equity-rich buyers can afford and what is actually for sale. 

In the report, The Agency cites Realtor.com data that pegged the national luxury threshold at $1.2 million in April 2026. Across the U.S., homes priced from $1 million to $5 million are drawing substantial interest, particularly in the $1 million to $3 million band, where many move-up buyers have the income or equity to participate but are constrained by limited options.

Compared with 2021, U.S. homes in the $1 million to $2 million range sold at a median $479 per square foot in early 2026, up from $455, according to Realtor.com. Properties in the $2 million to $5 million tier averaged $790 per square foot, up from $730 five years earlier, and are selling 12 days faster than in 2021.

Those gains are being propelled by a larger upper-middle-class cohort and substantial home equity growth. The American Enterprise Institute estimates 31% of Americans now qualify as upper middle class, up from 10% in 1979. Since 2020, U.S. home equity has climbed 142%, and three years of stock market gains have added purchasing power at the top end, according to The Agency’s report.

At the same time, market snapshots from Anchorage, Bend, Dallas, Marblehead and Hilton Head show that price tiers and days on market diverge significantly by region. Ultra-luxury homes are achieving record prices per square foot but are facing a notable slowdown in sales velocity, while the $1 million to $5 million segment remains relatively more liquid in many metros, according to the report. 

For existing luxury owners looking to trade up into the $5 million to $10 million range, this dynamic can create a window: strong buyer depth for their current home class and more negotiating leverage higher up, where listings often linger, The Agency said.

Latin America emerges

Global residency-by-investment programs are steering capital toward value-oriented, developing and secondary markets in Latin America and Europe, as affluent buyers prioritize stability, lifestyle and “plan B” residency options over pure return-on-investment calculations, according to the report. 

The Agency’s analysis finds that geopolitical uncertainty and policy changes are reshaping how wealthy buyers use real estate to secure residency. Instead of simply arbitraging the lowest price of entry into a passport or visa, today’s buyers are gravitating toward jurisdictions offering a mix of value, quality of life, legal stability and long-term optionality.

According to the report, Latin America offers consumers affordability, infrastructure and residency access. Markets that are seeing an influx of U.S. buyers include Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Mexico and Panama, according to the report. 

Next Gen luxury buyers

A new wave of AI and next‑gen tech wealth is entering luxury real estate with very specific expectations: move‑in‑ready homes, compressed search timelines, high-end wellness and tech features, and maximum privacy, according to the report.

Since the commercial breakout of AI tools after ChatGPT’s 2022 launch, a growing cohort of young founders and early executives has begun reallocating liquidity into property. Agents across New York, California, Toronto and Nashville report that these buyers behave differently than prior dot‑com and social media cycles, both in how fast they move and what they will tolerate in a home.

According to the report, this cohort of buyers treats the home search process as an exercise in efficiency, making things like high-quality photography and marketing copy even more important for sellers looking to make a strong first impression. Additionally, the report said that once these buyers are interested in a property they typically want immediate access to the home for a tour, after which they either pass on the property or make an offer. 

At the highest price points, some buyers skip initial tours altogether, sending a personal or executive assistant to pre‑screen properties and narrow the list, the report said. 

In supply‑constrained markets like San Francisco, that behavior can translate into aggressive bidding. Agents at the firm told The Agency that well‑positioned homes are still selling quickly and in some cases “egregiously over list price” when they align with this cohort’s criteria.

According to the report, this new cohort of AI-wealth buyers place high value on things like turnkey homes, wellness spaces like dry and steam saunas, cold plunges, Zen gardens, koi ponds and floor plans that carve out full‑floor sanctuaries, backup generators, newer HVAC systems and privacy and security features. 

However, the report cautioned that the AI wealth cycle is still early and agents are just at the beginning of understanding what these buyers are looking for. 

Lifestyle buyers

The report also found that climate volatility, political fatigue and the rise of remote work are pushing affluent buyers to swap traditional hubs for lifestyle-driven markets such as the Caribbean, central Mexico and Aspen, turning what were once seasonal vacation spots into primary or near-primary residences. 

The Agency’s managing partners across Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, San Miguel de Allende and Aspen report that ultra-high-net-worth clients are extending stays from a few months to most of the year, or relocating altogether. The new calculus blends weather stability, quality of life, tax and policy considerations, and the ability to work from anywhere.

According to agents serving these markets, the draw is less about postcard winters and more about dependable conditions amid unpredictable winters and summers. Other real estate professionals serving these markets say that over the past decade conversations with buyers looking for homes in these areas have evolved from clients looking to just escape the winter to looking to escape “everything” from climate disasters and undesirable weather to political and tax concerns in their home countries.

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. 

DeCaro Auctions is expanding its operations across North America, the Asia-Pacific region and Mexico as the luxury real estate auction firm seeks to increase its presence in international markets.

The company also announced several leadership appointments to oversee its expansion efforts in key regions.

“Expanding our presence into key wealth capitals is the natural next step as we scale our international auction platform,” said Mario Vargas, CEO of DeCaro Auctions. “To execute world class campaigns across borders, you need boots on the ground with impeccable local relationships.”

Among the appointments, Will Wagner will serve as managing director for the United States and Canada, while Joyce Lee, based in Hong Kong, has been named managing director for Asia Pacific and Hong Kong.

Mitch Abundis has expanded his role as private client advisor and Mexico directo and Joshua Hawkins joins the company as a private client advisor for the United States. Tyler Lively has also joined the company as a U.S.-based property experience director.

Hawkins said luxury real estate auctions have become increasingly accepted within the market.

“After years in the auction industry, I’ve seen auctions become an accepted way to buy and sell luxury real estate, creating a transparent and competitive environment for both buyers and sellers,” he said. “As the market continues to evolve, it’s exciting to be part of a team that offers innovative solutions, backed by years of experience and a shared commitment to delivering exceptional results.”

Abundis said Mexico continues to attract international buyers seeking vacation and investment properties.

The expansion follows the company’s recently announced partnership with REALM Global, a private network of luxury real estate advisors operating in multiple countries.

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

This post was originally published on here. 

For two decades, the playbook for promoting a real estate brand found online was stable enough to teach: optimize the website, win the keywords, climb Google’s rankings, capture the click. In 2026, the foundation under that playbook is cracking — and the data explaining why is hard to argue with.

According to a SparkToro analysis of Similarweb data, 68% of U.S. Google searches ended without a click in early 2026, up from roughly 60% in 2024. The trend accelerates sharply in AI-mediated contexts: when a Google AI Overview is present, 83% of searches generate no click to any external site; in Google’s dedicated AI Mode, that figure reaches 93%. Google reported at its 2026 I/O conference that AI Mode had surpassed one billion monthly users, with query volume more than doubling quarter over quarter.

The implication for real estate marketers is direct. A rising share of consumers now receive answers — including recommendations for agents, brokerages and service providers — without ever visiting a website. The click that SEO was designed to capture is, increasingly, never made.

A new acronym, a different mechanism

The emerging discipline is most often called Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) or Generative Engine Optimization (GEO). The distinction from traditional SEO is not cosmetic. SEO optimizes a web page to rank and earn a click. AEO optimizes a business’s data footprint so that an AI system will cite and recommend it inside a generated answer.

This is not a call to abandon search engine optimization. Google still processes the large majority of conventional queries — its share of traditional search remained near 90% in 2026. Websites, schema markup and content still matter. But the marginal value of ranking on a results page that produces no clicks is declining, while the value of being the name an AI surfaces is climbing. For most real estate brands, the budget and attention have not yet followed that shift.

Where the AI assistants get their local data

The most consequential — and least understood — element of AEO for local businesses is the source data the major AI platforms rely on when answering location-based queries. Across the leading systems, that source converges on a single asset: the Google Business Profile.

The platform-by-platform picture, based on 2026 analyses from firms including SOCi and Local Falcon, breaks down as follows:

• Google Gemini is grounded directly in Google Maps and Google Business Profile data. Google’s “Grounding with Google Maps” capability, which connects its models to more than 250 million verified places, reached general availability in 2026. When Gemini answers a local query, it treats the Business Profile as authoritative.
• Google AI Overviews use Business Profile data as the structural foundation of local recommendations.
• ChatGPT, which OpenAI powers through Bing’s index and partners such as Foursquare, draws on Bing Places, verified directories and business websites — the same structured-data ecosystem that a well-maintained Google Profile anchors and keeps consistent.

The cross-platform conclusion analysts have reached is consistent: the businesses cited in AI-generated answers are, almost without exception, those with complete and actively managed Google Business Profiles. In practical terms, the Business Profile has become a tier-one data feed to the AI ecosystem — arguably more consequential to discovery than the brand’s own website.

That ordering matters because data accuracy, not creative copy, is the dominant ranking factor in this environment. AI systems cross-reference business information across Google, Bing, Yelp, Foursquare and brand sites; when they encounter inconsistencies — mismatched hours, divergent addresses, outdated phone numbers — confidence in the listing drops and recommendation frequency falls.

Case study: building a brand for the answer layer

To illustrate how an AEO-first approach diverges from a conventional SEO build, consider a niche brand positioned for exactly the buyer most likely to begin in an AI chat: Dorado Beach Insider, focused on luxury real estate and Act 60 relocation in Dorado Beach, Puerto Rico. The target client — often a high-net-worth relocator — increasingly opens an assistant and asks a layered question such as “What is it like to live in Dorado Beach, and who can help me buy there under Act 60?”

The optimization choices reflect how AI systems parse and trust data:

• Category selection over keyword density. A commercial-intent primary category (real estate agency) maps buyer and seller queries to the brand.
• Service-area configuration naming multiple municipalities and neighborhoods — Dorado, Vega Alta, the San Juan metro, and communities including Dorado Beach East, West Beach and Plantation Village — increases the number of geographic entities an AI can associate with the brand.
• A description front-loaded with entity and location, reflecting that AI systems weight opening text most heavily when interpreting a business.
• Seeded questions and answers built around lifestyle and relocation topics rather than sales prompts, producing the clean question-answer pairs that AI systems readily lift into responses.
• Cross-platform NAP consistency — name, contact and service area held identical across Google, Bing, Yelp, Apple and social platforms — to preserve the data confidence that drives citation.

Notably, none of these steps requires a large content operation. They require treating the Business Profile and its supporting directory ecosystem as managed infrastructure rather than a one-time marketing task.

What it means for the industry

The strategic takeaways for brokerages, teams and proptech marketers are threefold.

The first is measurement. Traditional KPIs — keyword rankings and website sessions — capture a shrinking portion of the discovery funnel. Marketing leaders will need to track AI visibility directly: whether the major assistants surface their brand and agents in response to realistic buyer queries across target markets.

The second is data governance. As accuracy becomes the primary determinant of AI recommendation, maintaining complete, consistent business data across every platform and every agent becomes an operational discipline, not a campaign.

The third is timing. As in previous shifts in consumer discovery, the cost of moving early is low relative to the cost of catching up once competitors have established their presence in the answer layer.

The click is no longer the prize it once was. In an environment where most searches end without one, the brands that win discovery will be those whose data the machines trust enough to recommend — and, increasingly, that trust begins with the Google Business Profile.

Tim and Julie Harris are co-founders of Tim & Julie Harris Real Estate Coaching and hosts of Real Estate Coaching Radio. A companion deep-dive on the full interview is available at Harris Real Estate Daily.

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. 

Jesse Singh has been appointed chief executive officer of Fortune Brands Innovations Inc. (NYSE: FBIN), the home, security and digital products company said Monday.

Fortune Brands is the parent of several core brands in the homebuilding and repair-remodel channels, including Moen, House of Rohl, Therma-Tru, Larson, Fiberon, Master Lock, Sentry Safe and Yale residential. Singh also joins the company’s board of directors, effective immediately, according to the announcement.

Singh brings more than 30 years of leadership experience across building products, consumer, technology and manufacturing. The company said he most recently served as CEO of a public building products and consumer company from 2016 to 2025, where he focused on operational discipline, margin expansion, innovation and culture change that drove profitable growth and higher EBITDA margins.

For homebuilders and building product manufacturers, the move signals that Fortune Brands’ board is prioritizing operational performance and shareholder returns at a time when new-home demand is holding up better than existing-home resales, but input costs, labor constraints and channel volatility remain key risks. FBIN’s portfolio touches plumbing, doors, decking, security and digital home products, giving the new CEO leverage across core structural and finish categories in single-family and multifamily construction.

Non-executive chair of the board Andrew Kilsby said the appointment followed a comprehensive search and cited Singh’s track record in building products and branded consumer goods. Singh said Fortune Brands’ “iconic brands” and customer relationships create “a compelling opportunity to build on the company’s foundation and deliver durable value for customers, partners and shareholders,” according to the release.

At the same time, interim CEO Dave Barry has been named executive vice president and chief operating officer. Barry, who has been leading the company during the search process, will work closely with Singh on day-to-day operations. Interim CFO Ashley George will remain in place while Fortune Brands continues its external search for a permanent chief financial officer.

The company also reiterated that it has launched a strategic review of its Fiberon composite decking and railing business. Kilsby will directly oversee Fiberon’s operations during that process. Builders and lumberyard channels will be watching that review closely, as any portfolio changes could reshape competitive dynamics in the composite decking segment, which has been pressured by slower discretionary outdoor projects and price competition but still benefits from long-run share gains versus wood.

Why it matters

FBIN is a major spec and brand decision driver for plumbers, exterior contractors and builders through Moen, Therma-Tru, Larson, Fiberon and its security lines. A CEO with a mandate around operational excellence and shareholder value typically looks closely at SKU complexity, channel mix, service levels and pricing power. That can translate into changes in product lineups, service expectations, program terms and innovation cadence for builders, distributors and pro dealers that carry these brands.

To attract Singh, Fortune Brands’ board approved inducement equity awards under NYSE Rule 303A.08, granted outside the company’s 2022 long-term incentive plan. The package includes:

• A performance-based restricted stock unit award tied to 850,000 shares of common stock, vesting 50% on the third anniversary of the grant date and 50% on the fourth anniversary, subject to stock price performance goals and continued employment.
• A service-based stock option award on 300,000 shares, vesting in three equal annual installments over the first three years, contingent on continued employment.

All shares received from these awards must be held for the duration of Singh’s employment. After he leaves the company, he must retain at least 50% of the shares for one year. The structure aligns Singh’s compensation directly with long-term share price performance and reinforces the board’s emphasis on sustained value creation over short-term moves.

For homebuilding operators, purchasing executives and product manufacturers, Singh’s arrival and the concurrent Fiberon review suggest FBIN could adjust its portfolio and capital allocation priorities over the next 12 to 24 months. That could include targeted investments in higher-margin, brand-driven segments such as water, doors and smart security, and potentially changes in its approach to lower-return or more cyclical categories.

This post was originally published on here. 

More than 50,000 agents and teams earned a spot on the 2026 RealTrends Verified rankings and impressive aggregate numbers tell a compelling story; there’s no single blueprint for success in today’s real estate landscape.

From a Pennsylvania team leader who views his $264 million year as “average” to a Maine brokerage that started with an internship and grew into a national contender, 2026 rankings showcase a remarkable diversity of business models and philosophies.

Yet common threads emerge — consistency, culture and an unwavering focus on the client — that bind these top performers together.

Gary Mercer Sr., whose LPT Realty-affiliated Gary Mercer Team reported $264 million in volume across 431 sides — good enough for a No. 3 volume and No. 5 sides rank among mega teams in Pennsylvania, with respective national ranks of No. 55 and No. 72 — chases fundamentals instead of headlines.

“We have done over 500 transactions in the past,” he told HousingWire. “I think consistency in the approach and time on task, doing the things that work and sticking with that has been key. What we find is if we’re sticking to the basics, training and teaching and having the agents follow that, it doesn’t matter whether it’s an up market or a down market.”

That philosophy echoes across the rankings.

Joe McNally, whose REMAX Together team in Big Rapids, Mich., earned the No. 28 national ranking among small teams for transaction sides after closing 203 transaction sides last year, put it bluntly.

“It’s pretty boring,” he said. “It’s just really about being committed and consistent every single day of the year, and I’ve always been good at that.”

McNally personally closed around 138 transactions last year — down from 172 the year before — with 110 coming from direct word-of-mouth referrals, a testament to a relationship-based business built over 20 years.

The Ivan & Mike Team, a Compass-affiliated ultra-luxury real estate group serving South Florida, finished No. 19 among medium-sized teams by sales volume, recording $298.32 million in 2025 volume.

While that was down roughly $50 million from the previous year, co-founder Ivan Chorney said the market remained active.

“I would say all in all, it was a transitional year,” he said. “ It was just a little more difficult to get deals done. You had all this tariff stuff going on and there were just many headwinds on various fronts. But that’s led into this year, which will end up being our best year ever.”

The team model launchpad

For many top performers, the team structure isn’t just an organizational choice — it’s a competitive advantage.

Mercer, who began his career in 1987 and spent nearly 30 years with an independent company before moving to LPT Realty in May 2025, has long been an advocate.

“I think for an individual agent, it’s really important for them to be aligned with successful people, and in my opinion, they get the best opportunity through a team situation,” he said. “That’s because a team will be able to generate leads to help them while they’re developing and cultivating their database for a long-term referral business.”

The Perry Group — founded by Jack Perry and his two sons and brokered by The Real Brokerage — took that model to an extreme.

In 2025, the team was made up of 250 licensed real estate professionals with five offices serving clients across much of Utah, closing 1,547 transaction sides totaling $892.80 million in sales volume — earning the enterprise-sized team the No. 8 and No. 5 ranks in the country by sides and volume, respectively.

Emily Martin, the team’s chief operating officer, attributes much of the growth to clear systems agents can easily plug into.

“They can run their business without having to think about the operational side,” Martin said. “We help agents do what they do best, which is connect with people.”

TruAdvantage Team in York, Pennsylvania — which closed 283 transaction sides and nearly $78 million in sales volume in 2025, securing the No. 17 national placement among medium-sized teams for sides — has taken a different approach to growth, focusing on building structured paths for struggling agents.

“We hold everyone to a certain standard,” said Director of Operations Sara Cain. “There is a very high standard where if it’s not being met, we’re going to have the conversations and we’re going to get it corrected. Everybody wants everyone else to continue performing. We love to celebrate each other and also compete against each other.”

Culture as a growth engine

James Harris — leader of the Beverly Hills-based Harris & Partners — runs what he calls a “lean and mean” team.

His Carolwood Estates-brokered team closed 83 transaction sides totaling $938.0 million in sales volume in 2025, earning the No. 2 rank in the country for sales volume among large teams.

“I would rather have 10 superb agents than 100 where the vast majority are mediocre,” Harris said. “If I have a smaller team, it helps with camaraderie, but it also allows me to be more hands-on in an individual way with each of those team members and ensuring that I am doing everything I can as a team lead to support each of them.”

That focus on culture extends to the David Banks Team in Portland, Maine, which ranked No. 40 for transaction sides among medium-sized teams, closing 240 last year, and No. 26 nationally by sales volume, generating $282.15 million in closed business.

Teddy Piper, who started as an intern in 2012 and is now broker-owner, emphasized the team’s collaborative spirit.

“Everyone gets everyone gets paid — regardless of who sells the property,” he said. “So, we work together to get these deals done. A lot of teams, they set up distinct hierarchies and distinct roles for each agent, and we certainly have roles and structure for our agents.

“What we don’t have is, ‘You get this lead and you get this lead.’ We all work together to make sure the deal closes.”

The Horak Group, a three-agent team operating under REMAX Boone Realty in Columbia, Missouri, earned a No. 16 national ranking among small teams for transaction sides — closing 247 in 2025.

Molly Horak, whose mother founded the business in the 1980s and who literally grew up in the office, says the key to making a family business work is simple.

“You’ve got to like each other,” she said. “I genuinely love working together. Frequently, we’ll be at the office till 8:30 at night or longer, just to get more done after the staff has left.”

For Noble Black and his New York-based mega team Noble Black & Partners, culture was central to a major decision.

The team of 25 licensed agents closed 220 transaction sides totaling $546.03 million in sales volume, earning the No. 7 rank in the nation among mega teams for sales volume.

After a decade at Douglas Elliman, the team moved to Corcoran in September 2025.

“Culture was part of why we moved to Corcoran from Elliman last year,” Black said. “Culture has always been important at Corcoran — what they value, how they treat people — and I think everyone on the team has recognized and really appreciated the support, culture and how well the company is run, since we moved here.”