Uncategorized

Key Insight: In other challenges involving removals at independent agencies, the Supreme Court has allowed dismissals to stand while litigation is ongoing. However, Cook's case appears to be different, suggesting to some that the court is treading more carefully in its decision-making.Expert Quote: "The court's decision to allow her to continue serving — for now — increases my confidence that it will ultimately rule in her favor on the merits." — Jeremy Kress, University of Michigan Ross School of BusinessWhat's at stake: Market watchers have echoed concerns that removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook before the merits of her litigation are ruled on could cause disarray in financial markets.The Supreme Court's decision to delay ruling on Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook's case until early next year is being viewed by some legal experts as a potential positive sign for the central bank's independence.In an order published Oct. 1, the court said the case is "deferred pending oral argument in January 2026." The move came after President Donald Trump, through his legal team, filed an emergency application asking the court to lift restrictions that prevent him from removing Cook while the merits of her actual case proceed.In other recent cases involving the removal of leaders of independent agencies, the Court allowed the dismissals to stand during ongoing litigation. But some legal scholars and market observers say the court's refusal to act quickly in Cook's case may signal it views the Federal Reserve differently and is treading more carefully.As a result of the court's order, Cook retains her voting role on the Federal Open Market Committee, at least for the time being.Jeremy Kress, an associate professor of business law at the University of Michigan, called the order "notable," suggesting it reflects a possible distinction in how the justices view the Fed compared to other agencies.He pointed to recent cases involving the Federal Trade Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, in which the court barred Democratic appointees from continuing to serve while they challenged their removals."Apparently, the court believes the Fed is different," Kress said. "The court's decision to allow her to continue serving — for now — increases my confidence that it will ultimately rule in her favor on the merits."Jane Manners, a law professor at Fordham University, echoed that view, saying the order could be read "as a sign that the court views the Fed as meaningfully different from other independent agencies."Still, Kress urged caution in overinterpreting the court's action."Until the court explains its rationale for why the Fed should be treated differently from the FTC or NLRB, it's impossible to know how much control it thinks the president has over the administrative state," he said. "So Fed independence will remain very much in jeopardy — at least until January."Peter Conti-Brown, associate professor of financial regulation at the University of Pennsylvania, questioned whether the procedural order has a greater meaning, noting that he is "not reading too much into [it]."The January hearing will not be a full review of Cook's legal challenge against the president, but rather will focus on whether to uphold a lower court injunction that has so far blocked her removal. The broader litigation, centered on Trump's attempt to remove Cook over alleged pre-confirmation mortgage fraud, will continue later in district court.But the hearing could give an insight into how the Supreme Court views Cook's case, said Richard Horn, co-founder of Garris Horn LLP."The Court could address whether she is likely to win on the merits, so this different approach than the FTC-related appeal could indicate that SCOTUS may treat the Federal Reserve's 'cause' provision differently," Horn predicted. "I also think it shows that, at the very least, the Court knows it has to tread carefully with the Fed," he added. Some market observers have warned that removing Cook from the board before the case is fully resolved could shake investor confidence and destabilize financial markets.An amicus brief filed Sept. 25 by a group of 18 former federal officials — including former Federal Reserve Chairs Janet Yellen, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, as well as former Treasury secretaries and other prominent officials — urged the court to deny the request for a stay, warning of "unwarranted harm to the economy during the pendency of Governor Cook's legal proceedings."Allowing the government to remove a member of the Board of Governors for the first time in the nation's history, while under the cloud of legal challenge, will erode public confidence in the Fed's independence and threaten the long-term stability of our economy," the brief said.Trump's attorneys, in a separate filing, disputed that argument, noting that markets would not be "spooked by removals for pre-confirmation but not in-office financial misconduct."Meanwhile, the FTC litigation, Slaughter vs. Trump, set to be heard by the Supreme Court in December could have broad implications for Cook's litigation. It may challenge Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that limited presidential power to remove officials from independent agencies.Legal experts say they are watching how the court handles Slaughter and whether it strikes down "for cause" protections for all agencies — or leaves a carve-out for the Federal Reserve, citing its unique role in the economy.

New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust, 2025-NQM5 is preparing to issue about $500.9 million in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), bringing more capital into the market for investor-owned properties.Rithm Capital, a real estate investment trust that also invests in mortgage loan aggregation, is sponsoring the deal. This is also the program's fifth securitization this year backed by a pool of first-lien mortgages extended to prime and non-prime borrowers.October 15 is the closing date for the deal, which will sell notes through about nine tranches of class A, mezzanine and B notes, according to S&P Global Ratings. The senior notes will repay investors on a pro rata basis, while the mezzanine and subordinate notes will be repaid sequentially, according to the rating agency.S&P also says that the outstanding debt is slated to mature on Aug. 25, 2065. The notes benefit from credit enhancement through notes that are lower in payment priority and excess spread that supports subordination.The collateral pool is composed of 467 fixed-rate loans, which finance a range of homes, including single-family, planned-unit developments, two- to four-family residences and condominiums, according to S&P. The rating agency says property focused investor loans represent 32.60% of the collateral pool, and they were underwritten based on a debt service coverage ratio.On a weighted average (WA) basis, the collateral has a non-zero DSCR is 1.14. The loans have an original cumulative loan-to-value ratio of 74.2%, and a FICO score of 743, both on a WA basis.Most of the properties, 75.6%, are single-family dwellings, including townhouses and planned-unit developments. A little over half the mortgage proceeds, 57.5%, funded purchases, and 32.7% are for cash-out refinancings, the rating agency said.Alternative documentation, including bank statements and DSCR, accounts for a majority, 77.78%, of the underwriting methods.S&P assigns AAA to the three A1 tranches; AA- to the A2 notes; A- to the A3 notes; BBB- to the M1 notes; BB- to the B1 notes and B- to the B2 notes, the rating agency said.

President Donald Trump called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to boost homebuilders and help "restore the American Dream" in a Truth Social post on Sunday.The president said large homebuilders are sitting on 2 million empty lots, and compared the situation to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries keeping oil prices high before he resumed his time in office."It wasn't right for them to do that but, in a different form, is being done again — This time by the Big Homebuilders of our Nation," Trump wrote. "They're my friends, and they're very important to the SUCCESS of our Country, but now, they can get Financing, and they have to start building Homes."Trump's comments come as the housing market inched toward becoming buyer friendly in  August, led by a rebound in inventory and strong demand. But builders still faced little incentive to increase construction, as the seasonally-adjusted estimate of new houses for sale was 490,000 at the end of August, 1.4% below July's estimates, according to the Census Bureau."They're sitting on 2 Million empty lots, A RECORD," Trump wrote. "I'm asking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get Big Homebuilders going and, by so doing, help restore the American Dream!"Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency Bill Pulte weighed in Sunday night, saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will meet with each big builder individually to assess "building more, growth, partnership and more," in an X post Sunday night.Trump reportedly met with top U.S. bank executives in August to discuss potentially privatizing the finance firms, and said in May he was "giving very serious consideration" to bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public and would make a decision "in the near future." The firms guarantee more than half the nation's mortgages and have been under federal conservatorship since the 2008 financial crisis.Shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently trade on over-the-counter markets and have surged over the past five months.Affordable housing has been a priority for Trump since he reentered office, issuing an executive order that called for lower housing costs and increased housing supply on his first day.Since then, there has been speculation of a potential national housing emergency, with different lenders throwing out suggestions."President Trump is right to focus on housing affordability and NAHB agrees that getting more homes built is essential to restoring the American Dream," National Association of Home Builders Chairman Buddy Hughes said. "Achieving that goal will require builders of all sizes working together with the administration to overcome the complex government barriers that slow the pace of new construction."

A lot of market conditions have improved notably for home loans and there may be more where that came from, depending on rates and location, ICE Mortgage Technology's latest monthly analysis shows.Home affordability is at a two-year-plus high and rate drops have exposed millions to refinance incentives, with the share of median income needed for a typical home falling from 32% to 30%.The follow-up analysis of monthly data that the Intercontinental Exchange unit released earlier gives lenders several new benchmarks, including a way to size up refinancing prospects and prepayment risks in different rate scenarios.The analysis finds that when the average mortgage rate is in the 6.38% range, around 3.1 million borrowers would be "in the money" or have incentive to refinance, the company's McDash database shows. A small drop like the brief dip below 6.25% in September temporarily added incentives for an additional half million borrowers for a total of 3.6 million. If rates fell further to below 6.13%, another 1.4 million borrowers or a total of 5 million would have incentives. But it would take a drop to 2.5% to reach the maximum amount of refinancing incentive, covering 37.3 million loans. The benefits of lower rates for homebuyers go furthest in places like the Midwest, where affordability has returned to levels near or at historical averages. Around a dozen of the 100 largest markets have reached that point and most of them are in that region.Metropolitan areas that haven't benefited from a turnaround in affordability include Los Angeles, where the percentage of median income needed is 62%. San Diego, Oxnard, and San Jose, California, also are markets where affordability strains exist, as are New York and Miami.For those refinancing, softer markets could have a downside but generally only it impairs their equity levels to a significant degree. The average loan-to-value ratio for refis inched up at 80.1%.The rise in LTV "suggests borrowers with higher loan balances and elevated LTVs may have been first in line for relief."Other recent numbers show negative equity share is fluctuating but still low at 2%.How underwriting indicators show up in latest numbersThe company's earlier First Look report found foreclosure sales have sped up and other numbers have shown hints of concerns in neighboring consumer finance sectors, but the latest analysis of mortgage credit indicators shows improvement."While average credit score for rate-and-term refinances fell to a more than two-year low of 689 in mid-August, it climbed to 722 in the week ending Sept. 19 — a nine-month high — as borrowers with higher credit scores moved quickly," IMT said in its Mortgage Monitor report.The credit score of rate-locked purchase mortgages topped 736, marking a six-year high in line.The average debt-to-income ratio for a rate-locked purchase loan dipped to a two-and-a-half year low of 38.5%. The average 34.1% DTI for refinances was the lowest since March 2022. DTIs still haven't come back to the lower levels seen during and prior to the pandemic. Pre-pandemic, DTIs were typically no higher than 37% for purchase loans and around 33% for refis.Sizing up potential flood riskIn a timely section of the report, given recent federal flood insurance restrictions tied to the government shutdown, IMT examined climate and property insurance data to gauge how widespread the concern is. Some of the takeaways were as follows:Prevalence of floods: one in every 100 years, or one-in-four chance for 30-year loansMortgaged single-family homes in the United States with flood risk: 5.3 million or 12%Number of single-family borrowers at "high or extreme" flood risk: 350,000Higher risk borrowers who are under- or uninsured: 14% and around 67%, respectivelyIMT defined borrowers as underinsured if they had flood coverage below the amount of their outstanding mortgage balance.

Key insight: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is paring down nearly all community bank regulatory measures not required by law, leaving it up to examiners to determine applicable requirements. Expert quote: "Community banks have an outsized impact on lending and are vital to the strength of the U.S. economy. Today's actions relieve these banks of regulatory burden and unproductive reporting requirements, so they are better positioned to support their communities and drive economic growth." — Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould.Supporting data: Banks with $30 billion or less in assets are considered community banks by the OCC.The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Monday announced new measures to scale back its non-statuatory oversight of small banks, limiting its scope to the most fundamental banking risks and allowing examiners to determine when and to what extent to intervene with the banks they oversee. The agency also requested public comment on two proposed rules: one to repeal the Fair Housing Home Loan Data System regulation, which the agency says is a "largely duplicative data collection requirement," as well as a separate proposal to allow community banks to be eligible for fast-track licensing approvals."The OCC will continue to prioritize reforms targeted to community banks ahead of broader reforms for the industry," the OCC release stated. "Ongoing work includes adjusting the community bank leverage ratio framework and a simplified strategic plan process for community banks to comply with the Community Reinvestment Act."Beginning Jan. 1, 2026, the OCC will eliminate policy-based exam requirements not mandated by law, instead giving examiners and regulators a free hand in determining what kinds of examination to conduct on community banks. Examiners will instead use a fully risk-based approach, tailoring exam frequency and scope to each bank's size, complexity and risk profile. The OCC says the move will rely on examiner discretion and simplify the burden on small firms."When appropriate for a community bank's activities and risk profile, examiners will conduct appropriate examination activities. This may include streamlined testing methods, more limited sampling, and reliance on bank-provided reports as appropriate for a community bank's activities and size, complexity, and risk profile," the bulletin stated. "As needed, examiners will also conduct follow up activities for matters requiring attention, violations of law, and enforcement actions at appropriate times."In a separate move, the agency also said it will stop using its complex exam procedures for community banks that sell investment products like mutual funds or annuities, arguing the old process was too complex for smaller institutions. The change means community banks will no longer be examined under the detailed Retail Nondeposit Investment Products, or RNDIP, handbook, which lays out strict risk management and compliance procedures for selling uninsured investment products. Community banks, which the OCC defines as those with up to $30 billion in assets, will instead be reviewed under more general supervisory guidelines. In a third bulletin the agency clarified that smaller banks no longer need to conduct yearly reviews of the financial models they use to manage risk, price loans or set capital levels. The agency said banks can decide how often to validate their models based on size, complexity, and risk exposure, and promised not to penalize institutions that take a lighter-touch approach."The OCC will not provide negative supervisory feedback to a bank solely for the frequency or scope of the model validation that the bank reasonably determined to perform based on the bank's risk exposures, its business activities, and the complexity and extent of its model use," the bulletin stated. "To ensure that flexibility for model risk management is maintained going forward, the OCC will emphasize that message internally with its community bank examination teams."The agency separately proposed a rule to scrap a requirement that banks collect and report fair housing home loan data, saying the regulation is duplicative and obsolete. The OCC claims the elimination of the requirement will not come at the expense of its ability to monitor housing discrimination. "The OCC has undertaken a review of [the rule] and determined that the regulation is obsolete and largely duplicative of and inconsistent with other legal authorities that require national banks to collect and retain certain information on applications for home loans," the proposed rule announcement stated. "Moreover, [the rule] imposes asymmetrical data collection requirements on national banks compared with their other depository institution counterparts, and the data collected have limited utility."The agency proposed yet another rule loosening licensing requirements for community banks. Under the proposed rule, community banks would be eligible for faster approvals on mergers, reorganizations and other corporate actions requiring agency approval. Under the plan, qualifying community banks with clean regulatory records would have automatic access to the truncated filings procedures for applications, allowing small lenders to compete better within the industry according to OCC.A top banking trade group applauded the move Monday, with American Bankers Association President Rob Nichols calling it common sense. "The guidance and proposed rulemakings will help ensure that individual institutions are subject to supervision that is appropriate to the risks presented by their products and services and that regulators keep their focus on material financial risks that directly affect the safety and soundness of the nation's banks and our financial system," Nichols wrote in a statement. "We appreciate Comptroller Gould's commonsense approach to regulation and supervision, which will help America's community banks continue to meet the needs of their customers and communities both now and in the future."

A yearslong legal battle between credit union regulators and U.S. Bank over mortgage securities dating back to the financial crisis is nearing a settlement, according to new court filings.  Both NCUA and U.S. Bank said they were unable to comment on the settlement.A letter dated Oct. 2 from both sides to Judge Louis Stanton of the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York, said they have "reached an agreement in principle" and want a 30-day stay from further proceedings. This is pending a final agreement and stipulation of dismissal.Judge Stanton dismissed the case with prejudice but without costs, his memo, also dated Oct. 2, stated. Either party can within 30 days apply by letter to have the case restored to the court calendar.Normally, a dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition of the matter and neither side can appeal or refile.Following the Financial Crisis, multiple legal actions were started arguing about what was the role of the trustee.How did the legal case start?The NCUA Board initiated the lawsuit against U.S. Bank and Bank of America in December 2018, regarding its role as liquidating agent of U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, Western Corporate Federal Credit Union, Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union, and Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union.But that suit had its roots in a 2014 action, which also involved a sixth credit union, Constitution Corporate Federal Credit Union. All the credit unions named had failed as a result of bad RMBS they purchased. That case was one of three dismissed by Judge Katherine Forrest, also of the Southern District, in May 2015. In her ruling, Judge Forrest allowed for amended complaints to be refiled.Judge Forrest's original ruling was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2018.In August 2019, Bank of America was removed from the case via a settlement, with each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.What were NCUA's allegations against U.S. Bank?The fifth amended complaint in this case was filed in September 2021, with only U.S. Central, Western Corporate and Southwest Corporate remaining as plaintiffs.The proceedings were whittled down to 20 RMBS trusts. The last complaint alleged U.S. Bank had noticed that many of the underlying mortgage files had material defects, representation and warranty breaches, and defaults.But the bank "allegedly failed to provide notice and enforce warrant or repurchase duties for such loans and otherwise to act as a prudent person in the management of its own property following events of default."If the trustee had fulfilled its obligations, a significant percentage of the mortgages would have been repurchased from the pools and financial losses would have been averted, the filing said.The filing also referenced a 2011 U.S. Bank consent order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency over servicing practices and a 2015 follow-up action adding further restrictions involving six banks in total, including U.S. Bank.Back in 2011, U.S. Bank's role as trustee (along with Wells Fargo) in a Massachusetts foreclosure case came under scrutiny by a judge and the media.Trustees had argued they had no authority over the servicer and a decision to foreclose, an argument to which the plaintiff's attorney in the matter strongly disagreed.

President Trump has called on the big home builders to build more homes in a new social media post.It’s no secret that housing affordability is terrible at the moment, and one of the reasons is a lack of available for-sale supply.As we all know from economics 101, or simply daily life, the greater the supply of something, the lower the price.So if the builders decided to build more homes, we’d arguably see asking prices fall, thereby improving affordability.The problem is the home builders are already sitting on a supply glut and they’re for-profit companies.Trump Accuses Big Home Builders of Sitting on Empty LotsWhile Trumps’ Truth Social post above might be well-intentioned (who doesn’t want a cheaper house to buy), it’s not necessarily feasible.In his post, he compared the big home builders to OPEC, claiming the latter “kept Oil prices high.”He added that “it wasn’t right for them to do that,” and said it was now “being done again.”However, this apparent cartel is being committed “by the Big Homebuilders of our Nation” this time around, who he goes on to say are his friends.The President pointed out that “they’re sitting on 2 Million empty lots,” which he claimed is a record, while simultaneously asking for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get them building more.It’s unclear what that plan to get them going might be, but you’d assume some sort of financing deal to make homeownership more attractive if it involves the GSEs.Some sort of incentive for first-time home buyers to put the American Dream back within reach.While it sounds good on the surface, it’s hard to blame the home builders for the current supply shortfall.They’re already sitting on too many homes in the communities where they’ve built, which explains why they’re offering record incentives to their customers.If they have to offer major incentives, including massive mortgage rate buydowns, to move inventory, it makes little sense to build more.Exacerbating this is the cost of supplies to build homes thanks to tariffs, something the Trump administration implemented.And perhaps the cost of labor, which has possibly been disrupted due to sweeping raids of illegal immigrants.Poor Housing Affordability Has Already Led to a Supply Glut of Newly-Built HomesNow let’s consider new home supply, which increased to 490,000 units as of the end of August 2025, per the Census Bureau.While it was 1.4% below the July 2025 estimate of 497,000, it was 4% above the August 2024 estimate of 471,000.And the only reason it’s not much higher is because of a surprise hot new home sales print last month.That surprise print also pushed the supply of new homes for sale down to 7.4 months, which was below the 9.0 months in July and the August 2024 estimate of 8.2 months.However, prior to this unexpected turn lower it was approaching 10 months of supply, which only happened in September 2022 when mortgage rates more than doubled.And in 2008, when the mortgage crisis led to one of the worst housing downturns in history.What’s more, economists don’t even seem to believe the August new homes report data, which is subject to big revisions.It also seemed to conflict deeply with home builder sentiment, which has been quite poor, and industry chatter that has pointed to weak buyer activity.Just consider a recent quote from Lennar’s Co-CEO Stuart Miller during their third quarter 2025 earnings release.He said, “We believe that now is a good time to moderate our volume and allow the market to catch up.”During the quarter, the company delivered 21,584 homes and recorded 23,004 new orders, but not without major concessions.“Achieving these results required additional incentives, resulting in a reduced average sales price of $383,000, and our gross margin drifted down to 17.5%, while our SG&A expenses came in at 8.2%, reflecting the soft market conditions.”Then there’s D.R. Horton, the nation’s top home builder, whose Executive Chairman David Auld said, “New home demand continues to be impacted by ongoing affordability constraints and cautious consumer sentiment.”“We expect our sales incentives to remain elevated and increase further during the fourth quarter,the extent to which will depend on the strength of demand during the remainder of summer, changes in mortgage interest rates and other market conditions.”Buyer Demand Is Weak and New Homes Aren’t Located in the Right PlacesIn other words, the nation’s two largest home builders are saying the same thing. Buyer demand is weak due to a lack of affordability.And the only way to move homes right now is to offer huge incentives to customers.One major strategy lately has been the mortgage rate buydowns, which both builders employ via their captive mortgage lenders, Lennar Mortgage and DHI Mortgage, respectively.Asking them to build even more homes and take a haircut on pricing just didn’t make sense.Also, the places where they have land and build aren’t necessarily where we need more new homes.Unfortunately, home builders often only build in the outskirts of major metros, where there’s already ample supply.Building even more homes in faraway places won’t solve this housing crisis.We need more existing home supply in places where families actually want to live. But much of it is off the market due to things like mortgage rate lock-in.Perhaps incentivizing existing homeowners to sell is a better strategy than continuing to build where people don’t want to buy.Read on: Should I buy a new home or a used home? Before creating this site, I worked as an account executive for a wholesale mortgage lender in Los Angeles. My hands-on experience in the early 2000s inspired me to begin writing about mortgages 19 years ago to help prospective (and existing) home buyers better navigate the home loan process. Follow me on X for hot takes.Latest posts by Colin Robertson (see all)

Key Insight: The deal marks the largest bank acquisition announcement of 2025, and Fifth Third's first since 2019.What's at Stake: Comerica had been facing calls from an activist investor to sell itself for months, though CEO Curt Farmer said that the external pressure wasn't a factor Supporting Data: When completed, the deal will create the ninth-largest bank in the country, with $288 billion of assets.Note: This is a developing story. Check back for additional updates from management and analysts.Fifth Third Bancorp said it has inked a deal to acquire Comerica in a $10.9 billion transaction that will create the ninth-largest bank in the country.The Cincinnati-based company will buy the Dallas-based peer in an all-stock purchase expected to close in the first quarter of 2026, creating a company with a combined $288 billion of assets. Fifth Third has been focused on an organic growth strategy across the Southeast, along with expanding its payments capabilities. Fifth Third CEO Tim Spence said in an interview on Monday that the Comerica purchase will not only complement his bank's strategic initiatives, but will also become its top priority going forward."This is officially the biggest thing we've ever done as a company, by any measure," Spence said. "So it is number one, two and three for us, in terms of the focus." When completed, Fifth Third expects half of its branches to be in the higher-growth Southeast, including Texas and Arizona.Fifth Third Chief Financial Officer Bryan Preston said on a Monday morning call with analysts that the deal "brings together highly compatible businesses and industry-leading products and services," adding that the combination cements Fifth Third's presence in the Midwest, and "dramatically" expands growth prospects in Texas, Arizona and California.Scott Siefers, an analyst at Piper Sandler, wrote in a note that the deal marks a "significant acceleration" of Fifth Third's growth in Texas, calling it "basically a game-changer." The acquisition comes amid a flurry of bank deals, as the regulatory and economic environment has greased the wheels for financial institutions to buy each other after several years of relatively tepid acquisition activity.The deal also comes 10 weeks after activist investor HoldCo Asset Management issued a report calling for Comerica to sell itself, arguing that the Dallas-based company made poor financial decisions in recent years and keeps failing to address its lagging stock price performance.The asset manager's 52-page report called out Comerica's stock price since Curt Farmer became CEO in 2019 and accused the bank of not taking responsibility for what it said were "disastrous decisions" related to interest-rate risk and other blunders by the bank's management. It urged Comerica to hire an investment banker and begin the process of marketing and selling itself.HoldCo owns approximately 1.8% of Comerica's common shares. The group was in the midst of launching a proxy battle to install up to five new directors on Comerica's 11-person board.Farmer, in a Monday morning interview with American Banker, declined to comment on any specific activist investors, but said that external pressure "did not factor into our decisioning here.""We had been thinking about — really coming out of the regional bank crisis in the spring of 2023 — more and more about the need for scale, for the need for a bigger, granular retail deposit base. It's something our board had been weighing for a while."He added that those thoughts had accelerated over the last six months, and then it was "a matter of evaluating the decision." Farmer said the deal proposal with Fifth Third "unfolded fairly quickly."Farmer will stay on at Fifth Third as vice chair for an undisclosed period of time to assist with the transition, but he told American Banker he'll remain for as long as it's valuable for the franchise. Spence said that "when the time is right," Farmer will also become part of the bank's board of directors.Jon Arfstrom, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets who covers Comerica, wrote in a note that the announcement was "consistent" with his expectations for the Dallas company, following the "dialogue around Comerica's longer-term performance and strategic outlook.""In our view, while the interest rate environment has been a challenge for Comerica's profitability, we continue to see significant value in the company's commercial lending franchise and footprint which encompasses attractive markets in Michigan, California and Texas," Arfstrom wrote. Fifth Third's stock was relatively flat as of mid-morning Monday. Comerica's stock price was up more than 14%.Allissa Kline contributed to this story.

A federal judge dismissed the most serious charges against United Wholesale Mortgage in a racketeering lawsuit which arose from an explosive media report last spring. U.S. District Judge Brandy R. McMillion this week tossed all but two claims against the megalender which borrowers suggested improperly steered them to higher cost loans. The class action case, which invoked accusations typically levied against organized crime syndicates, argued that UWM holds brokers captive in curbing wholesale competition and overcharging borrowers. The lawsuit originated last April from the first-ever report by Hunterbrook which published a lengthy probe into UWM's practices. The newsroom's hedge-fund parent at that time also publicly announced a short position in UWM and long position in rival Rocket Cos.An amended 249-page lawsuit by UWM borrowers accused the lender of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and other state consumer protection laws. McMillion only left intact two Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act and consumer protection law claims against three individuals. The Pontiac, Michigan-based company celebrated the ruling in a statement Friday. "This decision confirms the entire case is nearly resolved in our favor and underscores that there was no merit from the start to the allegations," read the statement. "We are confident the remaining claims will also be resolved in our favor."Attorneys for the named plaintiffs didn't respond to requests for comment Friday. Why a judge sided with the lender over borrowersThe case drew on findings in the Hunterbrook report, which found over 8,000 independent brokers sending 99% or more of their loans to UWM. The "corrupt UWM loyalist" brokers were sending loans to the wholesale giant regardless of the comparative costs, therefore allegedly violating their fiduciary duty to home buyers. UWM immediately slammed the lawsuit, and criticized the media outlet's relationship with the hedge fund, accusing them of sensationalizing public information to manipulate the stock market. In the 87-page opinion and order filed Monday, the judge found plaintiffs had met a few of the elements needed for the RICO counts but still fell short of meeting legal requirements. "But here, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged intent because the underlying fraudulent acts focus on the brokers' conduct, not UWM," wrote McMillion, who did not place culpability on brokers either.The borrowers also did not suggest UWM intentionally defrauded plaintiffs into their alleged higher cost loans. McMillion also cited UWM's victories in litigation related to its "All-In" ultimatum, stating courts have already upheld the legitimacy of its wholesale broker agreement and that it wasn't a focus of this case. "Nothing in the broker agreement … explains that brokers are prohibited from shopping lenders (other than Rocket or Fairway) or that they are required to exclusively offer UWM loans," wrote McMillion. "And that is telling for the court."McMillion further explained rationale for dismissing most of the RESPA claims, aiding and abetting claims and other alleged violations of consumer protection laws. She also dismissed the cases against UWM's holding company and President and CEO Mat Ishbia. What happens next?Most of the dismissals were made with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled. No further hearings nor deadlines were scheduled in the court docket as of Friday afternoon. Hunterbrook has not posted any updates regarding UWM. A Hunterbrook link where consumers can look up their broker to see if they were "ripped off" via the purported scheme remains online. The outlet has continued to publish lengthy investigations of various financial firms, including a probe this week of a national homebuilder. UWM still faces other legal challenges, including accusations of predatory lending by the Ohio attorney general. That lawsuit also accuses UWM of scheming with loyalist brokers to dupe customers. A federal judge remanded that lawsuit to a state court in September, a move which UWM appealed to keep in a federal forum. The court this week also rejected UWM's motion to pause the proceedings while its appeal is underway; the lender declined to comment on the case Friday.

I got to thinking that mortgage rates might be kind of stuck where they are until more new data gets released.There’s just one little problem at the moment; the government is closed. And has been since October 1st.This means we won’t get a lot of new economic data, perhaps most notably the monthly jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).That was slated to be released this morning, but due to the shutdown it has been “delayed.”Does that mean mortgage rates are stuck until the data starts flowing again? Maybe.Mortgage Rates Stuck Near Recent Lows Isn’t Necessarily a Bad ThingFirst things first, even if mortgage rates are stuck at current levels, it could be a lot worse.After all, the 30-year fixed is currently hovering around 6.34%, whether you believe Freddie Mac or Mortgage News Daily, just above those red circles in the chart above.They’re both at the same exact number. Of course, mortgage rates are typically offered in eighths, so that actual rate could be 6.25% or 6.375%.Anyway, the point here is that mortgage rates are actually pretty attractive at the moment.Imagine if the government had shut down when mortgage rates were 7% or higher?Instead, they’re near some of the best levels since mortgage rates began their monster ascent higher back in 2022.So rates possibly being stuck here could be viewed in a positive light. No surprise hot jobs report or CPI report to send mortgage rates higher again.Aside from not releasing these reports, the government has also “halted collection of information for future reports,” including the CPI report that is expected to be released on October 15th.So even if the government shutdown ends soon or before some of these reports are expected to be released, new data will be delayed and we’ll need to be patient.But Are Mortgage Rates Really Stuck When We Have Private Economic Data?While we aren’t going to get key economic reports like the CPI report, PPI report, retail sales, the BLS jobs report, or even housing starts, some economic data is still being released.For example, we got the monthly ADP jobs report on Wednesday and it provided some pretty decent clues that the jobs data continues to be very weak.We already knew labor was in a bad spot, with the June, July, and August reports all coming in light, along with big downward revisions.The ADP report didn’t seem to detract much if at all, with the private sector losing 32,000 jobs in the month of September, well below the forecast of 45,000 jobs created.And the number of jobs created in August 2025 was revised down from 54,000 to -3,000, similar to what we saw with the government’s job report a month ago.Economists tend to put more trust into the BLS jobs report, but ADP is echoing the same stuff and still provides a pretty good sample size minus government jobs.There’s also a growing trend toward independent data collection thanks to technology and AI, which could ramp up even faster in light of what’s happening with the government.Especially with the massive revisions of late, which have caused some to lose faith.Mass Firings, Geopolitics, and Other Surprises Can Move Mortgage Rates TooSpeaking of, we continue to hear threats of mass government firings, which could push up the unemployment rate even more.There’s also always the odd geopolitical issue that could pop up unexpectedly, pushing bond yields lower if there’s a flight to safety away from stocks.So if you think about it, there’s plenty going on even without the release of key reports.As I wrote before, bond yields tend to fall during government shutdowns. Even if we’re flying in the dark data-wise, there might still be downward pressure on mortgage rates.Of course, there may have been even more downward movement if the September jobs report were actually released today.However, that’s not a given. We don’t know if that report would have come in hot or cold. It sure feels like it would have been another dud, but you never know.In the meantime, enjoy some of the lowest mortgage rates of the past three years.(photo: lorenz.markus97) Before creating this site, I worked as an account executive for a wholesale mortgage lender in Los Angeles. My hands-on experience in the early 2000s inspired me to begin writing about mortgages 19 years ago to help prospective (and existing) home buyers better navigate the home loan process. Follow me on X for hot takes.Latest posts by Colin Robertson (see all)