Griffin Funding, a San Diego-based mortgage lender, analyzed federal data on mortgage rates, home prices, household income and inflation to compare the two eras. The comparison holds the loan the same in both, with 20% down and a 30-year fixed rate. The results describe a typical household rather than what any individual buyer paid or could qualify to borrow.

The answer turns on which cost you look at. Buyers in 1981 had the heavier monthly payment, while today’s buyers face the steeper price.

An $83,700 home in 1981 would cost about $298,000 today

The average new home in the U.S. sold for $83,700 in the fourth quarter of 1981, according to Census Bureau and HUD new-home sales data. Adjusted for inflation with the Consumer Price Index, that equals about $298,300 in August 2026 dollars.

The average new home sold for $502,700 in the second quarter of 2026. That’s about 1.7 times the inflation-adjusted 1981 price.

Some of that gap comes from the homes themselves, since builders now sell bigger houses in different places and at different price points. To check whether size alone explains it, Griffin Funding also looked at the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s house price index, which follows price changes on the same properties over time. Tracking the same properties limits the effect of shifts in what builders sell, though renovations and additions can still move it. It shows values rose about 6.7-fold from late 1981 to mid-2026, while consumer prices rose about 3.6-fold. A home worth $83,700 in late 1981 that kept pace with the index would be worth about $560,500 today.

The 1981 payment took nearly two-thirds of a typical household’s income

To compare affordability, Griffin Funding calculated the monthly principal and interest on each home, then measured that payment against median household income.

A late-1981 buyer borrowing $66,960 at 18% paid about $1,009 a month. Median household income that year was $19,070, according to the Census Bureau’s historical income tables. Before taxes and insurance, that payment alone ate up about 64% of gross income. In today’s dollars, it equals about $3,600 a month.

A buyer today borrowing $402,160 at 7.28% pays about $2,752 a month. Median household income in 2025, the most recent year available, was $87,460. Against that, the payment is about 38% of gross income. At 8%, the payment rises to $2,951, or about 40%.

Today’s buyers face a much higher price tag

In late 1981, the average new home cost about 4.4 times median household income. Today it costs about 5.7 times. Measured by annual averages, the ratio peaked at 6.9 in 2022, when prices jumped before incomes caught up.

The difference shows up most in the down payment. A 20% down payment in late 1981 was about $16,700, or about 10.5 months of median household income. Today it’s about $100,500, or about 13.8 months, nearly a third more. Saving that much takes longer than those months suggest, since households are also paying rent and other bills along the way. For first-time buyers without equity from a previous home, that gap can matter more than the rate.

Not every loan requires 20% down, but using it keeps the comparison consistent. Putting less down lowers the cash needed at closing. It also raises the loan amount and often adds mortgage insurance.

What about taxes, insurance and smaller down payments?

Most buyers don’t put 20% down, and every buyer pays property taxes and homeowners insurance. Adding those costs raises the share of income in both eras. It doesn’t change which era had the heavier payment.

Property taxes took a bigger bite of home value in 1981. The median effective property tax rate was 1.09% that year, according to the Census Bureau’s 1982 Census of Governments, compared with about 0.91% today. Homeowners insurance has moved the other way. The average annual premium on a single-family mortgage was about $2,405 in 2025, according to ICE, or about 0.48% of the average new home’s price. No comparable national figure exists for 1981, so the comparison below leaves insurance out for 1981 and includes it for today. That tilts the results in 1981’s favor.

Low-down-payment options also looked different. In 1981, FHA’s basic loan limit was $67,500, below the price of the average new home, so FHA could insure that home only in designated high-cost areas. VA loans allowed no money down, with no funding fee and no monthly insurance. Today, FHA’s 2026 loan limit floor of $541,287 covers the average new home in every county, with 3.5% down. VA now charges a 2.15% funding fee for first-time use with no money down.

A buyer who puts nothing down today spends about 56% of median household income on the full monthly payment. That’s still less than the 68% a 1981 buyer paid with 20% down.

Rates would need to reach about 13.6% to match 1981

At today’s home prices and incomes, the 30-year rate would need to climb to about 13.6% for the payment to take the same share of income it did in late 1981.

Still, today’s market is far from easy. By the same measure, payments took about 23% of median household income in 2020, when rates averaged 3.1%. The share was about 38% in 2006 and 39% in 2023. Today’s 38% sits near the highest levels since the early 1990s.

Why 1981 buyers caught a break later

Buyers in 1981 also got help after they closed.

Incomes rose quickly. Median household income climbed about 31% between 1981 and 1986. The fixed $1,009 payment took 64% of income in 1981 and about 49% five years later.

Rates fell, too. The average 30-year rate dropped to about 10.2% in 1986. A 1981 buyer who refinanced the remaining balance into a 25-year loan at that rate would have cut the payment to about $613 before refinancing costs, or roughly 30% of 1986 median household income.

Looking back, it’s easy to see. Nobody signing an 18% mortgage in 1981 knew that help was coming, and not every household’s income kept pace or every borrower qualified to refinance.

Today’s buyers can’t count on the same help. Median household income rose about 29% from 2020 to 2025, a stretch of high inflation. Consumer prices rose 3.4% in the 12 months through August 2026. Mortgage rates have been rising, climbing from 6.76% on Sept. 10 to 7.28% on Oct. 1. And while lower rates would ease the monthly payment, they wouldn’t shrink the down payment on a home whose price holds steady.

“People compare today’s rates to 1981 and assume buyers have never had it worse,” said Bill Lyons, founder and CEO of Griffin Funding. “The payment says otherwise. A 1981 buyer handed over nearly two-thirds of their income for principal and interest. Today it’s closer to 38%. What matters is whether the payment works at today’s rate, because nobody can promise the income growth and refinance that rescued the 1981 buyer.”

Methodology

Data were reviewed Oct. 3, 2026. Mortgage rates are from Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey (FRED series MORTGAGE30US). The 1981 comparison uses an 18% rate, near the fourth-quarter 1981 average of 17.74% and the Oct. 9, 1981, peak of 18.63%. Current figures use the Oct. 1, 2026, average of 7.28%, with an 8% scenario for comparison.

Home prices are the average sales price of new houses sold in the U.S., from the Census Bureau and HUD (FRED series ASPUS), for the fourth quarter of 1981 and the second quarter of 2026. Results were checked against the FHFA All-Transactions House Price Index (USSTHPI), which measures price changes on the same properties using sales prices and refinance appraisals.

Inflation adjustments use the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPIAUCSL), comparing the fourth-quarter 1981 average with August 2026.

Household income is Census Bureau median household income in current dollars. Figures for 1980 through 1983 come from the Census Bureau’s historical household income tables, and figures from 1984 onward come from FRED series MEHOINUSA646N. Current figures use 2025 income, the latest available, without adjusting it forward to 2026.

Except in the full-payment comparison, each payment is calculated on a 30-year fixed loan with 20% down and covers principal and interest only. Payments exclude property taxes, insurance, mortgage insurance and closing costs, and they are not a lender qualification calculation. The late-1981 and October 2026 figures are point estimates. The historical chart uses annual averages instead, comparing each year’s average new-home price and 30-year rate with that year’s median household income.

The refinance example assumes 60 on-time payments, then a new 25-year loan at the 1986 average rate, with no fees added to the balance.

The full-payment comparison adds property taxes, homeowners insurance and mortgage insurance to principal and interest. The 1981 property tax rate is the median area effective rate from the Census Bureau’s 1982 Census of Governments, Volume 2. Today’s rate is the national effective rate from the 2023 American Community Survey, as calculated by the National Association of Home Builders. Today’s insurance cost uses ICE’s 2025 average annual premium on single-family loans. National 1981 figures for homeowners insurance and private mortgage insurance aren’t available, so the 1981 figures exclude both. FHA terms reflect the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1979 for 1981 and HUD Mortgagee Letter 2025-23 for 2026. VA’s funding fee was reinstated in October 1982, after the 1981 comparison period. Today’s private mortgage insurance range uses Enact’s published rate card for credit scores from 720 to 760 and above. Today’s FHA and VA figures assume the upfront premium or funding fee is financed into the loan.

The post Mortgage rates hit 18% in 1981. Here’s how that compares with buying a home today appeared first on Griffin Funding.

Griffin Funding ranked Cotality’s published state equity-gain data for the period from Q1 2020 to Q2 2026. Cotality, a data and analytics company, reports gains exceeding $200,000 in average equity per mortgaged property in six of the 48 states included here. New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island lead the comparison; seven of its top 10 states are in the Northeast. The ranking measures cumulative dollar gains since 2020, not current equity balances or the share of mortgaged properties considered equity-rich.

Yet large gains for owners can coexist with strained renter budgets. In California and Connecticut, two states above that $200,000 threshold, more than half of renters were cost-burdened in 2024, spending over 30 percent of income on housing and utilities. Those are the latest annual renter-burden figures used in Harvard’s 2026 housing report.

Together, the figures highlight two sides of household financial security: the assets a family already holds and the money it has left to save. They do not measure a state-by-state change in the homeowner–renter wealth gap.

Six states crossed the $200,000 mark

New Jersey led at $250,861, followed by Connecticut ($239,653), Rhode Island ($224,813), California ($214,632), Massachusetts ($213,288) and New Hampshire ($206,811). Vermont is not reported in this dataset; Delaware is excluded because its gain entry duplicates its current equity balance. Full coverage and definitions appear in the methodology.

The places gaining equity are not the only places under pressure

Connecticut’s reported equity increase was $239,653, while 52 percent of its renters were cost-burdened in 2024. California’s gain was $214,632, alongside a 54 percent renter-burden rate. The state cost-burden figures in Harvard’s report describe housing expenses relative to income, not renters’ assets.

The contrast also works in the other direction. Florida and Nevada had smaller equity gains, at $141,315 and $125,510, but higher renter-burden rates of 59 percent and 57 percent. These four examples show why an equity-gain ranking cannot stand in for a renter-hardship ranking.

Nationally, 22.7 million renter households were cost-burdened in 2024, including 12.1 million spending more than half their income on housing and utilities. A household putting that much toward shelter has less room to build emergency reserves, contribute to retirement accounts or save for a down payment.

Percentage gains can conceal a widening dollar gap

The Federal Reserve’s latest available Survey of Consumer Finances supplies a separate, inflation-adjusted measure of the national wealth divide. Median homeowner net worth rose from $295,500 in 2019 to $396,200 in 2022. For renters and other non-homeowners, it increased from $7,300 to $10,400. All four figures are expressed in 2022 dollars.

Source: Federal Reserve, Table 2. National family medians; total assets minus liabilities, not home equity alone.

The difference between those medians widened by $97,600, even though non-homeowners’ wealth grew faster in percentage terms. A large percentage increase from a small starting balance can still leave a household further behind in dollars. These group comparisons do not establish that ownership alone caused the gap.

A slower market does not erase the advantage of buying earlier

An owner can retain substantial gains even after home-price growth slows. That distinction matters for a renter waiting for affordability to improve: a market that stops booming has not necessarily returned to its earlier prices.

Cotality’s separate analysis of purchase timing reports that buyers who purchased in 2020 or 2021 accumulated about $86,000 more equity than those who purchased in 2022 or later. That comparison concerns purchase cohorts, not renters, but it illustrates how the timing of entry can shape a household’s accumulated cushion.

Washington, D.C., makes a related point about geography. Its $31,540 equity gain was below every state in this comparison, yet Cotality placed it ninth in current average equity among the jurisdictions reported. A place can hold substantial housing wealth without leading recent gains.

None of these figures makes a future gain certain. Falling values can erode equity, and additional borrowing can reduce an owner’s stake. The economic advantage is the cushion already accumulated, not a promise that it will keep growing.

The lasting divide is in the options available

Equity and cash flow solve different problems. Accumulated housing wealth may support a move, retirement or assistance to a family member. But paying an unexpected bill requires available cash or access to financing, and a valuable home does not guarantee either.

A second-lien HELOC or home equity loan can leave an existing first mortgage in place. A cash-out refinance replaces it with a larger loan. Both add debt secured by the home. Borrowing changes how a household accesses its wealth; it does not create new wealth by itself.

Renters can build assets through savings, retirement accounts, investments and businesses. Renting can also preserve flexibility and avoid ownership costs. The difficulty arises when housing expenses leave too little money to pursue those alternatives.

That is why the policy stakes extend beyond the next home-price reading. More attainable homes can widen access to ownership, while affordable rentals can make saving possible before a household buys, or for households that never do. A stronger balance sheet should not require having entered the housing market before a particular boom.

The test of the home equity boom is not simply how much wealth existing owners accumulated. It is whether the households still outside it can build financial security of their own.

Methodology

Griffin Funding sorted Cotality’s published gain chart; it did not produce the underlying equity estimates. The metric is the nominal change in average equity per mortgaged residential property from Q1 2020 to Q2 2026. Mortgage-free properties are excluded. Changing property and borrower composition can affect averages; this is not a fixed-cohort study.

The state gains are not inflation-adjusted. Calculating real gains would require expressing the starting and ending equity balances in the same period’s dollars before subtracting; simply discounting the nominal increase would not measure the change in purchasing power correctly. The Federal Reserve comparison above already uses constant 2022 dollars.

State comparison and source notes

The map and charts use the source chart’s values, rounded to the nearest thousand for display. Cotality’s release narrative rounds Texas to $58,000; the source chart reports $57,437, which appears as $57,000 on the map. The map covers the 48 included states.

Vermont’s absence reflects Cotality’s coverage, not a low ranking. Griffin Funding’s earlier equity-rich state comparison used ATTOM’s share of mortgaged properties with at least 50 percent equity, a different measure and dataset. Delaware is excluded because its gain entry duplicates its current equity balance. D.C. is shown on the map as unranked at $31,540.

Renter statistics describe 2024 and come from Harvard’s 2026 report, printed pages 32–33. The four state examples are illustrative, not a full pairing of renter burden across the ranking or a test of causation. The national wealth comparison uses the Fed’s 2019 and 2022 surveys. Equity data were retrieved for the original analysis on September 18, 2026.

The post Average home equity gains topped $200,000 in six states as renters faced heavy housing costs appeared first on Griffin Funding.

Conforming mortgages fell below half of Optimal Blue rate-lock volume in April, the first time that had happened since at least January 2018. Conforming share was 47% in July and remained at 47% in August, while non-qualified mortgage (Non-QM) loans rose from more than 10% of locks in July to more than 11% in August.

Griffin Funding looked back at six years of Optimal Blue rate-lock data to see how much the market had changed. In July 2020, conforming loans accounted for 73.1% of product share. By July 2026, that figure had fallen 26.1 percentage points to 47%. Separately reported Non-QM snapshots moved in the other direction, rising from about 1.4% in August 2020 to 8.34% in August 2025 and more than 11% in August 2026.

The conforming figures are July prints; the Non-QM figures are separately reported August prints. Gap years are unsourced and left out. 

The missing conforming share did not simply move into FHA or VA

The most useful comparison is what happened to the rest of the mortgage mix. From July 2024 to July 2026, conforming share fell from 56.1% to 47%, a decline of 9.1 percentage points. Over the same period, the broader non-conforming bucket, which includes jumbo and Non-QM loans, rose from 12.4% to nearly 21%, an increase of roughly 8.6 points.

FHA stayed near 19% across the comparison. VA moved only modestly. That does not prove individual borrowers migrated directly from conforming loans into non-conforming products, but it does show where the market-share expansion occurred: overwhelmingly outside the GSE-eligible conforming channel.

Non-QM did not replace conforming one-for-one. Jumbo lending grew as well, and some high-balance Non-QM loans blur the line between the two. The market is simply less concentrated in one channel than it used to be.

Non-QM is taking a larger share of that expansion

Optimal Blue’s year-over-year data show how quickly Non-QM gained ground. From August 2024 to August 2025, its share of mortgage activity rose from 5.6% to 8.34%, an increase of nearly 49%. By August 2026, Non-QM had risen above 11% of rate-lock volume.

A Bank of America Securities analysis reported by HousingWire estimates Non-QM originations reached $108 billion in 2025 and projects that volume will rise to $175 billion in 2026, an increase of roughly 62% and a new post-crisis high.

The growth is concentrated in investors and borrowers with nontraditional income

A closer look at the Non-QM market shows where much of that growth is coming from. Optimal Blue’s August 2026 data show that investor and debt-service-coverage-ratio loans represented more than 35% of Non-QM production, while bank-statement loans accounted for nearly 30%. Other expanded-guideline products made up the remainder.

This analysis is based on the August 2026 composition. The third share is the balance after the two published by Optimal Blue, not a figure Optimal Blue reported.

Together, those products serve two groups that often fall outside traditional agency underwriting: real estate investors qualifying through property cash flow and borrowers documenting income through bank statements.

The mix inside Non-QM is changing, too. Investor and debt-service-coverage-ratio (DSCR) loans represented 29% of Non-QM production in July 2025. Their share rose above one-third by July 2026 and exceeded 35% in August 2026, even as the broader Non-QM market continued to grow.

For real estate investors, DSCR loans are underwritten primarily using the rental property’s cash flow rather than the borrower’s personal employment income. For self-employed borrowers, bank-statement loans can use deposits to document qualifying income when tax-return income does not fully reflect business cash flow.

Higher home prices are part of the story, but not the whole story

Rising home prices are an obvious part of the explanation. As more borrowers move above agency loan limits, non-conforming lending naturally grows. The changing borrower and product mix suggests other factors are contributing too.

FHFA raised the baseline conforming loan limit to $832,750 for 2026, up $26,250 from 2025, with a high-cost ceiling of $1,249,125. Raising the limit allows more large mortgages to remain eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Non-conforming share nevertheless continued to climb.

At the same time, large loans are increasingly showing up inside Non-QM itself. Bank of America Securities estimates loans above $1 million account for about 28% of new 2026 Non-QM production, up from 20% in 2018. That suggests the non-agency market is expanding on multiple fronts: traditional jumbo borrowers, investors using DSCR, self-employed borrowers using alternative documentation, and high-balance loans moving through Non-QM channels.

This is not the same market as pre-2008 subprime

The label “Non-QM” can make the current expansion sound like a return to the loose-credit mortgage market that preceded the financial crisis. The label alone does not establish whether a loan has weak credit.

Today’s non-agency market includes investor loans underwritten using property cash flow, bank-statement programs that offer another way to document income, and high-balance loans that do not fit traditional agency channels. Some business-purpose investor loans may be exempt from federal Qualified Mortgage rules, even though the industry commonly groups them with Non-QM lending. These products carry different risks and pricing than conforming mortgages, but they do not automatically indicate weak credit.

Bank of America Securities also found that delinquencies have climbed among Non-QM loans originated between 2022 and 2024, especially cash-out refinances, bank-statement loans and loans to borrowers with multiple mortgages. But losses remain low: 3.6 basis points across roughly $281 billion in Non-QM loans originated and securitized since 2018. Loans originated in 2025 have performed better after lenders tightened standards.

The more important shift is structural: A larger share of mortgage demand now comes from borrowers and properties that need a different underwriting calculation than the conforming market was designed to provide.

The conforming mortgage is no longer the only center of the market

Conforming lending remains the single largest mortgage category. It held 47% of Optimal Blue rate-lock volume in August 2026, making it the largest category, but it is no longer a majority.

What replaced that majority is not one product. It is a more fragmented market: government lending, jumbo mortgages, DSCR loans, bank-statement loans and other expanded-guideline programs serving different borrower and property profiles.

That growth is one sign of a broader shift. The mortgage market is adapting to how Americans earn income, invest in property and finance increasingly expensive homes. Conforming loans now occupy a smaller part of that landscape.

Methodology and how to read this analysis

Griffin Funding analyzed publicly reported mortgage rate-lock shares from Optimal Blue’s Mortgage Pricing Insights and Market Advantage reports. Optimal Blue reports that its platform is used to price and lock more than one-third of mortgages nationwide. The figures represent activity on that platform, not a census of every U.S. mortgage lock or the stock of outstanding mortgages.

Historical comparisons use the exact months stated because not every product-share figure is publicly available for every month. Optimal Blue groups jumbo and Non-QM loans within its broader non-conforming category, so those figures should not be interpreted as a pure measure of either segment on its own.

The analysis is descriptive. Changes in category share do not establish that individual borrowers moved directly from one loan type to another. Bank of America Securities forecasts and market estimates are cited as projections, not realized 2026 full-year totals.

Estimates of total Non-QM volume vary by source and methodology. Griffin Funding’s earlier analysis of HMDA loan-level data found that Non-QM accounted for roughly 10% of 2025 originations by dollar volume, while Bank of America Securities estimated $108 billion for the same year. The figures are not directly comparable because the sources use different definitions and methodologies, and neither should be compared directly with totals produced from broader loan-level datasets.

This story was produced by Griffin Funding and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

The post Conforming mortgages just lost their majority. Non-QM is helping drive the shift appeared first on Griffin Funding.

Self-employed buyers shopped for mortgages at almost exactly the same rate as wage-employed buyers. The surprise is why some of them were shopping. About 31.1% of respondents reporting self-employment applied to more than one lender, compared with 31.5% of wage-employed respondents. After adjustment, there was still no meaningful difference between the groups.

Among the buyers who did apply to multiple lenders, the experience looked different. A Griffin Funding analysis of the FHFA/CFPB National Survey of Mortgage Originations public-use file found that 21.4% of respondents reporting self-employment said an earlier mortgage application had been turned down, compared with 14.5% of wage-employed respondents. After adjustment, the self-employed group was 51% more likely to report an earlier turn-down.

Every buyer in that headline group eventually got a mortgage. So this is not saying one in five self-employed homebuyers were denied and never got a loan. It says that among buyers who had to apply to more than one lender before reaching the closing table, an earlier “no” showed up more often in the self-employed group.

Non-QM was growing fast on a separate track

That finding lands in a mortgage market that has been changing quickly. A separate Griffin Funding analysis highlighted Polygon Research’s HMDA-based estimate that non-QM origination volume grew from $181.8 billion in 2024 to $239.3 billion in 2025, a 31.6% jump. Loan count rose 24.7%, to 697,605 originations, and non-QM reached about 10% of the U.S. mortgage market by dollar volume and 10.2% by loan count. Because HMDA does not contain an official non-QM flag, Polygon uses a rules-based classification methodology tied to the ATR/QM framework.

Non-QM is a broad category, not a synonym for self-employed lending. It includes DSCR loans, alternative-documentation mortgages, interest-only structures and other loans that fall outside the Qualified Mortgage framework. But bank statement loans are one important part of that market because they can document qualifying income through bank deposits rather than relying only on tax returns.

The federal survey cannot tell us whether the borrowers who reported an earlier turn-down later used non-QM financing. The datasets are separate. What they show, side by side, is a mortgage market where self-employed buyers report more qualification friction while a much larger share of lending is being built around borrowers and loan structures that do not fit neatly inside the traditional box.

For one Hawaii couple, the problem was not earning income. It was proving it.

One recent Griffin Funding purchase shows what that mismatch can look like in real life. A self-employed couple had been running their business since 2023 and were buying a primary residence in Hawaii. By early 2026, however, the 2025 business tax return had not yet been filed. For the conventional path they were considering, that left them without two full filed years of business tax returns. Their business had not suddenly stopped producing income. The problem was the documentation window.

Griffin moved the file to a bank statement loan and reviewed 12 months of business deposits. The higher-credit spouse became the qualifying borrower, and underwriting then had to document how long she had been self-employed and how much of the business income belonged to her. A CPA attestation supported at least two years of self-employment, while an operating agreement documented each spouse’s ownership share.

Even then, the file was not simple. In underwriting, deposits from a newer business account could not be counted because the account did not have 12 months of history. Qualifying income dropped, the debt-to-income ratio moved higher, and the loan had to be recalculated. The couple still closed in March 2026.

That loan was not part of the federal survey, and the record does not document an earlier lender turn-down. It belongs in this story for a narrower reason: it shows why alternative income documentation exists in the first place. For some self-employed borrowers, the question is not simply, “Do you earn enough?” It is, “Which income can this mortgage program actually document and count?”

The shopping rate was almost identical. The pressure to qualify was not.

Self-employed buyers were not applying to more lenders overall. But among those who did, qualification was more likely to be part of the reason.

Looking for better terms was common in both groups: 81.7% of self-employed multi-lender applicants and 83.6% of wage-employed applicants cited that reason. The adjusted difference was not statistically significant. Concern about qualifying told a different story. It was cited by 42.5% of self-employed multi-lender applicants, compared with 29.6% of wage-employed applicants. After adjustment, the self-employed group was 48% more likely to cite that concern.

Borrowers could choose more than one reason, so someone could be comparing rates and worrying about approval at the same time. The important point is simpler: the two groups shopped around at nearly the same rate, but self-employed borrowers were more likely to have a qualification problem in the background when they did.

The paperwork tells the same story

The earlier turn-down was only one sign of extra friction. Across the full 23,299-borrower analytical population, 73.2% of self-employed respondents had a follow-up request for more information about income or assets, compared with 67.7% of wage-employed respondents. After adjustment, the self-employed group was 9% more likely to have that follow-up request.

A five-and-a-half-point gap may not sound dramatic on paper. In a mortgage file, it can mean another statement, another explanation, another ownership document or another round of underwriting questions. The Hawaii couple ran into several of those steps in one purchase: bank statements, ownership documentation, a CPA attestation and then a last-minute question about which account history could actually be used.

Other survey questions point in the same direction. Among respondents with a valid answer to the co-signer question, 13.5% of the self-employed group said they had to add another co-signer to qualify, compared with 9.7% of the wage-employed group. After adjustment, self-employed respondents were 38% more likely to report that step.

Documentation satisfaction also differed. Among respondents with a valid answer to that question, 11.9% of the self-employed group were coded as “not at all satisfied,” compared with 7.6% of wage-employed respondents. After adjustment, that response was 56% more likely in the self-employed group.

These are not failure rates, and most self-employed borrowers did not report those outcomes. They are smaller pieces of the same picture: getting to closing sometimes required more explaining, more documentation and more back-and-forth.

Why self-employed income can take more explaining

Fannie Mae’s current Selling Guide for self-employed borrowers requires lenders to evaluate the stability of the income, analyze personal and, when applicable, business income or loss, and determine how much income can reasonably be relied on for the mortgage. The process includes a written cash-flow analysis or an approved equivalent method.

That is not a flaw in the underwriting process. A lender still has to determine whether the income is stable and whether the borrower can repay the loan. But a business owner can have far more moving pieces than a salaried employee: multiple accounts, ownership percentages, expenses, K-1 income, changing business structures and deposits that do not line up neatly with a pay stub.

Content creators are an extreme version of that file, with ad revenue, subscriptions and sponsor payments arriving from several platforms at once. Here’s what full-time creators need to know about qualifying.

Bank statement programs use a different documentation path. They review eligible deposits over a defined period and apply program-specific expense assumptions to determine qualifying income. They still involve credit standards, reserves, property requirements, debt-to-income limits and ability-to-repay analysis. The difference is the evidence used to establish income.

A bigger non-QM market does not erase the problem. It gives borrowers more paths through it.

The federal survey shows that among buyers who shopped multiple lenders and eventually closed, respondents reporting self-employment were more likely to report an earlier turn-down and more likely to say they were worried about qualifying. Separately, Polygon Research estimates non-QM originations grew 31.6% in 2025. The Hawaii purchase shows what one alternative-documentation path can look like when the issue is not a lack of business activity, but how much of that activity can be turned into qualifying mortgage income.

The data do not show that one caused the other. They show two sides of the same market: more qualification friction among self-employed buyers and a growing non-QM market built partly for borrowers whose finances do not fit traditional income documentation.

Methodology

Griffin Funding analyzed the May 27, 2026 public-use release of the National Survey of Mortgage Originations, jointly managed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The release contains 62,359 sample mortgages originated from 2013 through 2024 across the first 46 processed survey waves.

The main analytical population contains 23,299 respondent-borrowers associated with purchase mortgages on current primary residences: 2,872 respondents reporting self-employment and 20,427 reporting wage employment without self-employment. The headline analysis is limited to 7,045 respondents who applied to more than one lender and had a coded earlier-turn-down response: 863 respondents reporting self-employment and 6,182 reporting wage employment.

Employment status was measured when respondents completed the survey after origination, not necessarily when they applied for the mortgage. The self-employed group includes full- and part-time self-employment, including some respondents who reported self-employment as a secondary work status. Results should therefore be read as associations among respondents reporting those work statuses, not proof that self-employment itself caused a lender decision.

Percentages were calculated using the official NSMO analysis weight. Adjusted risk ratios were estimated with weighted modified-Poisson models controlling for survey-time household-income category, age and age squared, education, sex, Hispanic status, race, marital status, origination credit score and origination year. The models do not control for every underwriting factor that could differ between the groups, including debt-to-income ratio, loan-to-value ratio, loan amount and property type.

For reference, the adjusted estimates were: applying to more than one lender, risk ratio 1.01 (approximate 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07); earlier turn-down, 1.51 (1.31 to 1.73); looking for better terms, 0.98 (0.95 to 1.02); concern about qualifying, 1.48 (1.36 to 1.61); follow-up request for income or asset information, 1.09 (1.06 to 1.12); adding another co-signer, 1.38 (1.24 to 1.54); and being “not at all satisfied” with documentation, 1.56 (1.38 to 1.75).

Survey routing, weighting and variable definitions were checked against FHFA’s Technical Documentation, Codebook and Unweighted Tabulations and Waves 45 and 46 questionnaire. The co-signer analysis included 19,055 valid responses: 2,484 from respondents reporting self-employment and 16,571 from the wage-employed comparison group. The documentation-satisfaction analysis included 19,119 valid responses: 2,488 and 16,631, respectively.

FHFA’s separate Select Weighted Tabulations, 2014-2024 provide official weighted tables for many NSMO questions but do not publish the self-employment cross-tabulations used here. The 21.4% and 14.5% turn-down rates, the other employment-group comparisons and the adjusted risk ratios are Griffin Funding calculations from the public-use file, not published FHFA statistics.

The public-use response variables can combine direct, edited and imputed answers. The file also does not provide the replicate weights and complete sample-design variables required for official FHFA variance estimates, so the confidence intervals reported here are model-based approximations rather than official FHFA confidence intervals.

The post More than 1 in 5 self-employed buyers who applied to multiple lenders reported an earlier turn-down appeared first on Griffin Funding.

To see where that cushion is deepest, Griffin Funding reviewed ATTOM’s Q2 2026 U.S. Home Equity & Underwater Report and its state-by-state equity ranking. The result is a striking divide: In Vermont, nearly four out of five mortgaged properties are equity-rich. In Louisiana, fewer than one in five meet the same standard.

ATTOM defines a mortgaged property as equity-rich when the combined estimated balance of loans secured by the home is no more than half of its estimated market value. Nationally, 41.1% of mortgaged residential properties met that definition in Q2 2026.

Where home equity runs deepest

Vermont led the country by a wide margin, with 78.9% of mortgaged properties classified as equity-rich. Montana ranked second at 59.0%, followed by Rhode Island at 54.9%, South Dakota at 53.6% and New Hampshire at 53.1%.

The Northeast is especially well represented. Seven of the 10 highest-ranking states are in the region, and Vermont sits nearly 38 percentage points above the national rate.

At the other end of the ranking, Louisiana had the smallest equity-rich share at 17.5%. Minnesota followed at 20.1%, then Maryland at 28.0%, Alaska at 30.4% and Iowa at 32.2%.

The distance between those markets is a reminder that a record national total does not describe every mortgage holder’s experience.

The national cushion is strong, but not evenly distributed

The record $18 trillion total is a strong national backdrop. But ATTOM’s Q2 report contains an important countertrend: The share of mortgaged properties considered equity-rich fell from 47.4% in Q2 2025 to 41.1% one year later.

After four consecutive quarterly declines, the rate is near a five-year low. ATTOM also updated the report to exclude transactions in which a single jumbo loan is secured by multiple properties. The company did not quantify the effect of that change, so year-over-year comparisons should be interpreted cautiously.

Only four states posted year-over-year increases: North Dakota, South Dakota, Kentucky and Wyoming. Every other state in ATTOM’s state-level ranking had a smaller equity-rich share than a year earlier.

Minnesota experienced the sharpest decline, falling from 37.6% to 20.1%. It also had the highest seriously underwater rate in the country at 12.1%, up from 2.6% a year earlier, per ATTOM’s Q2 report. and Minneapolis had the highest seriously underwater rate among large metros ATTOM analyzed, with the second-lowest equity-rich share behind Baton Rouge. Michigan dropped from 50.8% to 39.3%, while California declined from 56.9% to 45.6%.

The pattern also appeared across large metros: 104 of the 108 areas ATTOM analyzed had lower equity-rich shares than a year earlier. The bottom of the distribution moved as well. ATTOM counted 3.2% of mortgaged properties as seriously underwater, meaning loan balances at least 25% above estimated market value, up from 2.7% a year earlier.

At first, that may seem to conflict with ICE’s record equity figure. It does not. ICE estimates the total dollar value of equity held by mortgage borrowers. ATTOM measures the percentage of mortgaged properties that clear a much higher bar: having at least 50% equity.

The country can therefore hold more equity in total, while a smaller share of properties meets ATTOM’s equity-rich threshold. A homeowner can also have meaningful equity without owning half of the property outright.

Low-rate mortgages are changing how owners access equity

Home equity is not cash sitting in an account. To use it, a homeowner generally has to sell the property or borrow against it.

For many owners, the second option now comes with a difficult calculation. They may have substantial equity, but they may also have a first mortgage secured when rates were considerably lower.

A cash-out refinance replaces that existing mortgage with a new, larger first mortgage. For someone who already has a favorable rate, refinancing the full balance may be an expensive way to access only part of the home’s equity.

That helps explain renewed interest in HELOCs and other home equity financing options. A HELOC, home equity loan or other second lien may allow a qualified homeowner to borrow against the property while leaving the original first mortgage in place.

In the first quarter of 2026, 54% of all home-equity extraction came through second liens, according to ICE’s June Mortgage Monitor. Second-lien withdrawals reached their strongest first-quarter volume in 18 years as more borrowers sought to preserve existing low-rate mortgages.

TransUnion’s Q2 2026 Credit Industry Insights Report showed a similar shift. Home-equity originations rose 5.8% year over year to 560,000 in the first quarter of 2026, driven by a 16.8% increase in HELOC originations. TransUnion reports origination data one quarter in arrears.

Borrowing against a home is not free money. It adds debt, creates another payment and uses the property as collateral. But for qualified homeowners who understand those tradeoffs, accumulated equity can create choices that would not otherwise exist.

The same equity can serve very different homeowners

A longtime homeowner may view equity as a safety net that can remain untouched for years. Another might use part of it for renovations, debt consolidation or a large, planned expense.

For a self-employed homeowner, the challenge may be less about whether wealth exists and more about how income is documented. Business owners, freelancers and entrepreneurs often have earnings that do not arrive as a steady paycheck. In those cases, bank statement loans may evaluate qualifying income using deposits rather than relying solely on W-2s, pay stubs or traditional tax-return calculations.

Real estate investors may look at equity differently. Equity built in an existing rental property can become part of a decision to renovate, refinance or pursue another acquisition. When financing rental properties, debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) loans primarily evaluate the property’s rental income rather than the investor’s traditional employment income.

These borrowers may have different goals, but the underlying benefit is the same: financial flexibility.

For many mortgage holders, the real value is having options

The record $18 trillion figure is a sign of strength, but it should not be read as an invitation for every homeowner to take on more debt.

Some owners may choose to borrow against their equity. Others may leave it untouched, allowing it to remain part of their long-term household wealth.

What matters is that millions of mortgage holders now have a meaningful cushion inside the homes they already own.

That cushion is deeper in Vermont than in Louisiana, while many recent buyers have far less equity to draw on. But across the country, home equity remains one of the most important sources of household financial resilience.

For many mortgage holders, its greatest value may be simple: It gives them options.

Methodology

Griffin Funding reviewed ATTOM’s Q2 2026 state-level home equity data to identify where mortgaged properties had the highest and lowest equity-rich shares. The review also compared Q2 2026 figures with Q2 2025 percentages for each state in ATTOM’s published ranking.

ATTOM classifies a mortgaged residential property as equity-rich when the estimated combined balance of loans secured by the property is no more than 50% of its estimated market value. State percentages describe mortgaged properties, not individual people or homes owned free and clear.

ATTOM notes in its Q2 2026 report that it updated the analysis to exclude activity in which a single jumbo loan is secured by multiple properties, which previously offset loan-to-value ratios in markets with heavier investor participation. Year-over-year comparisons in this analysis should be read with that revision in mind. Negative equity figures come from ICE’s August 2026 Mortgage Monitor. TransUnion reports origination volumes one quarter in arrears, so figures cited from its Q2 2026 report describe first-quarter originations.

National total and tappable-equity estimates come from ICE Mortgage Technology. Home-equity origination and second-lien trends are based on data from ICE’s June Mortgage Monitor and TransUnion’s Q2 2026 Credit Industry Insights Report.

The post Home equity reaches a record $18 trillion among US mortgage holders. Here is where it runs deepest appeared first on Griffin Funding.

Three things are checkable right now.

Figure closed the Kiavi acquisition. In a newsroom post dated September 1, 2026, Figure CEO Michael Tannenbaum announced the deal had closed. Figure purchased Kiavi’s technology platform, and a new joint venture between Figure and Sixth Street will originate residential transition loans (fix-and-flip) and sell them through Figure Connect, Figure’s capital markets marketplace. Figure says Kiavi adds more than $7 billion in volume across RTL and DSCR loans. National Mortgage Professional reported the price at $717 million.

Figure’s DSCR page now routes to Kiavi. The page at figure.com/dscr-loan/ carries a banner reading “We’ve acquired Kiavi, the #1 Residential Transition Loan lender and AI-powered platform for residential real estate investors.” The page content is unchanged, but the calls to action are not. “Check your DSCR rate,” “Get a free DSCR quote,” and “Get started” all open a Kiavi rate form tagged as a Figure partnership redirect.

Figure updated its disclosures. The footer of Figure’s DSCR page now reads: “Kiavi Funding LLC NMLS #1125207 is a subsidiary of Figure Technology Solutions, Inc.” and “All DSCR and Residential Loans are originated and funded by Figure Lending LLC dba Figure effective 9/1/2026.”

That’s the public record. Figure has not published a date for when combined underwriting guidelines, pricing, or a single application flow will be final, and it hasn’t said whether the Figure-branded DSCR loan will keep its current terms once Kiavi’s platform is fully integrated.

What Figure’s DSCR page says today

For anyone comparing, here are the terms Figure publishes on its DSCR page as of September 1, 2026:

• Loan amounts: $100,000 to $2,000,000
• Minimum FICO: 660
• DSCR: as low as 0.8x
• Maximum LTV: 80% for rate-and-term refinances, 75% for cash-out
• Lien position: first lien only
• Property types: single-family, condos, PUDs, townhomes, 2 to 4 units
• Availability: 49 states plus D.C. listed, with a notice that no New York applications can be taken through the site
• Down payment: “typically 20%, though it depends on your DSCR”

Kiavi publishes its own DSCR terms on kiavi.com. We’re not restating them here because they may move during the integration, and we’d rather you check the source than rely on a number that goes stale.

What this means if you were about to apply with Figure

Nothing about the acquisition makes a DSCR loan harder to get. It does add a variable.

If you already have a Figure or Kiavi quote, get it confirmed in writing before you go under contract. Companies mid-integration change rate sheets, guidelines, and points of contact, and a quote from August may not survive September. Ask who your lender of record is, which entity will service the loan, and whether the terms you were quoted are locked.

If you were about to start an application, you’ll be filling out Kiavi’s form, not Figure’s. That’s fine if Kiavi’s program fits your deal. The four things to check against your property: the $2 million ceiling, the 660 FICO floor, the 0.8x DSCR floor, and the first-lien-only requirement. If any of those is a problem, you need a different lender, and the acquisition doesn’t change that.

Automated underwriting also tends to do best on standard single-family rentals. If your property is a condo with a warrantability question, a 2 to 4 unit building, or a short-term rental qualified on projected income, ask up front how the file will be reviewed and by whom, because those are the deals where a human underwriter changes the outcome.

If your deal is above $2 million, your credit is between 620 and 659, your property’s DSCR is under 0.8, or you need a second-lien DSCR product, keep reading.

How the published terms compare

The table below puts Figure’s published DSCR terms next to Griffin Funding’s. Figure’s column is drawn from figure.com/dscr-loan/ as of September 1, 2026. Griffin’s column is drawn from our current guidelines.

Figure column: figure.com/dscr-loan/ as of September 1, 2026. Griffin column: current Griffin Funding guidelines, subject to underwriting approval. Not a rate quote or commitment to lend.

Two notes on that table. Figure’s published floors (660 FICO, 0.8x DSCR) are reasonable for a lender running automated underwriting on standard single-family rentals, and plenty of deals clear them. The gap shows up on everything else: jumbo balances, thin cash flow, borrowers with a 620 to 659 score, second liens, and anyone who wants a state-licensed, federally supervised lender behind a business-purpose loan.

Where Griffin stands

Griffin Funding is funding DSCR loans today in 47 states plus D.C. Nothing about our program changed this month. In August 2026, Griffin funded 85 DSCR loans totaling $28,044,033 across 31 states.

We don’t have Figure’s blockchain marketplace, and we’re not building one. What we have is a direct lender that underwrites the whole file, with multiple capital sources behind it, so a deal that falls outside one box has somewhere else to go. That’s why we can offer no-minimum DSCR and a no-ratio program, while most of the market draws a line at 1.0 or 1.25.

If you’re comparing lenders, start with the eight criteria in our best DSCR lenders comparison, which now includes the Kiavi ownership change. To see how a specific property pencils, run it through the DSCR loan calculator. For metro-level rent, value, and DSCR data in your state, use the DSCR loans by state hub.

Current program details are on the Griffin Funding DSCR loan page.

What to watch next

Figure’s stated plan is to tokenize DSCR and RTL loans as core products on Figure Connect and to offer Kiavi’s underwriting technology to its partner network of more than 480 lenders and brokers. If that happens, expect Figure-branded and Kiavi-branded DSCR loans to converge on one set of guidelines. Watch for three signals: a change to the CTA destination on figure.com/dscr-loan/, updated terms in the page’s FAQ block, and a change to the originating-entity disclosure in the footer. We check that page on the first of each month and will update this post when any of the three moves.

The post Is Figure Still Offering DSCR Loans? What the Kiavi Acquisition Means for Rental Investors appeared first on Griffin Funding.

Bear in mind that these figures are dependent on median house prices in a given area, meaning that some regions have even higher CLLs. For instance, in Los Angeles County, the two-unit limit now sits at $1,599,375.

The Reality of Two to Four Unit Conforming Loan Limits

Conventional financing through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac relies heavily on strict baseline thresholds that set caps based on property size. As mentioned, the standard caps allow up to $1,066,250 for two-unit properties and $1,601,750 for four-unit properties across standard cost areas. High-cost markets offer elevated ceilings, but accessing those funds takes even more time and involves additional bureaucracy.

Even when falling below the CLL threshold, agency guidelines impose severe restrictions on the borrower behind the loan. Traditional lenders evaluate personal W-2 income, demand two years of full tax returns, and hold borrowers to a debt-to-income (DTI) ceiling that tops out between 45% and 50% depending on how the loan is underwritten. The long-standing rule of thumb is tighter still: the 28/36 rule puts housing costs at 28% of gross monthly income and total debt at 36%.

The central problem with this traditional model is how banks calculate rental income. Most conventional underwriters cut projected lease revenues by 25% for vacancy buffers, then offset that against existing personal debts.

When writing off legal tax deductions to optimize annual real estate cash flow, tax returns will show artificially lowered net income. This accounting practice works great for reducing tax obligations, but it inadvertently destroys personal DTI calculations for future conventional acquisitions.

Cash-Flow Underwriting as a Means of Shifting Focus to Property NOI

Debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) financing completely reframes how lenders evaluate investment risk by shifting focus away from personal paychecks. Instead of analyzing W-2s, cash-flow underwriting evaluates whether the asset generates enough gross rental income to cover its own monthly principal, interest, taxes, and insurance (PITI).

When scaling a multi-family portfolio, real estate investors can utilize cash-flow-based DSCR loans to qualify based on property rental revenue rather than personal debt-to-income ratios. This fundamental shift removes the personal income ceiling entirely. A DSCR loan allows multi-unit investors to qualify based purely on the building’s gross rental income, skipping personal DTI limits and tax returns entirely.

DSCR is calculated by dividing gross rental income by the cost of servicing the debt, which in this case is made up of PITI. So, for example, a property generating $10,000 per month in lease revenue against a monthly total mortgage payment of $8,000, yields a DSCR of 1.25. Lenders generally look for a ratio of at least 1.0 to approve financing without demanding personal income documentation, with the strongest pricing reserved for ratios at 1.25 and above.

Comparing Financing Structures

Choosing the right debt structure depends on whether borrowers prioritize raw leverage or rapid portfolio expansion. Investors evaluating multi-unit options generally consider three main trade-offs. Agency loans offer lower interest rates but enforce strict personal DTI limits and maximum property counts. DSCR financing skips tax return verifications entirely by focusing strictly on property lease performance, and cash-flow loans streamline closing timelines because underwriters analyze real estate appraisals rather than personal tax histories.

Because DSCR loans evaluate the real estate entity itself rather than a borrower’s personal paycheck, properties can be acquired directly inside an LLC or asset protection trust from day one. This avoids the deed transfer headaches and due-on-sale triggers common with conventional agency financing.

Expanding Strategically

Relying exclusively on conventional agency loans can eventually force real estate investors to hit a wall created by paper income limits. While conforming financing offers competitive long-term interest rates for initial acquisitions, scaling a sustainable two to four-unit portfolio often requires shifting to asset-based debt solutions. Leveraging cash-flow underwriting means active real estate investors can continue acquiring cash-flowing multi-unit assets based on the financial merits of the buildings themselves, maintaining steady momentum regardless of tax return adjustments.

The post Scaling multi-unit real estate: Conforming loan limits vs. cash-flow financing appeared first on Griffin Funding.

That growth continued through a rule change meant to ease the problem behind it. In 2021, the CFPB removed Appendix Q, the rigid income-documentation appendix inside the Qualified Mortgage rule, after Congress twice proposed the same thing and never passed it. What replaced Appendix Q still routes self-employed income through tax returns, and borrowers kept leaving the QM box.

About 16.5 million Americans work for themselves, alongside real estate investors, 1099 workers, retirees and other borrowers whose income or assets may not fit neatly into traditional mortgage underwriting. More of them are now qualifying for mortgages through private-market documentation programs rather than through a federal standard, an expansion of access that came with different pricing than conventional financing.

The documentation gap

Conventional mortgage underwriting has a quirk that catches self-employed borrowers off guard. Lenders count what’s left after business deductions. That means many of the write-offs a CPA finds do double duty: They lower the tax bill, and they lower the income a lender is willing to recognize. A contractor whose business brings in $180,000 and who deducts aggressively might show a fraction of that on a return. On paper, that person can’t afford much house. In practice, the cash flow is there.

The pattern shows up in the research. An Urban Institute study found homeownership rates among the self-employed declined after the financial crisis even though self-employed households earn higher average incomes than salaried households, which points to documentation requirements rather than earning power as a barrier.

The mismatch traces back to how the rules were drawn. Traditional mortgage underwriting has generally been easier for borrowers with steady W-2 income than for people whose earnings come through business deposits, 1099s, or rental properties. When lawmakers introduced the Self-Employed Mortgage Access Act in 2018, the Qualified Mortgage rule relied on Appendix Q, a more prescriptive framework for documenting and calculating income. 

The shape of the problem is specific rather than abstract. According to Griffin Funding’s own loan records, a Florida business owner who writes off most of his income on his tax returns was nonetheless able to document sufficient qualifying income through business bank deposits to complete a cash-out refinance on his primary residence. In Massachusetts, a self-employed professional whose earnings flowed through a regulated client-trust account qualified only after the deposits in that account were documented and explained as legitimate income, a structure no standard underwriting template anticipates. Neither borrower had a credit problem. Both had a paperwork problem. Both qualified through a bank statement loan, which derives income from 12 to 24 months of business deposits rather than tax returns.

The gap isn’t limited to business owners. Contractors and gig workers paid on a 1099 face a version of the same problem, and 1099 loans qualify them on those forms directly. Retirees and borrowers whose wealth sits in accounts rather than income streams run into it from the other direction, which is what asset-based lending addresses.

Griffin’s loan records show a similar pattern on the investor side. A Michigan medical practice owner purchased a rental property without documenting personal income by using a non-QM DSCR loan, which qualifies borrowers based on the property’s rental income rather than personal income and can allow the property to close in an LLC.

What Congress proposed, and what arrived instead

The change came twice, from two directions. Congress went first and didn’t finish. Regulators finished it, and the gap stayed open anyway. 

In August 2018, Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Mike Rounds (R-SD) introduced the Self-Employed Mortgage Access Act, aimed at a specific piece of the rulebook: Appendix Q, the income-documentation standard baked into the Qualified Mortgage rule. Rather than requiring Appendix Q alone, the bill would have let lenders satisfy the rule using underwriting standards already in place at FHA, the VA, USDA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. It drew support from both industry and consumer groups. At introduction, the Mortgage Bankers Association called it a way to give lenders and investors greater certainty, while Consumer Federation of America housing director Barry Zigas said it would give lenders and consumers an easier, less burdensome way to meet the tests without weakening their protections. The bill expired when that Congress ended.

It came back in February 2019, when Warner and Rounds reintroduced it in the Senate as S.540, joined by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Reps. Tom Emmer (R-MN) and Bill Foster (D-IL) followed in the House on May 1 with H.R.2445, and this time it got further. Foster offered a substitute amendment during House Financial Services Committee markup that November. The National Consumer Law Center and the Center for Responsible Lending both wrote in support of that substitute, an unusual alignment for a bill lenders also wanted. 

The bill expired with the 116th Congress in January 2021. Two months later, on March 1, the CFPB’s General QM Final Rule took effect and did most of what the bill had proposed. It removed Appendix Q, replaced the 43% debt-to-income ceiling with a price-based test, and let lenders verify income using standards drawn from the guides of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, the VA, and USDA. That last provision is close to the bill’s own text.

What it didn’t change is how those guides treat a business owner. Fannie Mae generally requires a two-year history of self-employment income documented through tax returns, and still asks the lender to calculate qualifying income from what those returns report after deductions. The rulebook moved. The arithmetic didn’t.

As of August 2026, nothing has been reintroduced in Congress. A search of Congress.gov turns up no active bill, and Homebuyer.com’s Congressional Housing Bill Tracker, which follows 85 active housing and mortgage bills, lists no current version.

What the market built

Non-QM lending kept growing. These are mortgages written outside the CFPB’s Qualified Mortgage standard, and the category is broader than documentation alone: it covers bank statement and DSCR underwriting, but also interest-only structures, loans priced above QM thresholds, and loans sold to private securitizers. In 2025 the whole category came to $239 billion across 697,605 loans, or 10% of U.S. originations by dollar volume.

Recent growth spans the entire category. Non-QM accounted for more than 10% of total lock volume in July 2026, the most recent month reported, up 1.4 percentage points from June and more than two points from a year earlier. Bank statement loans, the product built for the documentation gap, took 30.6% of that volume. Investor and DSCR loans, which qualify on a property’s rental income rather than the borrower’s and answer a different problem entirely, made up 33.5%. Other expanded-guideline products accounted for the remaining 35.9%.

The shift doesn’t appear to be a credit story. Across all July locks, conforming included, average credit scores held at 730 and debt-to-income ratios ran below year-earlier levels. Those are market-wide figures rather than non-QM-specific ones, but they show no broad deterioration in borrower quality alongside the product shift. What’s changed is that fewer transactions fit neatly inside the conforming box.

What changed, and what didn’t

So Appendix Q is gone, and one in ten mortgages is still written outside QM. Both things are true, and the second explains something about the first.

Look at how the volume splits and no single explanation holds. Investor and DSCR loans are 33.5%. Bank statement loans are 30.6%. Everything else is 35.9%. Three rough thirds, three different reasons a loan doesn’t fit. A business owner whose deductions shrink the income that an underwriter will count. An investor whose property earns the money, not the borrower. A retiree with assets and no paycheck. A borrower whose loan sits outside the standard for pricing or structure reasons that have nothing to do with income at all.

Pricing is the other factor. Non-QM still costs more than conventional financing, because lenders take on more risk without QM’s legal safe harbor and can’t sell the loans to Fannie or Freddie. Competition has compressed the spread as the market matured, but the gap remains. Borrowers using these programs are paying for a calculation that the QM framework still doesn’t offer.

The underlying mismatch remains. No QM pathway, before 2021 or after, qualifies a borrower on gross business deposits or on a property’s cash flow alone. Removing Appendix Q changed the rules. It didn’t change what the rules assume.

Notes on the data

The $239 billion figure comes from Polygon Research, which runs every HMDA loan record from 2018 through 2025 against the Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage standards in force that year and flags the ones falling outside. That yields 697,605 loans, 10% of originations by dollar volume and 10.2% by count. Most published non-QM estimates work from securitization data or lender names instead, which is why Polygon’s number runs higher.

Worth being clear about what that number is and isn’t. Non-QM is a regulatory category, not a borrower category. Loans land in it for interest-only structures, pricing above QM thresholds, or sale to a private securitizer, none of which say anything about how a borrower documents income. Polygon also includes business-purpose and DSCR loans in its broader non-QM classification. Read the $239 billion as Polygon’s broad measure of the non-QM market captured in HMDA, not as a count of self-employed borrowers.

Monthly figures come from Optimal Blue’s July 2026 Market Advantage report, built on the pricing engine used to lock more than a third of U.S. mortgages, as covered by National Mortgage Professional. Optimal Blue separately tracks a broader non-conforming category that folds in jumbo loans and reached 20.8% in July. That isn’t a non-QM number and isn’t used here. Self-employment counts are from BLS Table A-9 for July 2026: 6.645 million incorporated and 9.844 million unincorporated, which BLS publishes separately. Legislative history came from Congress.gov, sponsors’ releases, and the House Financial Services Committee memo accompanying the November 2019 markup, with current status checked against Congress.gov and the Homebuyer tracker.

Borrower examples come from Griffin Funding’s 2026 funded-loan records, described without names, loan identifiers, or amounts. They illustrate documentation patterns rather than typical results. This is a market-level and legislative analysis.

The post One in ten U.S. mortgages now falls outside the Qualified Mortgage standard appeared first on Griffin Funding.

• What Is a Homestead Tax Exemption?
• Who Qualifies for a Homestead Exemption?
• What Are the Benefits of a Homestead Exemption?
• How to Apply for Homestead Exemption
• Common Mistakes Homeowners Make When Filing
• Final Notes
• Frequently Asked Questions

Key Takeaways

• A homestead exemption reduces the taxable assessed value of your primary residence, which directly lowers your annual property tax bill.
• Eligibility generally requires that you own the home and occupy it as your primary residence, though additional rules may apply depending on the state and county you reside in.
• Some states extend the exemption to provide legal protection against creditors and forced sale of your home.

What Is a Homestead Tax Exemption?

A homestead exemption is a legal provision that reduces the taxable value of your primary residence, lowering the amount of property taxes you owe each year. It exclusively applies to the home you live in, not vacation homes or investment properties.

In addition to tax savings, several states also connect creditor protections to the homestead designation. In those states, a portion of your home equity is protected from unsecured creditors or forced sale during bankruptcy proceedings. The scope of that protection ranges from a few thousand dollars in some states to 100% of equity in others, such as Texas and Florida.

Because changes in tax policy at both the federal and state level can affect how homeowners calculate their overall housing costs, understanding every available benefit, including the homestead exemption, matters for long-term financial planning.

How Does a Homestead Exemption Work? 

The homestead exemption works by subtracting a fixed dollar amount from your home’s assessed value before the tax rate is applied. For example:

• Home assessed value: $400,000
• Homestead exemption: $40,000
• Taxable value: $360,000

So, for instance, if your local tax rate is 1.2%, you would owe $4,320 instead of $4,800, saving almost $500 that year. How much you save also depends on where you live, since state property taxes vary widely across the country.

Why States Offer Homestead Exemptions

State legislatures created homestead exemptions for several reasons:

• Encourage homeownership: Tax relief makes owning a home more financially accessible.
• Protect vulnerable homeowners: Seniors, veterans, and disabled residents face fixed or reduced incomes, and lower tax bills reduce the risk of losing a home.
• Stabilize communities: Long-term residents staying in their homes supports neighborhood stability.

Who Qualifies for a Homestead Exemption?

Most states share a common baseline of eligibility requirements:

• Own the home: The property must be in your name or co-owned with a spouse.
• Occupy it as your primary residence: In most states, the home is required to serve as your primary residence and you must live there full time to qualify. 
• Meet state deadlines: Applications must be filed by a specific date, which varies depending on your state.

Additional Exemptions for Certain Groups

Many jurisdictions layer additional benefits on top of the standard exemption:

• Seniors: Older homeowners often qualify for enhanced exemptions or, in some states, a freeze on their home’s assessed value.
• Veterans: Disabled veterans may receive partial or full exemptions depending on their disability rating and state law.
• Disabled homeowners: Non-veteran homeowners with qualifying disabilities can access supplemental exemptions in many states.
• Surviving spouses: In some states, a surviving spouse may be eligible to continue the deceased veteran’s exemption under certain conditions.

What Are the Benefits of a Homestead Exemption?

The top benefits of a homestead exemption are as follows.

1. Lower Property Taxes

The primary benefit is a direct reduction in your annual property tax bill. In Texas, the standard exemption removes $140,000 from a home’s assessed value for school district taxes. In California, the Homeowners’ Exemption provides a $7,000 reduction in taxable value. The dollar savings depend on your local tax rate and the size of your exemption. Checking your home value helps you catch over-assessments before they inflate your bill.

The exemption applies only to primary residences, so rental and investment property owners need to look elsewhere for savings. There are still meaningful tax benefits for real estate investors available through other provisions.

Note: Exemption amounts, deadlines, and protections vary by county and are subject to change by state legislative session. Figures reflect statewide standard exemptions as of 2026; many counties offer additional local exemptions for seniors, veterans, and disabled homeowners. Georgia’s bankruptcy homestead exemption increases under HB 1024 effective July 1, 2026. Confirm current details with your county assessor or appraisal district before filing. This information is for general guidance and is not legal or tax advice.

2. Potential Bankruptcy or Creditor Protection

In states with strong homestead protections, the exemption also shields a portion of your equity from unsecured creditors. If you face a lawsuit or file for bankruptcy, creditors generally cannot force the sale of your home to satisfy a debt up to the protected amount. This protection does not apply to your mortgage lender, federal tax liens, or mechanics’ liens.

For homeowners considering states with strong asset protection as part of their financial strategy, it’s worth reading up on what makes certain states a tax haven before deciding where to put down roots. 

3. Long-Term Homeownership Savings

The annual savings from a homestead exemption add up over time. A homeowner saving $600 per year over 20 years retains $12,000 that would otherwise go to taxes. In high-tax jurisdictions, the savings are even more substantial. Some states also cap how much a home’s assessed value can increase annually once the exemption is in place.

How to Apply for Homestead Exemption

Follow these steps to apply for a homestead exemption. 

1. Gather Required Documents

Before filing, assemble the following documents:

• • Driver’s license or state ID: Typically, your property’s address is required to be on your ID.
  • Proof of residency: Utility bills, bank statements, and/or voter registration.
  • Property deed or records: Confirms ownership of the property.
  • Tax identification: Your parcel or account number from your property tax bill

2. File for Homestead Exemption With Your Local Tax Office

Submit your application through one of the following:

• • County assessor’s office: Handles exemptions in most western states.
  • Appraisal district: The relevant authority in Texas.
  • Online portal: Most counties now offer electronic filing. Search for your county’s name plus “homestead exemption application.”

If you are navigating a purchase with non-QM loans or a traditional mortgage, your lender or title company may be able to point you toward local homestead exemption resources at closing.

3. Meet Filing Deadlines

Homestead tax exemption deadlines differ by state and sometimes by county. In Texas, the general deadline is April 30. In Florida, the deadline is March 1. Missing the deadline means waiting until the following tax year. Mark your calendar as soon as you take ownership of a home.

4. Verify Approval Status

After filing, confirm your exemption was applied by checking your county’s online property records or waiting for your updated property tax notice. If you do not see the exemption reflected, contact your county assessor directly.

Common Mistakes Homeowners Make When Filing

Take care to avoid these mistakes when filing for a homestead exemption. 

• Missing the deadline: This one is the most common mistake. Once the filing window closes, you lose that year’s savings.
• Filing for the wrong property: The homestead exemption applies only to your primary residence. Filing on a rental or second home will result in denial and possibly penalties.
• Forgetting to renew: Some jurisdictions require annual renewal, while others make it permanent once filed. Take the time to confirm which rule applies in your county. 
• Assuming approval is automatic: In most states, you must file an application. Buying a home and living in it does not automatically trigger the exemption.

Final Notes  

A homestead exemption is one of the simplest and most overlooked benefits available to homeowners. The application process is usually straightforward, the savings are real, and in some states the legal protections provide you with meaningful financial security. 

If you recently purchased a home, filing for a homestead exemption should be one of your first post-closing tasks. Shifts in tax policy at the federal and state level can also affect your overall housing costs, so staying informed on both fronts pays off over the long run.

The post What Is a Homestead Exemption? appeared first on Griffin Funding.

Whether you’re building a rental portfolio from scratch or expanding into new markets, understanding which secondary cities are positioned for long-term growth is one of the smartest moves you can make.

• What Is a Secondary City in Real Estate?
• Top Secondary Cities in the US for Real Estate Investors in 2026
• Why Secondary Cities Are Booming in 2026
• How to Evaluate Up and Coming Cities for Investment
• Risks of Investing in Secondary Cities
• Financing Investment Properties in Secondary Cities
• Explore the Best Up and Coming US Cities for Real Estate Investors
• Frequently Asked Questions

Key Takeaways

• Secondary cities in real estate are generally defined as mid-sized cities with established industries that demonstrate strong growth potential. 
• Secondary cities offer lower acquisition costs, higher cap rates, and stronger population inflows than many primary markets in 2026.
• Remote work migration, affordability pressures in major metros, and economic diversification continue to drive demand in mid-sized US cities.
• Top secondary cities to watch include Chattanooga, Greenville, Boise, Bentonville, Huntsville, Colorado Springs, Knoxville, and Tampa.

What Is a Secondary City in Real Estate?

In real estate, markets are typically grouped into three tiers based on population size, economic activity, and investor activity:

• Primary cities: The largest, most liquid markets, like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco. These markets offer stability but come with high entry costs.
• Secondary cities: Mid-sized metros, typically with populations between 250,000 and 2 million. They have diversified economies, growing infrastructure, and meaningful investor activity. Examples include Raleigh, Tampa, Indianapolis, Boise, and Columbus.
• Tertiary cities: Smaller markets, often dependent on a single employer or industry. They can offer high yields but carry more volatility and lower liquidity.

Why Investors Are Targeting Secondary Cities

• Lower entry prices: Median home prices in cities like Huntsville and Chattanooga run roughly 4% to 11% below the national average, and a fraction of San Francisco’s typical home value of about $1.15 million. In most secondary markets, your acquisition dollar simply goes further. 
• Higher rental yields: Lower acquisition costs paired with strong rental demand translate into cap rates that are difficult to find in major metros.
• Population growth: Sun Belt and Mountain West secondaries have seen promising population growth for several years, driven by remote workers, young families, and retirees who are getting priced out of major cities.
• Business expansion and infrastructure investment: Corporate relocations, growing industries, and university expansions present economic opportunities and support population growth.

Key Metrics Investors Should Watch

Before committing to any secondary market, pull market insights for local housing data and track these fundamentals:

• Job growth: Year-over-year employment gains, especially in diversified sectors.
• Population migration: Net in-migration from Census and moving company data.
• Median home prices: Price-to-rent ratios and affordability trajectory.
• Rent growth: Annual rent increases relative to the national average.
• Vacancy rates: A residential vacancy rate below 5% generally indicates healthy rental demand. 
• Cap rates: This can be a useful metric for rental properties, but make sure to consider it alongside local context.

Top Secondary Cities in the US for Real Estate Investors in 2026

Explore some of the top up and coming cities in the US for real estate investors. 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (Vintage 2025, July 1, 2025 releases via FRED); Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) data through May/June 2026; local economic development agencies and major employer reports. Populations rounded for readability. Home values are typical/ZHVI figures (metro or representative county/city level); actual median sale prices can vary by property type and neighborhood. Data as of mid-2026.

Chattanooga, Tennessee

Chattanooga, Tennessee has become one of the most compelling secondary markets in the Southeast. The city built its identity around becoming the first US city with community-wide gigabit internet, and that infrastructure investment has paid off with a growing tech and startup ecosystem. 

Additionally, the city boasts a scenic outdoor lifestyle that’s drawing younger professionals looking for a lower cost of living without sacrificing quality of life.

Greenville, South Carolina

Greenville, South Carolina has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past decade, evolving from a manufacturing town into a vibrant mid-sized city with a thriving downtown, expanding healthcare sector, and a diversified economic base. 

Major companies such as BMW, Michelin, and GE all have operations in the region, creating a reliable base of well-paid blue-collar and engineering workers.

Boise, Idaho

Boise, Idaho saw explosive growth during the pandemic years, but 2026 is presenting a more balanced opportunity. Rapid price appreciation has leveled out, inventory has loosened, and remote workers continue to arrive from California and the Pacific Northwest, attracted by outdoor recreation, lower taxes, and strong household incomes.

Bentonville, Arkansas

Bentonville, Arkansas is no longer just a Walmart company town — it’s becoming a legitimate secondary city with national investor attention. 

Walmart’s ongoing corporate investment has attracted buy-in from suppliers, tech companies, and logistics operators, which has helped grow and diversify the city’s economy. The city has also made significant cultural investments, including world-class cycling trails and the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art.

Huntsville, Alabama

Huntsville, Alabama is home to a massive aerospace, defense, and technology cluster anchored by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Redstone Arsenal, and other defense contractors. The result is a highly educated STEM workforce, strong household incomes, and low unemployment.

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Colorado Springs, Colorado benefits from proximity to Denver without Denver’s hefty home prices. The metro is home to multiple major military installations, including Fort Carson, the US Air Force Academy, and Peterson Space Force Base, which provide a permanent, stable base of renters. A growing tech sector is expanding industry in the region beyond the military foundation.

Knoxville, Tennessee

The University of Tennessee drives year-round rental demand for students and faculty. At the same time, the city serves as a gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains, generating strong short-term rental interest.

As Nashville has become increasingly expensive, Knoxville is attracting spillover investment and migration, given that the home prices in the latter region are much more affordable.

Tampa, Florida  

Tampa, Florida  deserves mention as the Sun Belt secondary market with perhaps the broadest base of demand drivers. Continuous domestic migration, a diverse economy spanning finance, healthcare, logistics, and tourism, and a relatively approachable price point compared to Miami have all combined to keep Tampa on nearly every investor’s shortlist. At a metro population north of 3 million, Tampa sits at the upper edge of the secondary tier, large enough for primary-market liquidity while still pricing well below coastal hubs.

Other Markets to Watch 

The eight cities above lead the pack, but several other secondary markets show strong fundamentals worth tracking in 2026:

• Raleigh, North Carolina: The Research Triangle anchors one of the deepest tech and life-sciences job markets in the Southeast, drawing steady in-migration of young professionals and families.
• Columbus, Ohio: Ohio’s fastest-growing major metro is diversifying well beyond its government and university base, with Intel’s semiconductor investment reshaping the regional economy.
• Indianapolis, Indiana: A low cost of living, landlord-friendly laws, and a stable logistics and life-sciences economy make Indy a reliable cash-flow market for buy-and-hold investors.
• Kansas City, Missouri: An affordable price point, a growing tech and engineering sector, and central-US logistics access keep Kansas City on the radar for portfolio diversification.
• Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin and a strong government and biotech base drive year-round rental demand and unusually low vacancy for a Midwest market.

Why Secondary Cities Are Booming in 2026

Secondary cities are booming in 2026 because three forces are converging: remote work has untethered demand from expensive coastal hubs, affordability pressure keeps pushing residents inland, and steady population migration is concentrating in the Sun Belt and Mountain West.

Remote and Hybrid Work Continue to Shape Housing Demand

The proliferation of remote-first companies and roles has impacted housing demand in regions across the country. Professionals who left San Francisco, New York, and Chicago in 2020–2022 largely stayed in their secondary city destinations. In 2026, a steady trickle of new remote workers continues to flow toward cities with lower costs, outdoor amenities, and a higher quality of life. 

Affordability Challenges in Major Markets

Although real estate has seen steady appreciation for a long time, home prices surged from 2020-2022. This created major affordability challenges for would-be home buyers, especially in major cities. In places like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, property prices shot out of reach for the average buyer. 

In secondary cities, your money tends to go a lot further. In cities like Chattanooga, Greenville, and Huntsville, those looking to invest in real estate can begin building their portfolio without needing huge sums of capital upfront. 

Population Migration Trends

Building a real estate portfolio across multiple secondary markets is one of the most effective ways to diversify geographic risk while maintaining strong yields.

• Sun Belt growth: Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and the Carolinas continue to receive net migration from expensive coastal states.
• Midwest resurgence: Columbus, Indianapolis, and Kansas City are drawing attention for their stability, affordability, and diversifying tech sectors.
• Tax-friendly states: States with no income tax or low property taxes are a consistent draw for both residents and investors.

How to Evaluate Up and Coming Cities for Investment

Take these steps into consideration before investing in a secondary city. 

1. Look Beyond Home Prices

A cheap market isn’t automatically a good market. A city with declining population, weak job growth, high crime rates, and a deteriorating tax base probably won’t get you the return on investment you’re looking for. The best emerging markets are the ones where prices are still reasonable and the economic fundamentals look strong.

2. Analyze Employment and Industry Growth

Focus on metros adding jobs in multiple sectors. A city adding 5,000 defense jobs and 2,000 healthcare jobs is structurally stronger than one adding 7,000 jobs in a single company or industry.

3. Study Population and Migration Trends

Look at Census Bureau data and moving company reports to understand which cities are receiving net in-migration. Population growth is the single most important leading indicator for long-term real estate demand.

4. Evaluate Local Landlord Laws and Taxes

State-level landlord protections vary significantly. Tennessee, Arkansas, Idaho, South Carolina, and Florida are generally considered landlord-friendly environments. Research eviction timelines, rent control laws, and local property tax rates before committing to a market.

5. Understand Infrastructure Development

New highway interchanges, airport expansions, university campuses, and transit investments signal that a city’s government and private sector are investing in long-term growth. These projects create employment during construction and increase long-term property values in the region.

As you evaluate secondary cities to invest in, consider using free tools such as our home affordability calculator and rent estimator, which can help you better understand regional costs. 

Risks of Investing in Secondary Cities

While secondary cities offer ample opportunities, investing in these regions also comes with risk. 

Lower Liquidity Compared to Primary Markets

When you need to sell quickly, secondary markets have smaller buyer pools. This is manageable in normal conditions but can create problems in a downturn if you need to exit a position.

Potential Economic Dependence on One Industry

Some secondary cities that look diversified at a glance are actually dependent on a single large employer. Always research what would happen to the local economy if the largest employer shut down or moved elsewhere. 

Market Volatility in Smaller Cities

Smaller markets can overshoot in both directions. The rapid appreciation in Boise from 2020–2022 was followed by a meaningful correction. Understanding where a market sits in its cycle matters.

Importance of Local Market Research

National data tells you the direction, while local data tells you the specifics. Work with local property managers, attend local real estate investor meetups, and verify rental comps at the street level before underwriting any deal.

Financing Investment Properties in Secondary Cities

Explore your financing options when it comes to investing in secondary cities. Not every loan product is designed for investment properties in secondary markets, but the right lender offers flexibility:

• DSCR loans: Debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) loans qualify borrowers based on the property’s rental income rather than personal income. This is the go-to product for investors scaling a portfolio in secondary markets. Use our free DSCR loan calculator to quickly get a snapshot of what this type of financing could look like. 
• Conventional investment loans: Traditional financing for investors who meet standard income documentation requirements.
• Bank statement loans: Ideal for self-employed investors whose tax returns don’t fully reflect their income.

How Griffin Funding Helps Investors

Griffin Funding specializes in investment property loans and DSCR financing designed for investors targeting secondary markets. Our team can help you identify the type of real estate investment financing that best aligns with your needs and goals. Check where we lend to confirm availability in your target market.

For investors who want to track their portfolio, monitor cash flow, and manage their financial picture in one place, the Griffin Gold app provides a free tool built specifically for real estate investors.

Explore the Best Up and Coming US Cities for Real Estate Investors 

By investing in up and coming cities in the US, you can start or grow your real estate portfolio at an affordable price point. The secondary cities on the above list have affordable entry prices, diversified economies, growing populations, and signs that point to continued rental demand. 

Invest in the fastest growing cities in 2026 and stay a step ahead of the competition. Compare your options among DSCR lenders, understand the loan products available to you, and start building toward the portfolio you want. Contact Griffin Funding to discuss your financing options or get started online today.

The post Top Secondary Cities for Real Estate Investors 2026 appeared first on Griffin Funding.