logo
What Falling Mortgage Rates Mean for American Homebuyers

What Falling Mortgage Rates Mean for American Homebuyers

Newsweeka day ago
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Mortgage rates are falling despite the Federal Reserve's reluctance to introduce new cuts over the past eight months, giving American homebuyers more purchasing power at a time when the market is slowly shifting in their favor.
Last week, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage—the most popular home loan in the nation—dropped to its lowest level since April. As of August 7, according to Freddie Mac, it was at 6.63 percent, down from 6.72 percent a week earlier but still up 0.16 percentage points from a year earlier.
While mortgage rates remain historically high, especially compared to the pandemic lows of below 3 percent, for homebuyers waiting on the sidelines for a good time to enter the market, any movement away from the 7 percent mark is a positive shift.
Why Have Mortgage Rates Made a Dip?
"Although the Fed has not yet cut its policy rate, mortgage rates and other long-term rates move in anticipation of what's ahead for the economy and the likely policy environment," Realtor.com chief economist Danielle Hale told Newsweek.
In this case, the July jobs report has likely determined the recent dip in mortgage rates.
The report showed that U.S. employers added 73,000 jobs last month, fewer than the 109,000 forecasters had expected, and unemployment rose from 4.1 percent in June to 4.2 percent. Hiring figures for May and June were also revised down, with a combined total of 258,000 fewer jobs over the past three months than previously estimated.
In an aerial view, homes are seen under construction at a new housing development on August 08, 2025, in Henderson, Nevada.
In an aerial view, homes are seen under construction at a new housing development on August 08, 2025, in Henderson, Nevada."The fact that the July employment report showed weaker job growth, downward revisions to prior job growth estimates, and an uptick in the unemployment rate has reset expectations among investors," Hale said. "The Fed is now widely expected to cut its policy rate at its meeting in mid-September. This combined with a softer economic outlook has helped nudge longer-term interest rates, including mortgage rates, lower."
The weaker-than-expected jobs report has also caused Treasury yields to tumble last week, as concerns over the future of the U.S. economy were revamped among investors, who are now betting that the central bank will cut interest rates next month.
"Mortgage rates react to the bond market," Melissa Cohn, regional vice president of William Raveis Mortgage, told Newsweek. "Bonds react to current economic data, and the latest data has been weaker than expected, especially as it relates to the employment sector. All the weaker data and mild inflation reports that the Fed will react to in September are moving bond yields and mortgage rates today."
What Does This Mean for the US Housing Market?
There is no doubt among experts that lower mortgage rates are good news for American homebuyers. "Mortgage rates have dropped by .25 to .375 percent over the past 10 days. This means more affordability in the home that they are looking to purchase," Cohn said.
But experts are also skeptical of the significance of this improvement.
"This drop now makes homebuying more affordable of course, but it's too soon to tell if the improvements have an impact," Phil Crescenzo Jr., vice president of Southeast Division at Nation One Mortgage Corporation, told Newsweek.
"We saw fairly consistent mortgage rates in late spring and summer, so it didn't take a huge move to be better than recent trends," Hale said. "It's also fair to describe today's mortgage rates as still relatively high."
"Put simply, this is a good break for current home shoppers who are already in the market, and it may be enough of a break to spur others to restart their home searches, especially as we approach a seasonably more favorable time of year for buyers," Hale said.
"Real improvement in home affordability will need rates to drop even further. For borrowers' sake, let's hope that the data continues to be weaker and rates keep dropping," Cohn said.
Is This a Good Time To Buy a Home?
It is as good a time as any to buy a home in the U.S.—meaning that buyers are still facing significant challenges even as mortgage rates dip slightly.
"I expect mortgage rates to eventually fall further, but this is not guaranteed, and the timing is also challenging to predict," Hale said. "Trying to decide whether it's a good time to buy is about more than just mortgage rates. Buyers should think about what they want and need from a home, and consider their options."
Those who are on the fence between renting and owning, Hale said, are likely to find that the monthly costs are still tipped pretty heavily in favor of renting in many markets, "but even in this kind of environment, home ownership can be a good choice, especially for those planning to be in their next home for a longer amount of time."
Waiting too long could be risky, however, especially if mortgage rates continue falling.
"The interest rate market is still unpredictable and waiting too long risks many buyers coming into the market, affecting supply and increasing home prices," Crescenzo said.
Will Rates Continue Falling This Year?
Cohn believes that the August jobs report will be a key factor in the Fed's decision at its September meeting.
"If the report is anything like the July report, the Fed will cut rates in September," she said. "The only curveball will be the impact that the new tariffs have on the rate of inflation. If inflation increases, it may keep the Fed and rates in a holding pattern."
Hale said that whether the Fed will cut rates during its meeting in mid-September will ultimately depend on the next few data readings, though she believes "the elements for a Fed rate cut in September are falling into place."
A cut would help mortgage rates fall, but longer-term rates often move before the Fed does, Hale said, and the monetary policy outlook is just one factor investors are considering.
"For this reason, mortgage rates and the Fed's rate don't always move in tandem," she said.
"For example, from the time that the Fed first cut rates in September 2024 until early January, mortgage rates actually increased by almost the same amount that the Fed cut--a percentage point. In this instance, I expect that mortgage rates are likely to move lower at least until the Fed's first cut, which I expect in September."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Social Security Warning Over Changes Issued by Bernie Sanders
Social Security Warning Over Changes Issued by Bernie Sanders

Newsweek

timea few seconds ago

  • Newsweek

Social Security Warning Over Changes Issued by Bernie Sanders

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Bernie Sanders issued a warning about potential changes to Social Security implemented by the Trump administration on the program's 90th anniversary this week. A Social Security Administration (SSA) spokesperson told Newsweek on Friday: " As Commissioner Bisignano has repeatedly emphasized, ensuring the long-term financial health of these trust funds remains a top priority. The Social Security Administration is committed to working with Congress and other stakeholders to protect and strengthen these vital programs, ensuring that millions of Americans can continue to rely on Social Security for a secure retirement and support in times of disability—both now and in the future." Why It Matters August 14 marked the 90th anniversary of Social Security, relied on by millions of Americans who receive retirement, survivor and disability benefits. About 74 million people receive benefits administered by the SSA, the agency said in July. While the program remains broadly popular among Americans, the program has faced questions about whether it could become insolvent as soon as the 2030s without significant reform. Many Americans are concerned about potential cuts to the program or that individuals who are paying into Social Security may not receive benefits when they reach the age of retirement. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, speaks during the Democratic National Convention on August 20, 2024. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, speaks during the Democratic National Convention on August 20, 2024. CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, sounded the alarm about changes to the program in a video posted to X on Thursday. He warned that individuals like President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the billionaire who led the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) before his falling out with Trump, have been "working overtime to try to dismantle Social Security and undermine the confidence that the American people have in it." "Since Trump took office, his administration has fired at least 7,000 employees at the Social Security Administration, shut down Social Security field offices and made it more difficult for seniors and the disabled to receive the benefits they have earned over the telephone," he said. SSA field offices lost nearly 5 percent of their staffs between March 2024 and March 2025, according to union data from the AFGE Social Security General Committee. Some states, however, saw more than 10 percent of SSA workers leave in that time. Sanders also ripped claims by DOGE that millions of Americans who had been marked deceased, some up to 360 years old, were still receiving benefits as an "unmitigated lie." "Our job today is to stop any and all efforts to destroy Social Security," Sanders said, touting new legislation that would reverse Trump administration cuts to the SSA and prevent the closure of field offices. Trump released a statement Thursday pledging to defend Social Security, "rewarding the men and women who make our country prosperous, and taking care of our own workers, families, seniors, and citizens first." He wrote that his efforts to "aggressively" root out waste and abuse, which includes "stopping payments to the deceased and eliminating benefits for those who do not legally qualify," will strengthen the program. "These measures will save American taxpayers billions of dollars every year and ensure that future generations receive the benefits they spent their lives paying into. At the same time, I am making the Social Security Administration more efficient, more responsive and more effective than ever before—reducing wait times and delivering the payments the American people worked hard to earn," Trump wrote. A YouGov poll released in March found that 54 percent of Americans believed Social Security cuts would have a negative effect on their financial security. Only 13 percent said it would have a positive effect, while 16 percent said it would have no effect. The poll surveyed 3,567 adults on March 12. What People Are Saying Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent: "In a world of complexity and uncertainty, Social Security has done exactly what its name implies. It has provided rock bottom security for our nation's elderly and disabled." Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, on X: "Right now, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are quietly creating problems for Social Security so they can later hand it off to their private equity buddies." Elon Musk told Fox News in March: "What we're doing will help their benefits. Legitimate people, as a result of the work of DOGE, will receive more Social Security, not less." What Happens Next Social Security remains a challenge that Americans will face over the coming years as lawmakers work to prevent the program from going insolvent.

Trump administration deepens crackdown on solar and wind tax credits
Trump administration deepens crackdown on solar and wind tax credits

Politico

timea few seconds ago

  • Politico

Trump administration deepens crackdown on solar and wind tax credits

The GOP law terminated existing investment and production tax credits for solar and wind projects that start producing electricity after 2027, but provided more time for projects that begin construction within a year. Trump then directed Treasury to 'strictly enforce' the end of the credits for wind and solar facilities, including by issuing new guidance concerning when a project is deemed to have begun construction. Traditionally, that longstanding metric has allowed projects to qualify by taking steps such as incurring 5 percent of a project's total cost or beginning physical construction activities. Tax lawyers and clean energy developers have warned the guidance could mark an unprecedented and legally dubious attempt to rewrite congressional intent, and could be challenged in court. Grassley has also said he would object to consideration of the Treasury nominees until he can be 'certain that such rules and regulations adhere to the law and congressional intent.' But the guidance will have immediate impact for hundreds of planned solar and wind projects across the country. Adrian Deveny, founder and president of policy advisory firm Climate Vision, said the new guidance will 'pull the rug out from under the entire pipeline of wind and solar projects that are in development.' Deveny, who helped craft the clean energy credits as a former policy director for Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, said Trump is 'determined to jack up American energy bills.' Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, in a statement called it a 'blatant rejection' of what Congress passed in the tax law. In the weeks following Trump's directive, the administration has undertaken a host of actions across agencies to further imperil wind and solar development, including major actions at the Interior Department that have received pushback from some Senate Republicans. The new Treasury guidance — which is not open to public comment — will apply to projects after Sept. 2.

New $250 Visa Integrity Fee Will Cost US $11 Billion, Say Tourism Officials
New $250 Visa Integrity Fee Will Cost US $11 Billion, Say Tourism Officials

Forbes

time13 minutes ago

  • Forbes

New $250 Visa Integrity Fee Will Cost US $11 Billion, Say Tourism Officials

Topline U.S. tourism officials say Congress's controversial $250 visa integrity fee will deter international visitors and cost the country nearly $11 billion in lost visitor spending and tax revenue over the next three years. Key Facts The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the new $250 visa integrity fee will bring in around $27 billion over a decade—or $2.7 billion per year—to U.S. government coffers and reduce the national debt. But a U.S. tourism official told Forbes the fee will instead cost the U.S. economy $11 billion over three years, including $9.4 billion in lost visitor spending and $1.3 billion in lost tax revenue—or about $3.6 billion per year, according to an analysis by Tourism Economics. In addition, the lost revenue will lead to losing 15,000 U.S. travel jobs, according to U.S. tourism industry estimates. How Will The $250 Fee Impact Tourism To The U.s.? The CBO based its estimate solely on the potential revenue generated by the fee itself, while the U.S. tourism industry looked at the macroeconomic impact of implementing the fee, hence the wildly different estimates. The CBO estimated that charging roughly 11 million annual visa applicants $250 apiece would rake in roughly $2.7 billion per year for the State Department. Tourism officials say Congress wrongly assumed the pricey fee would have little impact on the volume of visitation. Tourism Economics, a division of Oxford Economics, estimated that the $250-per-person fee is onerous enough to deter 5.4% of international visitors from coming to the U.S., which would translate to a drop of nearly 1 million fewer visits annually. Fewer visitors translate to less visitor spending, and in turn to lower tax revenue and job losses in the tourism industry, sending a negative ripple effect throughout the national economy. 'By longstanding tradition, the Congressional Budget Office does not incorporate macroeconomic feedback effects into its traditional cost estimates,' a CBO spokesperson told Forbes. 'We didn't specifically do a dynamic analysis of this provision.' In other words, the CBO did not factor in the potential negative economic impact from lower visitor spending, tax revenue and subsequent job cuts—key metrics used by the U.S. tourism industry and the U.S. Commerce Department to evaluate the overall value of tourism to the U.S. economy. 'I think in the minds of congressional leaders, foreign visitors don't vote, so making them pay more to help fund the [Big Beautiful] Bill wouldn't come at any political cost,' Erik Hansen, senior vice president of government relations at the U.S. Travel Association, told Forbes. 'But the problem is it comes at a huge economic cost to American businesses.' What Else Do U.s. Tourism Experts Say Congress Got Wrong? 'Congress made the mistake of assuming that this worldwide visa integrity fee would not have a big impact on visitors from countries like India or Brazil,' Hansen told Forbes. 'This is the exact type of armchair public policymaking that is going to get us into a big mess.' India, in particular, is a 'bright spot' for inbound international travel because visitation numbers have surpassed where they were in 2019, he said, while most other countries are lagging behind their pre-pandemic volume. In 2024, Indian tourists spent roughly $13.3 billion in the U.S., according to the National Travel and Tourism Office, part of the U.S. Commerce Department. 'Applying a $250 fee to a country where travel is growing is mindboggling. It will absolutely deter travel—that's what our research has found,' Hansen said. What Do International Visitors Need To Know About The Visa Integrity Fee? The fee is not actually as 'refundable' as Congress has billed it to be. As written, the Big Beautiful Bill says the State Department 'may reimburse' the fee after the visitor's visa expires, provided that the visa holder has complied with all conditions of the visa. But most visitor visas are valid for 10 years, Hansen pointed out. 'The idea that you're going to give the government money and then wait around 10 years and remember to ask for it back, even if you followed the rules, is just absolutely crazy,' he said. Indeed, to arrive at its projection, the CBO reasoned in its estimate that 'a large number of nonimmigrants would not be eligible to seek reimbursement until several years after paying the fee' so consequently only 'a small number of people would seek reimbursement.' In other words, said Hansen, 'there's a very good understanding that the refund process itself is not going to be easy, and even if it is easy, that a lot of people aren't going to seek that refund after a decade.' Another red flag: The $250 fee was inserted into the Big Beautiful Bill without a plan for processing refunds. In its analysis, the CBO wrote that 'the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements.' Why Are So Many International Travelers Avoiding The U.s. This Year? In June, a World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) analysis of the economic impact of tourism in 184 countries revealed the U.S. was the only country forecast to see international visitor spending decline in 2025, which by some estimates is as much as $29 billion. The root causes of this decline, multiple studies have found, are a combination of President Trump's tariffs, travel bans, inflammatory rhetoric and harsher immigration policies, all which have created a chilling effect on visitors. 'While other nations are rolling out the welcome mat, the U.S. government is putting up the 'closed' sign,' Julia Simpson, president and CEO of WTTC, said in a statement. 'Given we're halfway through the year and we've seen these impacts, we don't know when the stiffest headwind is, but I think it does stay sustained,' Aran Ryan, director of industry studies at Tourism Economics, told Forbes last month. 'We're generally assuming that this persists for a while and that some of it is going to persist throughout the end of the administration.' Simpson characterized the WTTC study as a 'wake-up call for the U.S. government,' adding that 'without urgent action to restore international traveler confidence, it could take several years for the U.S. just to return to pre-pandemic levels of international visitor spend.' Tangent Trump's signature spending bill contains another blow to U.S. tourism. A Senate committee led by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) slashed the budget of Brand USA, the country's public-private destination marketing organization, from $100 million to $20 million. 'This is another error that Congress has made,' Hansen said, noting that the Trump administration recommended full funding for the organization in its fiscal year 2026 budget. 'We have a big misperception problem among international visitors right now, but Congress cut funding for the one organization that's in charge of setting perceptions and sending a welcoming message about travel to the United States.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store