Will buying a home be more affordable this fall? Here's what lending experts predict.
Which is most likely to happen in the near term, though? We asked some experts about what they expect for housing affordability for the fall. Below, we'll break down their predictions and what next steps current homebuyers may want to take right now.
Start by seeing what mortgage interest rate you could qualify for here.
Lots of factors influence housing affordability, but one of the most important, at least this fall, will be mortgage rates.
"The biggest factor that will change affordability will be the movement in interest rates, if there is any," says Mark Worthington, branch manager and home loan specialist at Churchill Mortgage. "If rates go down dramatically, affordability will increase for a short period of time. Once the demand rises enough with lower rates, then prices will likely rise and this will then negatively affect affordability."
Are rates likely to fall, though? That depends on where you look. The Mortgage Bankers Association is forecasting the average 30-year mortgage rate to be at 6.7% by the end of the year — right around where it sits today. Fannie Mae forecasts a small drop in rates, with an average of 6.4% by year's end.
"Mortgage rates are holding steady," says Debra Shultz, vice president of lending at CrossCountry Mortgage. "The Fed is expected to delay rate cuts until October 2025, keeping rates relatively steady through the fall."
That might not sound like good news for most homebuyers, but experts say it's better than constantly up-and-down mortgage rates, which make it hard for consumers to make decisions.
"I think the most important thing is rate stability — versus volatility," says Dana Bull, a real estate advisor with Compass in Massachusetts. "If rates are stable, buyers and sellers can make plans without feeling like the rug is about to be pulled out from under them."
See what rates and terms are available to you here.
Another big influencer on affordability is inventory — or how many homes are for sale at a given time. When inventory is high and buyers have lots of options, it creates seller competition and makes things more affordable. When for-sale homes are limited, it does the opposite, eroding affordability for buyers.
Across the country, inventory is generally on the rise, which could help ease home prices overall. Realtor.com data shows for-sale inventory jumped almost 25% between July 2024 and July 2025, hitting its highest point since the pandemic.
Still, that's overall data, and individual markets can vary quite a bit.
"Everything this year is incredibly market- and pricepoint-specific," says Jennifer Beeston, executive vice president of national sales at Guaranteed Rate. "For instance, in Seattle we are already back to bidding wars, whereas in Dallas in the sub-$500,000 pricepoint, we have plenty of inventory to pick and choose from."
Mortgage rates will also be a big determinant of where inventory goes. If mortgage rates drop, homeowners who currently have very low interest rates will be more likely to list their homes and buy new ones, unlocking a lot of pent-up inventory nationally.
"The so-called 'lock‐in effect' still limits turnover," Shultz says.
Data shows that home prices are still growing nationally — but the rate at which they're increasing is slowing down. Currently, the median home price is just under $411,000.
"Prices are slowing but still high," Shultz says. "Most forecasts expect modest price growth of around 2 to 3% for the full year — or even slight declines in select markets."
Fannie Mae's forecast shows price growth slowing down steadily through the end of 2026, though on the ground, it will depend on the specific market you're in. Again, mortgage rates will play in, too. If they stay high or even rise, that will reduce demand and potentially cause prices to drop. If rates drop a significant amount, home prices could tick back up again.
"If mortgage rates drop enough — I would say below the 6% mark — we will see lots of competition among buyers, likely increasing prices due to pent-up market demand," says Brandi Wolff, a real estate agent at Guide Real Estate in Denver. "If mortgage rates stay relatively steady, then prices could see a slight decline."
If you're contemplating selling and purchasing a new home, you're on both sides of the fence. With increased inventory and rates high, you might have a hard time selling your home, but then an easier time buying one. It all depends on the market, though.
"As a move-up buyer, you want to get the most for the house you're selling and pay the least for the home you're buying," Beeston says. "This can only be accomplished if you are selling in a seller's market and buying in a buyer's' market. If you are buying in the same market you live in, odds are you are going to be making some adjustments."
In July 2025, the typical home spent 58 days on the market, according to the Realtor.com data, which is up a full week from a year ago. That indicates waning buyer demand or excess inventory, and as a seller, it might mean cutting your listing price or offering other perks to get your home noticed.
"As a seller in our current market, you absolutely must price your home correctly from the start," Wolff says. "Statistically, you're less likely to maximize your profits for your home in the end if you price it too high — due to having to significantly drop the price to attract a contract — than you would if you'd priced it right from the beginning."
Forecasts aren't set in stone, and as conditions change, the trajectory for housing affordability can change, too. Keep an eye on mortgage rates, and talk to a real estate agent in your area to stay on top of pricing trends in your local market.
And if you want to make your home purchase more affordable no matter where prices or rates go, consider negotiating seller concessions or a mortgage rate buydown with your lender. These can both reduce your costs as a homebuyer.
You can also be choosier about the home you buy. Purchasing a fixer-upper, for instance, may offer a lower price than a more move-in-ready home. You can also look for homes that have been listed for a while.
"Sellers tend to get more motivated when their home has been sitting on the market for more than 30 days," Bull says. "They may be willing to concede on price if your offer is otherwise compelling."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Money over love? How finances are affecting romantic relationships
Although the median U.S. annual salary is about $62,192, Americans on average expect their ideal partner to earn six figures, a new survey found. On average, women want their ideal partner to earn $110,000 while men expect theirs to earn $90,000, according to a Tawkify survey of 1,000 Americans. A quarter of respondents want more, saying their ideal partner should earn over $150,000. That's still not enough for 1 in 10 who are holding out for $250,000 and 1 in 20 who want $500,000 or more. Some responses were contradictory. More than 6 in 10 Americans (63%) surveyed said they would marry for love, even if it meant a lifelong financial struggle. But if forced to decide between love and money, 46% said they would pick the latter. In fact, nearly 1 in 3 said they'd consider getting back with an ex if that person became wealthy. Those unemployed in a rough job market may find more trouble in their love life. Nearly half of Americans are taking the lyrics to TLC's 1999 hit 'No Scrubs' to heart, with 48% reporting they would not date someone without a job, even if they were attracted to them. Brie Temple, Tawkify's chief commercial officer and chief matchmaker, said the matchmaking company's clients want to date someone who adds to their life and not someone who is financially dependent on them. More: Uncomfortable Conversations: What is financial infidelity and how can you come clean? 'Women, in particular, are saying things like 'I'm not interested in being a nurse or a purse,' particularly if they're dealing with an older demographic,' Temple said. More: Can you afford your friends? That active social life can come at a steep price Deal breakers While not the leading cause, money issues are one of the reasons couples get divorced. But conversely, in some cases, money is the reason people stay together. Some 69% of those Tawkify surveyed said they remained in a relationship longer than they wanted due to shared finances. Single people might be quicker to cut someone off over bad money habits. A separate survey of 2,000 Americans conducted by Talker Research on behalf of Chime, found 26% said a date being ungenerous or stingy gives them a 'financial ick.' At the same time, a third said they would be put off by a partner who lives beyond their means. Jason Tartick, a banker and host of the podcast 'Trading Secrets,' said overspending is no longer 'cool' because it represents a lack of authenticity. 'It's beyond refreshing in this dating environment because it's allowing for a bit more openness,' said Tartick, who was also a contestant on season 14 of The Bachelorette. 'I think the openness is what will actually create connection, not a facade of something that is just an illusion.' For Tartick and Dr. Traci Williams, a certified financial therapist, a romantic partner not willing to talk about finances is a red flag in a relationship, if not a deal breaker. Williams added that a partner having lots of debt without a repayment plan or being reckless with money could also be cause for concern. More: Gen Z is getting serious about their finances. What's in the way? 'It is possible for couples to be together if they don't have exactly the same values. But can you agree, and can you work together?' Williams said. 'If one person likes to save, and one person likes to spend, yes, you can spend, but are we also saving for our future?' Generational shifts Financial responsibility is particularly appealing to members of Generation Z – 78% of whom consider it an important attribute when choosing a partner, according to a separate survey of 1,069 adults by Bank of America. Most Gen Zers are finding ways to date without spending money, with 53% of men and 54% of women reporting they spend $0 per month on romance. A quarter of Gen Z men and 30% of Gen Z women said they spend less than $100 a month on dating. When Gen Z does spend money on dates, they're more open to splitting the bill than older generations. The Talker Research/Chime survey found while 45% of Gen Xers and 42% of baby boomers believe men should pick up the tab, only 36% of Gen Zers agreed. Overall, 39% of men said they feel pressured to appear more financially stable than they are. At 47%, nearly half believe men should cover all the costs of a date, compared to only about a third of women. 'It's just fascinating for me to watch people's conversations online,' Williams said. 'People are regularly saying, 'I want a man who will pay for everything and take me on trips and here, there, and everywhere,' but in reality, when people are actually dating, they tend to be a bit more flexible.' When the love versus money question is asked in a different way, 58% of women are more likely to pick a 'broke and magical' relationship over financial security, compared to 51% of men, the Tawkify survey found. When broken down by age group, Gen Z is the generation second most likely to choose love over money, second only to millennials. More than half of both groups said they'd pick the 'broke and magical' relationship. Only 46% of Gen Xers and 48% of baby boomers reported the same. When and how to talk about money Half of Gen Zers and millennials said it's attractive when someone is upfront about their income, compared to only 23% of baby boomers, according to the Talker Research/Chime survey. It also found, however, that money remains one of the largest sources of stress in dating. To alleviate some of that anxiety, Temple recommends couples talk about money early and often in their relationship. Williams suggests setting up a specific time to chat about it once a week or every couple of weeks, if a couple is living together or in a serious relationship. For those struggling to broach the subject, Williams said even talking to your partner about egg prices is a place to start. More: What a viral TikTok teaches us about ghosting 'The reality is that it's relatable that life's so expensive,' he said. 'As opposed to creating tension with finances by not willing to have the conversations, you can actually create vulnerability by connecting via relatability.' If your partner shares financial information, Tartick said make sure not to use it against them. 'When we say money, everyone becomes very guarded... We are afraid of being shamed and blamed,' he said. 'You hear people joking around at the dinner table, 'Oh, my wife or husband has Amazon packages everyday' and we're constantly weaponizing information that has to do with spending.' Financial questions couples should discuss Tartick suggests asking the following questions to learn about someone's financial values while keeping money conversations fun: If you won $1 million and had to spend it in 24 hours, what would you spend it on? What's one thing you know you overspend on, but will keep doing it anyway? What's your dream income? Temple recommends asking: What's the largest splurge purchase you've made for yourself and why? When I say, 'financial freedom,' what does that bring up for you? Growing up, how did your parents or guardians talk about money? Williams also suggests setting clear expectations about who plans and pays for dates early on in a relationship. If money is tight, she recommends budget-friendly ideas including game nights and taking advantage of free museum days. Tartick said it's time to get real about numbers when a couple thinks about moving in together or getting married. He said they should ask about each other's credit score, number of financial accounts, annual expenses, salary, debt to income ratio, net worth, overall risk tolerance, and their target retirement age. 'If these are the numbers the bank is looking at to decide if you can get a mortgage or a loan to start up a company, why aren't these numbers that we're talking about with our partner?' he said. Reach Rachel Barber at rbarber@ and follow her on X @rachelbarber_ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Money or love? Survey finds Americans divided over which matters more
Fast Company
24 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Meet vibe coding's nerdy but sane sibling
By now you've probably heard of 'vibe coding': creating software from scratch by prompting AI to generate the source code for you, instead of writing it yourself. The promise of spinning up real working apps from nothing but mushy human language is tantalizing—and companies such as Lovable and Replit have already ridden it to billion-dollar valuations. There's just one catch. For a wide swath of businesses with straightforward but mission-critical needs, vibe coding doesn't actually work. AI still hallucinates, which means the code it generates is often sloppy and occasionally downright malicious. It can't be trusted to be secure or consistent. No wonder that according to one major survey, 72% of professional software developers don't use vibe coding tools on the job. A New York-based startup called Aboard is pursuing a different approach. Call it 'vibe product management.' Instead of using AI to jump right into generating code (and holding on for dear life), business leaders can work with 'solution engineers' at Aboard who use AI to turbocharge the planning and discovery phases of enterprise software development—the lumbering, unsexy, but essential work of deciding what components to code and how to assemble them reliably. If vibe coding is like asking a robot architect for a summer house and watching it start to pour concrete for a pool you may never have asked for, Aboard's approach is all about making the robot focus on drawing up the blueprints first. It's still faster, but also saner.
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Corporate America is silent as Trump abandons free-market principles
Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow A version of this story appeared in CNN Business' Nightcap newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. Not long ago, American conservative orthodoxy held that when it comes to doing business, the government that governs least governs best. The orthodoxy manifested itself in familiar ways. Groups that claimed the mantle of individual liberties would decry new legislation. Talk radio and podcasts would mock unnamed bureaucrats for ham-fisted overreach. And powerful business lobbies were quick to denounce — in press releases and even lawsuits — regulations or taxes they saw as government overreach. But when faced with President Donald Trump's efforts to seize control of private enterprise — such as his recent arrangement to have the US pocket a portion of Nvidia's sales to China, his social media outbursts at individual executives, his moves to take a stake in Intel, and his use of executive powers to cajole banks and law firms he perceives as insufficiently loyal — those same groups have gone quiet. Take the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business advocacy group in the country. Last year, the Chamber sued a federal consumer watchdog group for attempting to cap credit card late fees at $8 a month, claiming the agency 'exceeded its statutory authority.' In 2023, it sued the Biden administration over provisions for Medicare price negotiations in the Inflation Reduction Act, claiming the move would consolidate 'unfettered and unchecked power' to the department of Health and Human Services. But under Trump's second term, the Chamber has had little to say publicly about Trump's aggressive meddling in the private sector. Similarly, the Business Roundtable, another DC-based lobbying group that represents hundreds of chief executives, has rarely been shy about denouncing what it sees as presidential overreach in the form of taxes and environmental regulations. This year, though, the group has been largely MIA on the MAGA shift toward a style of capitalism that more closely resembles the autocratic regimes of Russia and China. Both groups have criticized Trump's trade war, warning that tariffs hurt American businesses. But neither has spoken out about the president's more direct assault on free enterprise. Neither the Chamber of Commerce nor the Business Roundtable responded to multiple requests for comment. The president, a self-styled dealmaker, has thrown out the standard free-market playbook in ways that have alarmed lawmakers, investors and legal experts. And suddenly, the legal protections businesses have long counted on appear shaky, said Philip M. Nichols, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'Any business that sticks its head up, or any business person that sticks their head up, is taking a risk that can't be calculated,' Nichols said in an interview. 'What's the smart thing to do — what do the wildebeest do when they get to the crocodile-infected river? They wait for the other wildebeest to jump in, and then follow.' Several trade groups have privately drafted plans to push back against the Trump administration in defense of their business interests, people familiar with the matter told CNN. But those plans were shelved at the request of members that are worried about drawing White House ire. 'There's an 'Eye of Sauron' element here that everyone is very aware of,' one manufacturing CEO told CNN, referring to the 'Lord of the Rings' character that brought all subjects to heel. 'But there's also a recognition that this is an administration that is transactional if they believe you're on board with their agenda.' When it comes to exerting his influence over Corporate America, no matter appears too small or too large for Trump's input. Last month, the president took credit for Coca-Cola's decision to roll out a cane-sugar-sweetened product that aligns with his allies' 'Make America Healthy Again' philosophy. He regularly criticizes CEOs in public for perceived slights, demanded that Intel's boss resign over unspecified conflicts, and urged Goldman Sachs to fire its top economist after the bank said tariffs would raise consumer prices (a fact virtually all economists agree to be true, and which we are now seeing borne out in reality). While much of that bluster is run-of-the-mill Trump rhetoric, the president shocked trade experts when he announced an unorthodox (and potentially illegal) arrangement with chipmakers Nvidia and AMD earlier this month. In exchange for export licenses that allow them to sell their products in China, the companies agreed to funnel 15% of their China sales to the US government — a setup that some analysts called a 'shakedown' of private enterprise. The White House's push into private businesses took another turn Tuesday when officials confirmed the administration was considering using taxpayer money to acquire a stake in struggling chipmaker Intel. The primary reason for such a move, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said, was the president's desire to reduce US dependence on Taiwan for chip production. But he also said Trump believes the government should have 'equity' in tech giants. The silence from Corporate America to Trump's incursion into private businesses isn't entirely unexpected. Businesses have lost their appetite for the kind of socially progressive rhetoric many adopted in response to the 2020 murder of George Floyd. At the same time, Trump's return to the White House came with a cost-benefit analysis for any business leaders thinking of speaking out: Make yourself a target, or fall in line and wait for the massive tax cuts the president has promised. 'Corporate citizens are harmed just like flesh and blood citizens are harmed when you have a leader who… actively seeks to monetize public office and actively seeks to use the power of the presidency to harm perceived enemies or anyone who doesn't appropriately capitulate,' Donald Sherman, executive director of the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNN. 'In some ways, this is the natural and predictable result of failing to appropriately stand up to President Trump's anti-democratic and authoritarian tendencies during his first term.'
