A new bill in Congress wants to let homeowners carry their existing mortgage rate to their next house. Here's what it actually says, the case for and against it, and what we think.
Published August 18, 2026
If you bought or refinanced a home between 2020 and 2022, there's a decent chance you're sitting on a mortgage rate in the 3% range. If you've thought about moving since, there's also a decent chance you talked yourself out of it the second you did the math on trading that rate for something closer to 6.5%. That's the "lock-in effect," and a new bill in Congress is trying to do something about it.
On August 3, Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) introduced H.R. 10028, the Making Ownership Viable for Everyone Act, or MOVE Act. The bill is short, just two pages, and the core of it is one sentence: it would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start buying and securitizing conventional mortgages that let a homeowner transfer their existing interest rate, terms, and remaining balance to a new property within 90 days of selling the original one.
In plain terms, that's "collateral substitution": the loan itself doesn't change, just the house behind it. It's a mechanism commercial real estate has used for decades, just never made available to everyday homeowners with a conventional loan.
A few details matter here. First, the bill only covers conventional loans backed by Fannie and Freddie, not FHA, VA, USDA, or jumbo loans (FHA and VA loans already have a different mechanism called assumability, where a buyer takes over the seller's loan on the same house). Second, the bill says portability applies where "permitted by mortgagee," meaning your lender still has to agree to it; nothing forces a lender to offer this. Third, it's not law. It was introduced and referred to the House Financial Services Committee, which is where most bills quietly stall. Fannie and Freddie would have 180 days after any enactment to write the actual rules, including things the bill doesn't address at all, like how you'd finance the gap if your next home costs more than your current loan balance.
The argument in favor starts with just how big the lock-in effect has gotten. FHFA research found mortgage rate lock-in prevented an estimated 1.72 million existing-home sales between the second quarter of 2022 and the second quarter of 2024, and a separate FHFA working paper found that every percentage point between a homeowner's current rate and the market rate cuts their odds of selling by about 18%. That's a lot of homeowners staying in houses that no longer fit them, whether that's a growing family in a starter home or empty nesters in a place too big to maintain.
Supporters argue portability would let people move for a job, a growing family, or downsizing without a financial penalty, which in turn should add inventory to a market that's been short on it for years, without the federal government spending a dollar on new subsidies. More transactions also means more work for everyone downstream of a sale, title companies, movers, inspectors, agents, so there's a real economic case beyond just housing supply.
The concerns are mostly about what the bill doesn't say. It doesn't require any lender to actually offer a portable loan, it just guarantees someone will buy it if a lender chooses to. It doesn't explain how a buyer would finance the difference if their next home costs more than their current balance. It doesn't address underwriting, credit requirements, PMI, or escrow transfer. And the 90-day window is tight, if you sell and it takes you longer than three months to close on the next place, you're out of luck under the current text.
There's also a real question on the investor side. Mortgage-backed securities are priced partly on the assumption that loans get paid off when homes sell, since that's when investors get their money back to reinvest. If portable loans stay active for their full original term instead, that's "extension risk," and some analysts think investors would demand higher yields to compensate, which could push rates up for future borrowers even as it helps people who already have a low rate. It's a real tradeoff worth taking seriously, not just a talking point.
H.R. 10028 has not been voted on. It still needs to pass the House, pass the Senate, and be signed into law before any of this becomes real, and even then Fannie and Freddie get 180 days to write the actual rules before a single lender could offer it. If you're planning a move this year, this bill isn't something you can use today, and it shouldn't be a reason to wait. But it's the first time Congress has put this specific problem on paper, and FHFA's director has signaled the agency is already looking at both assumable and portable loan options, so it's worth watching even if nothing changes in the next few months.
We like the intent here. The lock-in effect is real, we see it with clients constantly, people who'd sell today if the math on a new loan didn't feel like a penalty for moving. But this bill is two pages doing a lot of heavy lifting, and the parts left blank (financing the price gap, underwriting standards, the investor-side rate impact) are exactly the parts that determine whether this actually helps the average family or just becomes another complicated product for high-credit borrowers. We'd rather see it pass committee with those questions answered than get rushed through and create new problems for first-time buyers on the other end.
This is one where we're genuinely curious what people think, especially if you're one of the homeowners sitting on a low rate and holding off on a move because of it. Would you actually use a portable mortgage if it existed? Does the 90-day window feel workable? Drop a comment on our social posts about this article, or just reach out and tell us directly, we'd genuinely like to hear it.
Sources: H.R. 10028, Congress.gov, National Mortgage News, FHFA Working Paper 24-03, FHFA Lock-In Effect Research, Rep. Kean's Press Office.
Whether or not this bill goes anywhere, let's talk about what makes sense for your situation right now.