Real Estate From The Trenches

Hard Money Loans and FinCEN Reporting: Why Many “Non-Financed” Deals Still Trigger Reports

February 8, 2026

a new nationwide rule from Financial Crimes Enforcement Network changes how many residential real estate transactions are reported to the federal government

Starting March 1, 2026, a new nationwide rule from Financial Crimes Enforcement Network changes how many residential real estate transactions are reported to the federal government. If you are an investor buying in an LLC or trust, or a private or hard money lender funding those deals, this rule is going to touch your transactions more often than you may expect. The key risk is not penalties. It is delays, deal friction, and misunderstanding who triggers reporting and why.

The rule targets a very specific category of transactions: residential property, bought by a legal entity or trust, when the deal is considered non-financed. That last phrase is where many investors and lenders get tripped up. Non-financed does not simply mean all cash. Many private and hard money loans still fall into the non-financed bucket because the lender is not subject to federal anti-money laundering programs and Suspicious Activity Report requirements. In those cases, the transaction is treated much like a cash deal for reporting purposes.

Rocket Mortgage Sued Over Steering Scheme That May Have Cost Buyers Thousands

January 27, 2026

Rocket Mortgage Sued Over Alleged Steering That Cost Buyers Money

A newly filed class action lawsuit accuses Rocket Mortgage and its affiliated companies of steering homebuyers toward Rocket loans in ways that may have violated federal law and increased costs for consumers.

According to the complaint, Rocket used its Rocket Homes referral network to pressure real estate agents to direct buyers to Rocket Mortgage. Agents who complied were rewarded with more leads. Agents who did not risked losing business. A CFPB investigation found that buyers who came through Rocket’s referral network often paid higher interest rates and fees than buyers who did not.

Trump Takes Aim at Wall Street Homebuyers…But Will It Really Help Families Compete?

January 21, 2026

President Trump’s executive order targeting institutional investors in single-family housing is making headlines, but the actual impact, at least in the short term, may be more symbolic than structural. While the order sets a firm tone against large firms competing with families for homes, the devil is in the definitions and implementation. It gives the Treasury Department 30 days to define what qualifies as a “large institutional investor,” and until those guidelines are clear, there’s a lot of room for interpretation. For now, the order primarily restricts federal agencies from selling or facilitating the sale of government-held single-family homes to large investors that could be purchased by owner-occupants instead. That’s a relatively narrow slice of the market.Big players, hedge funds and REITs with thousands of homes under management, are the clear targets here, especially those scooping up distressed or foreclosed homes in bulk from government sources. But most of the private acquisitions of single-family homes by large investors aren’t coming directly from the government anymore. Much of that happened in the post-2008 era. These days, institutional investors are buying on the open market like everyone else, often competing with families, but also paying retail. The executive order doesn’t restrict that. It also includes exceptions for build-to-rent communities, which have been a major area of growth for institutional capital and are excluded as long as they’re dev...

What Happens If the NAR Settlement Gets Tossed? A Real Estate Industry Reckoning Could Follow

January 7, 2026

A new legal filing could blow a $1 billion hole in the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) landmark settlement over buyer agent commissions, and set off a legal and financial chain reaction the industry hasn’t truly reckoned with.

Last week, Tanya Monestier, a law professor and class member in the Sitzer/Burnett case, filed her reply brief in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Her aim? To convince the court to vacate the settlement that promised modest payouts to home sellers and minor rule tweaks by NAR. Based on her arguments, she may have a real shot.

DOJ Drops the Hammer on Realtor Commission Rules in Landmark Legal Filing

December 24, 2025

NAR Targets REALTOR Commissions - Antitrust Crackdown against NAR

On December 19th, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a 30-page Statement of Interest in the Davis v. Hanna Holdings case, and while it stops short of siding with either party, the DOJ made it clear where it stands on the broader issue of buyer agent commissions and the role of trade associations like the National Association of Realtors (NAR).

The DOJ is focused on promoting competition in real estate, and they argue that certain longstanding industry practices, particularly those driven by NAR rules and adopted through MLSs, may be keeping commissions artificially high and harming homebuyers. According to their filing, real estate broker commissions reached an estimated $170 billion in 2024, nearly 0.6% of U.S. GDP. That’s a staggering amount, and it’s part of why the DOJ says we need more scrutiny around how these commissions are structured and shared.

Investor-Owned Homes Hit 5-Year High, But It’s Not Who You Might Think

December 6, 2025

According to the Q2 2025 Investor Pulse™ Report from BatchData, investors accounted for 33% of all single-family home purchases in the U.S., the highest share in five years. That jump from 27% in Q1 might sound alarming to some, but the full picture is a bit more nuanced. Yes, investors bought one-third of the homes sold last quarter, but who those investors are, and what they’re buying, is the more important story.

Despite headlines often pointing fingers at Wall Street firms, it’s the “mom-and-pop” investors driving this trend. BatchData’s report shows that individuals owning one to five properties make up a staggering 87% of investor-owned single-family homes nationwide. When you include those holding up to 10 properties, that number jumps to 91%. The big institutions? They own just 2% of investor-held homes and have been net sellers for six quarters in a row. In Q2, they sold 5,801 homes while only buying 4,069.

Opening Up the MLS: Good for the Industry, Even if It Hurts at First

November 26, 2025

The National Association of REALTORS® just made a move that, frankly, they should have made a long time ago. By removing the requirement that MLSs only serve REALTORS®, NAR is no longer forcing agents into association membership just to get access to the MLS (though it was an “optional rule”, many MLS’s, if not most, throughout the country have adopted it). That might sound like a subtle policy tweak, but it could end up reshaping the entire structure of organized real estate.

For many MLSs, this change simply brings national policy in line with what they were already doing. CRMLS, Bright MLS, HAR, and several others have allowed non-REALTORS® to subscribe for years. Now others like SmartMLS in Connecticut and Doorify in North Carolina are following suit.

Zillow Lawsuit Explodes: RICO Allegations, New Plaintiffs, and a Much Bigger Problem Than Anyone Thought

November 20, 2025

Zillow Lawsuit Expands With Major New Allegations Including RESPA violations and violation of RICO law. Here’s What Buyers and Agents Should Know

Nine days ago I covered the first class action accusing Zillow of steering buyers toward Zillow Home Loans in exchange for giving certain agents more and better leadsZillow Hit with Class Action Over Alleged Kickbacks to Agents…Is Your Agent Steering You?). That was serious enough.

Now the lawsuit has been amended, and the claims are much bigger. More plaintiffs were added. More real estate companies were named. And the accusations now include RICO violations, which is the same federal law used against large, organized schemes.

Realtors Block Expanded Referral Fee Disclosure…A Win for Tradition or a Missed Chance at Transparency?

November 18, 2025

NAR Shoots Down Referral Fee Disclosure Rule: Transparency Takes a Hit

At a time when the National Association of Realtors (NAR) is under a microscope, and honestly, for good reason, you’d think transparency would be the one thing everyone could agree on. But at this week’s NAR NXT conference in Houston, a proposed change to the Code of Ethics that would have expanded referral fee disclosure requirements was shot down. Not by the NAR Board of Directors, mind you, they passed it by a strong 84 percent margin. It was the so-called Delegate Body, which had the final say, and they said no.

The proposal would have required Realtors to disclose all referral fees, including those from lead-gen platforms like Zillow and other “partners,” and to obtain written client consent when receiving any kind of rebate, profit, or compensation from referrals. Right now, the rules only require disclosure of commissions, leaving referral fees largely out of sight. The change would have closed that gap.

New Rule Would Shift Fair Lending Focus from Outcomes to Intent

November 13, 2025

CFPB wants to officially clarify that “ECOA does not provide that the ‘effects test’ applies for determining whether there is discrimination” – meaning disparate impact claims would no longer be recognized under the rule.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has proposed a rule that would formally end the use of the “effects test” under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), effectively saying that ECOA does not authorize disparate impact claims. The proposed rule would remove language in Regulation B that has, for decades, opened the door for lenders to be held liable for policies that disproportionately affect protected groups—even if those policies are neutral on their face and not intended to discriminate. The CFPB is taking comments until December 15, 2025, and cited recent executive orders calling for an end to “illegal preferences and discrimination” and eliminating disparate-impact liability in federal enforcement.I think this change is long overdue. The disparate impact standard makes it nearly impossible to create a truly “safe” rule in lending. It puts lenders and financial institutions in a position where everything is subject to interpretation and the outcome matters more than the intent. That’s not just unfair, it’s unsustainable. A lender can have zero intent to discriminate and follow well-established, sound underwriting practices, yet still face legal trouble if their policy affects one group more than another. To me, intent isn’t hard to prove. We prove intent every day in criminal courts across the country. Some rules will inevitably impact certain groups more than others, but if the rule is based on legitimate, non-discriminatory criteria, that should be the...

Welcome to Real Estate From The Trenches—practical, straight-talk insight for homeowners, investors, buyers & pros. 👋

Real Insights. No Fluff.Smarter decisions start here.

Get notified when we publish new content.It’s timely, tested, and written for real-world decisions—no hype.