If you bought or refinanced before 2023, you likely locked in a mortgage rate between 2.5% and 4%. Today's 30-year fixed-rate loans are sitting at levels well above those historic lows — and the gap has created a severe lock-in effect: homeowners who would normally trade up, downsize, or relocate for a job can't bring themselves to give up their low rate. The MOVE Act (H.R. 10028), introduced in August 2026 by Rep. Thomas H. Kean Jr., directly targets this paralysis. It would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to begin purchasing and securitizing portable mortgages — loans that let you transfer your existing interest rate, terms, and remaining balance to a new home instead of paying the loan off at sale. The bill's 180-day implementation deadline leaves enormous logistical questions unanswered, and the answer to whether you can actually keep your 3% rate depends on how Congress and the GSEs solve the 'second mortgage problem.'
What is the MOVE Act (H.R. 10028)?
Introduced on August 3, 2026 by Rep. Thomas H. Kean Jr. (R-NJ), the Making Ownership Viable for Everyone Act — or MOVE Act — is a bill that targets the secondary mortgage market rather than creating a direct consumer subsidy. The bill requires Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to begin purchasing and securitizing qualifying portable mortgages within 180 days of enactment (GovInfo).
Under the bill, a portable mortgage would let a homeowner transfer the same interest rate, terms, and remaining loan balance from one home to another, as long as the move happens within 90 days of selling the original property (Quiver Quantitative). The bill is currently in its earliest stage: it has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services and has not yet passed the House, Senate, or been signed into law (GovTrack).
A critical point often missed: the MOVE Act does NOT make every mortgage portable. It directs the GSEs to update their purchasing standards so that lenders can originate portable loans with a guaranteed secondary-market buyer. The bill also applies only to conventional mortgages — FHA and VA loans are excluded from the scope of H.R. 10028 (Brenkus Team analysis).
Why does the 'Second Mortgage Problem' matter?
Here is the central question the bill does not answer. If you own a home worth $400,000 with a $250,000 mortgage at 3%, and you want to buy a $600,000 home, you have a $350,000 gap to cover. The MOVE Act lets you port your $250,000 loan — but where does the remaining $350,000 come from, and how do the two loans interact?
Lien position is the first unresolved question. If the ported mortgage stays in first-lien position, the new financing ($350,000) would be a second mortgage — a subordinate lien with higher rates and lower loan-to-value allowances. If the new financing takes first position, the ported loan becomes the second mortgage. This is not a question of which loan is more important — it is a question of risk hierarchy. Lien position dictates the order of repayment in foreclosure or insured loss, and that ordering determines whether lenders offer competitive rates on the gap piece or require second-mortgage pricing at rates that are typically higher than comparable first-mortgage rates. Subordination is the core logistical hurdle: until a clear framework exists — through GSE guidelines, statute, or intercreditor agreements — lenders lack the risk appetite to price the new-money portion anywhere near a first-mortgage rate. That directly affects the borrower's blended cost of carry on the new home.
Blended rate vs. separate notes is the second question. In Canada, where mortgage portability is common, borrowers typically blend their existing rate with the new financing into a single, weighted-average rate — a structure that preserves the simplicity of one payment. The MOVE Act does not mandate blended rates. The alternative — keeping the ported loan as a separate note alongside a new first or second mortgage — creates two payments, two amortization schedules, and two sets of underwriting requirements.
How would gap financing work?
The most practical question for a borrower trying to use the MOVE Act: Can I use a HELOC for the difference between my ported loan balance and the new purchase price?
The MOVE Act does not exist in the US today. If it passes, however, the mechanics of gap financing become the central question for any borrower who wants to buy a more expensive home while keeping their low rate. A borrower who ports a $250,000 loan at 3% into a $600,000 purchase, for instance, would need $350,000 of additional financing. None of the structures described below exist today — they are possibilities that would require the bill's passage, GSE rulemaking, and lender product development. But here is what the options would likely look like:
HELOCs and closed-end second mortgages are the most obvious workaround. A borrower could take a second lien for the gap. But second mortgages carry rates that are typically higher than comparable first-mortgage rates, shorter terms, and tighter combined-loan-to-value (CLTV) limits. Standard industry thresholds for a first-plus-second structure leave limited room above the ported balance — meaning on a $600,000 home, after accounting for the $250,000 ported first mortgage, only a portion of the gap remains available for second-lien financing under maximum borrowing thresholds. The borrower is left covering the remainder in cash.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could offer a companion 'gap' loan product. This is the most elegant solution, but it would require new GSE program guidelines — something the MOVE Act does not mandate. The bill only requires the GSEs to purchase and securitize portable loans; it does not create a paired second-lien or supplemental financing product. The FHFA has signaled that Fannie and Freddie are evaluating new loan structures, including portable and assumable options, but these remain exploratory rather than imminent (NAMU).
A blended-rate single note — where the ported balance and the new financing are combined into one loan at a weighted average rate — would solve the lien-priority problem entirely. The borrower would have one first mortgage, one payment, and one amortization schedule. This is the standard approach in Canada. But implementing it requires a fundamental change to how MBS pools work in the US secondary market, since a blended-rate loan has a different prepayment profile than a standard fixed-rate mortgage.
Again, these are proposed hypotheticals — the HELOC gap, the companion GSE product, and the blended-rate note. None exist until the MOVE Act passes, the GSEs issue guidelines, and lenders develop retail products. Today, the only way to transfer a mortgage in the US is through an FHA or VA assumption — where the buyer takes over the seller's existing loan terms on the same home. In a port, the seller takes the loan — and its rate and terms — to a new property. That is the core distinction, and it is the mechanism the MOVE Act would enable for conventional loans. FHA and VA loans are assumable — the buyer takes the loan. The MOVE Act targets conventional loans, which are not assumable, and would create porting — the seller takes the loan to a new home. These are separate legal mechanisms, and the MOVE Act does not change FHA or VA assumption rules.
What precedent exists for portable mortgages?
Mortgage portability is not a new idea. It is standard practice in Canada and the United Kingdom, where borrowers routinely transfer their mortgage terms to a new property without triggering a prepayment penalty or a full refinance (Brenkus Team). The Canadian model — where the borrower blends the old and new rates into a weighted average — is the closest blueprint for what the US could adopt.
In the US, the closest analog is the assumable mortgage common in the 1980s, when rates were in the double digits. FHA and VA loans are assumable today, meaning a buyer can take over the seller's existing loan terms. That is an assumption — the buyer takes the loan. Porting is the inverse: the seller takes the loan to a new property. The MOVE Act addresses porting, not assumption, and does not change the FHA/VA assumption rules. But conventional loans — the vast majority of the market — are not assumable. The due-on-sale clause, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1701j-3, gives lenders the right to demand full repayment when property transfers, and that clause is the legal barrier the MOVE Act would need to address.
FHFA Director Bill Pulte has indicated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are exploring assumable and portable loan structures, but the operational hurdles are significant. As the Columbia Business School analysis notes, "retrofitting assumability or portability onto trillions of dollars of outstanding MBS would likely trigger investor challenges and destroy liquidity" in the agency MBS market (Columbia Business School).
Unanswered questions on down payments and sale proceeds
Beyond the mechanics of how proceeds would flow at closing, three structural questions remain unanswered for any borrower relying on the MOVE Act's portability:
Prepayment risk in MBS pools. If a portable mortgage is removed from an MBS pool when the borrower moves, the pool loses that loan's cash flows. Investors priced that pool based on the original collateral. The GSEs would need to either replace the loan with a comparable one or compensate the pool — a structural issue that the MOVE Act's text does not address.
State-level due-on-sale conflicts. While 12 U.S.C. § 1701j-3 generally preempts state due-on-sale restrictions, the MOVE Act does not amend this statute. Individual states could enact laws requiring lenders to permit portability, creating a patchwork of availability (Groundwork Collaborative).
What should you do next?
The MOVE Act is an important first step toward solving the lock-in effect that has frozen millions of homeowners in place. But the bill's current form is a secondary-market directive — it tells Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy portable loans without addressing the mechanics of how those loans would actually work for borrowers.
Contact your representative and let them know you support the MOVE Act's goal of mortgage portability — but also raise the specific questions that need answers: lien position, blended rates, equity treatment, and gap financing. The bill needs refinement before it can deliver on its promise.
In the meantime, if you are considering a move and feel trapped by your current rate, talk to a mortgage professional about your options. And if the MOVE Act gains traction, stay informed — the landscape of mortgage portability could change faster than many expect.
Edge Home Finance, LLC | Company NMLS #891464
Dylan Crews, Mortgage Loan Officer | NMLS #1987505
Verify licensing at www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org
Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute individualized financial or legal advice. The MOVE Act (H.R. 10028) is proposed legislation that has not been enacted. The analysis of its potential mechanics, including lien position, blended rates, and gap financing, is based on the author's professional interpretation of global precedent, current mortgage guidelines, and secondary market practices. Actual outcomes will depend on the final form of any legislation, regulatory guidance, and individual borrower qualifications. Edge Home Finance, LLC does not guarantee the availability of any specific loan program discussed herein.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!