Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify that FHFA Director Bill Pulte did not specify whether “a single credit report” referred to one bureau report or a portable report that could be shared among lenders.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency is studying the use of a single credit report during the mortgage process, although it remains unclear whether Director Bill Pulte was referring to a report from one credit bureau or a portable report that borrowers could share among lenders.
Pulte said Wednesday that the agency was “studying using only a single credit report” as a way to reduce borrowing costs, according to Reuters. Neither Pulte nor FHFA publicly specified whether that meant relying on one credit bureau or allowing a borrower to reuse one verified report among multiple lenders.
Either interpretation could affect originators. A single-bureau model could reduce the amount of credit data lenders obtain and require changes to underwriting and quality-control procedures. A portable-report model could reduce repeated credit pulls by allowing borrowers to share the same verified report while shopping among lenders.
Two Different Models Could Fit Pulte’s Description
Agency mortgage lenders generally rely on merged reports containing information from Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. Because creditors do not always report identical information to all three bureaus, consumers can have different tradelines, balances, payment histories, and scores across their files.
One possible interpretation of Pulte’s comments is a single-bureau model similar to one advocated by the Mortgage Bankers Association. The MBA has proposed allowing lenders to rely initially on a report from one national credit bureau and obtain a tri-merge only when that report does not produce a sufficiently high score.
If FHFA were considering that approach, it could reduce the cost of pulling credit but also leave lenders with less information about an applicant’s obligations. Questions would include how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would address debts or tradelines missing from the selected bureau, whether lenders would face additional repurchase exposure, and whether lenders or FHFA would choose the bureau.
Pulte has not said that FHFA is considering the MBA proposal, however, and the agency has not publicly connected his comments to a single-bureau model.
United Wholesale Mortgage has also supported a one-bureau model. “A one-bureau credit report model could help more consumers qualify for homeownership and save on upfront costs,” UWM said in a July 2025 social media post. The lender has since promoted no-cost credit reports for its broker partners and the ability to run FICO and VantageScore simultaneously.
A second interpretation is the portable-credit model supported by the Broker Action Coalition. Under BAC’s proposal, a borrower would obtain one verified credit report with a secure reference number and share it with multiple mortgage companies, eliminating the need for each lender to order another report.
BAC estimates that borrowers currently undergo an average of 2.5 credit pulls at a combined upfront cost of approximately $375. The group estimates that a single portable report would cost approximately $150. Those figures come from BAC and have not been independently verified.
A portable report would address repeated charges when borrowers shop among lenders without necessarily reducing the number of credit bureaus represented in the underlying report. That makes it fundamentally different from the MBA’s single-bureau proposal.
Pulte Targets FICO And Credit Bureaus
The cost of mortgage credit information has become increasingly contentious as lenders contend with compressed margins and consumers face higher transaction costs.
Pulte accused FICO of keeping those costs unnecessarily high, saying the company did not appear interested in offering competitive pricing.
“It seems that FICO is not interested in offering competitive costs but instead uses various means to increase price on the American people. So unnecessary,” Pulte wrote on X.
Pulte’s criticism has not been limited to FICO. Last week, he accused Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion of overcharging consumers and said FHFA was seriously considering bi-merge and other alternatives.
That creates an unusual dynamic. VantageScore 4.0 is being promoted as an alternative to FICO in the GSE mortgage market, but VantageScore is jointly owned by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, the same three credit bureaus Pulte has accused of overcharging consumers.
The regulatory pressure is therefore reaching every major participant in the mortgage credit-information chain, not simply the company whose score has historically dominated agency lending.
VantageScore Added To GSE Securities
The single-report review comes as FHFA moves VantageScore 4.0 deeper into the mortgage market, following its earlier decision to permit lenders to deliver eligible GSE loans evaluated with the model.
Mortgages securitized by Fannie and Freddie will now disclose a VantageScore 4.0 credit score in addition to a legacy score, VantageScore announced Thursday. The disclosure does not mean every mortgage was underwritten using VantageScore.
The company said its model was used to securitize approximately 9% of Fannie- and Freddie-backed mortgages from May 1 through Aug. 31.
Pulte said last week that 50 lenders had delivered loans using VantageScore during the initial rollout. He then directed Fannie and Freddie to approve all lenders to use VantageScore 4.0 effective immediately.
VantageScore identified Rocket Mortgage and UWM, the country’s two largest mortgage originators, among the companies adopting the model. The Federal Home Loan Banks and Department of Veterans Affairs have also moved to accept or use VantageScore 4.0, according to the company.
The securities disclosure takes the competition into the capital markets. Disclosing VantageScore and a legacy score alongside the same mortgage collateral could eventually help investors, lenders, and the GSEs compare how the models evaluate loans that later prepay, become delinquent, or default.
That performance history could ultimately determine whether VantageScore becomes a broadly used FICO alternative or remains concentrated among a smaller group of lenders.
VantageScore’s reported 9% share represents a measurable foothold. Based on VantageScore’s figures, approximately 91% of GSE-securitized mortgages during that period were not originated using its model.
Savings Claims Remain Unclear
VantageScore said its implementation could unlock nearly $1 billion in annual savings across the mortgage market.
It is unclear how much of the projected savings would come from using a lower-cost score, reducing the number of bureaus consulted, eliminating duplicate fees, changing when credit is pulled, or some combination of those changes.
The company also said VantageScore 4.0 can score 33 million more consumers than legacy credit-scoring models and identify qualified borrowers who might otherwise be overlooked.
The distinction among credit scores, bureau files, and repeated credit pulls is central to the developing debate. Changing the scoring model could affect one component of the expense. A single-bureau model could reduce the amount of data purchased, while a portable-report model could prevent borrowers from paying repeatedly for substantially the same information.
For originators, no credit-report requirement has changed. Pulte said FHFA is studying the use of “a single credit report,” but the agency has not released a proposal or clarified whether that means one bureau report or one portable report shared among lenders.
The answer matters. One approach could change the credit data used to underwrite agency mortgages and the risks lenders assume. The other could change who pays for a report and whether borrowers can carry it from one lender to another. Until FHFA provides more detail, neither should be presented as the agency’s chosen direction.
