Our honest view: incentivizing demand in a supply-constrained market is dangerous. California's Dream For All is the example we point to. Pour money into buyers without adding homes and you mostly push prices up and burn through the funds fast. Any good policy has to protect the integrity of homeownership rather than simply juice demand. Within that guardrail, the levers we like help people get in the door without overheating prices: - Lower down-payment barriers, potentially even a zero-down structure aimed specifically at genuine first-time buyers. - A tax credit that eases the pain of saving, so buyers still build and bring a stake but get some relief for doing it. - Keep the emphasis on qualified buyers and sustainable payments, rather than maximizing how many people can bid at once. The deeper issue is supply. Rates move in cycles and tend to normalize over time, but a price problem caused by too few homes does not fix itself the same way, so the most durable policy would also get more housing built. Nobody can promise where rates or prices go from here, which is exactly why we would rather see policy fix supply than bet on demand incentives. That is a framework we stand behind, rather than a prediction about any specific program.