As higher interest rates continue to influence transaction activity across U.S. housing markets, Ryan Leahy suggests that some sellers are exploring alternatives that may help widen buyer interest without immediately adjusting pricing. From his perspective, this moment has brought renewed attention to how transaction terms themselves can shape outcomes. He explains that alongside affordability challenges, there is also a broader conversation around how seller financing has been perceived and implemented over time.

Seller financing, sometimes referred to as owner financing, allows a seller to extend purchase terms directly to a buyer rather than relying exclusively on traditional bank loans. Leahy notes that the skepticism often associated with the concept today appears less tied to the mechanism itself and more to how it has been handled historically. From his experience, misunderstandings and inconsistent execution have contributed to hesitation among both buyers and sellers.

Leahy is the founder of MORE Financial Corporation, which operates the MORE Seller Financing Program, an education-focused framework intended to support seller-financed transactions through licensed professionals. Seller financing was once a legitimate and accepted path to homeownership. He points to the early 1980s through the 1990s, when high interest rates made traditional lending less attractive. During that period, buyers with strong financial profiles frequently negotiated directly with sellers to secure more favorable terms.

“In 1981, interest rates reached 18.63 percent,” Leahy says. “Highly qualified buyers weren’t going to banks; they were going directly to sellers to negotiate lower rates. What we’re seeing today isn’t new. It’s a return to that logic.”

From Leahy’s perspective, seller financing became less structured as lending conditions shifted in later years. He explains that as institutional lending became more prevalent, fewer standardized safeguards remained in place for seller-financed transactions. Without consistent professional involvement, some deals were approached without sufficient documentation, servicing, or long-term planning.

“For the last 20 years, seller financing has largely been done wrong,” Leahy says. He attributes lingering concerns to transactions that lacked clear vetting, servicing, or oversight, rather than to the concept itself. In his view, these experiences contributed to a narrative that has shaped public perception.

Leahy suggests that current market conditions invite a more measured reassessment. He explains that many buyers today may have the financial capacity to purchase but find conventional loan structures misaligned with their circumstances, especially for self-employed buyers. In that context, he says seller financing can function as an additional option when approached carefully and supported appropriately by industry professionals.

He also points to the role of existing mortgage rates. According to Leahy, many homeowners hold loans originated at rates no longer available in today’s market, which can influence how a transaction is structured. From his perspective, homes with a below-market interest rate offer more flexibility to offer seller financing.

Rather than automatically retiring an existing loan at closing, some sellers elect to maintain that mortgage while transferring the property under new terms. Leahy explains that in certain structures, payments may be administered through third-party servicing to help keep obligations current, while buyers agree to terms intended to reflect affordability and encourage participation. He emphasizes that these arrangements are intended to be transparent and professionally supported.

According to Leahy, the MORE Seller Financing Program operates as a compliance-oriented structure rather than a lending entity. MORE Financial Corporation does not originate loans or determine creditworthiness. Instead, he says the program is designed to coordinate licensed professionals such as attorneys, mortgage loan officers, title companies, and third-party loan servicers.

“The most important safeguard is front-end clarity,” Leahy says. “Sellers deserve the transparency so that they can understand who the buyer is, how payments will be managed, and what the short-term plan and exit strategy look like.”

Education plays a central role, according to Leahy. He explains that sellers, buyers, and agents are encouraged to engage only when terms align for all parties involved. Transactions, he notes, are not pursued unless expectations are clearly understood. “If it’s not a win for the buyer, the seller, the agent, and the licensed professionals supporting the deal, it’s not worth doing,” he says.

Leahy’s approach is shaped by personal experience. A third-generation real estate professional, he recalls observing the effects of market disruption early in life, including financial instability during the late-1980s downturn. From his perspective, those experiences informed his focus on risk awareness, ethics, and long-term planning.

Throughout his career in mortgage lending and financial planning, Leahy explains that he has consistently emphasized sustainability and structure over short-term outcomes. That philosophy now informs how he views seller financing conversations within today’s market environment.

He does not position seller financing as a new concept. Instead, Leahy frames his work as an effort to reintroduce discipline, clarity, and professional oversight to an approach many participants already recognize. In his assessment, when thoughtfully structured and supported by licensed professionals, seller financing can remain one of several tools available to participants navigating an evolving housing market.