Mortgage Rates (1 Viewer)

[RCon]

If after 30 years, you still owe 70% of the principal, you are basically renting but you are on the hook for all the major repairs plus property taxes. Seems stupid to me. PMI for 20+ years? Lol. Have fun with that.

Fixed your post.

 

[dutch]

What of the low income folks who need housing? As home prices go up so do rent prices. We need more affordable housing and not a shell game pushing the debt load down the road.

 

[FarFromHome]

That will take many years, I read somewhere around 17 if you factor the rise in home prices as part of the calculation.

That's ugly. Once again, I'm not really educated on this topic other then what I've learned purchasing my own homes the last 30 years. That number you posted really sticks out. It would put extreme pressure needing the value of your home to increase or your just so underwater on it your trapped.
One thing about this thread is it reminds me how thankful I should be for what Ive got in life. I've been living like an 80 year old tightwad since I was 25. Ha ha

 

[FarFromHome]

As home prices go up so do rent prices. We need more affordable housing and not a shell game pushing the debt load down the road.

Mic drop. Damn. I hadn't even thought of this. This option could also drive rent prices way up. Smh. Your one statement is prolly the most intelligent statement in this thread so far. Federal legislation that locks in home interests rates at 3%!!!!! Ha ha

 

[dutch]

https://nypost.com/2025/11/11/busin...-seniors-as-age-of-average-homebuyer-hits-59/

Some interesting stats in this piece:

"The National Association of Realtors scrapped a planned cover image of a young, expecting couple on its annual survey — and replaced it with an older pair nearing retirement as the average US homebuyer has reached age 59."
"According to the report, the median age for all buyers is 59 while the median age for first-time buyers is 40 — both all-time highs.
The share of first-time buyers fell to 21%, a record low."
"By comparison, the median age of first-time homebuyers in the 1980s was in the late 20s."

 

[Max Power]

What of the low income folks who need housing? As home prices go up so do rent prices. We need more affordable housing and not a shell game pushing the debt load down the road.

I don't know what the right solution is, but I mentioned earlier leaving my last home in part due to the overcrowding. Developers purchased all the green space they could in our town and maximized the number of multifamily units going into each plot. The developers and town planners didn't seem to care how it impacted the infrastructure, they were set on profits and population. It really just created an ugly, crowded, and loud environment that became unappealing to remain in.

 

[dutch]

This article goes into where I am coming from. Max, your example is just one of many as where I live I too see a growing housing inventory but the bulk of it is Not affordable to the low income set. And if you want to have people live where they work, which is beneficial and efficient, that's the part of the problem that needs to change. Affordability for all income levels, including young couples starting out, is the key that needs to be addressed.

Affordable housing shortage for low income population

“Our nation’s affordability problems result more from low incomes confronting high housing prices rather than from housing shortages,” McClure said. “This condition suggests that we cannot build our way to housing affordability. We need to address price levels and income levels to help low-income households afford the housing that already exists, rather than increasing the supply in the hope that prices will subside.”

 

[Instinctive]

Just closed our 30 year jumbo at 6.625, down from 6.85 when we had the offer accepted.

50 years seems silly. Doesn't move needle much on monthly.

We do a 30 and will probably try to pack some extra into it for a while and treat it kind of like a 15.

 

[FarFromHome]

We do a 30 and will probably try to pack some extra into it for a while and treat it kind of like a 15.

This is the way. Congrats. Our past two mortgages have been 15 and my wife meticulously puts in an extra grand each month. I'm also aware I'm very fortunate financially and super thankful. More importantly I'm in 5th place in League Uno. Ha ha

 

[FairWarning]

What of the low income folks who need housing? As home prices go up so do rent prices. We need more affordable housing and not a shell game pushing the debt load down the road.

The problem (in my area at least) is why build affordable housing when there a big demand for higher priced? This is also a big Air-BnB area, some towns are 50% rentals. That adds more presures on the locals, starting with being priced out of homes.

 

[Max Power]

This article goes into where I am coming from. Max, your example is just one of many as where I live I too see a growing housing inventory but the bulk of it is Not affordable to the low income set. And if you want to have people live where they work, which is beneficial and efficient, that's the part of the problem that needs to change. Affordability for all income levels, including young couples starting out, is the key that needs to be addressed.

Affordable housing shortage for low income population

“Our nation’s affordability problems result more from low incomes confronting high housing prices rather than from housing shortages,” McClure said. “This condition suggests that we cannot build our way to housing affordability. We need to address price levels and income levels to help low-income households afford the housing that already exists, rather than increasing the supply in the hope that prices will subside.”

Wage stagnation is a huge issue that is only getting worse. It's another issue I don't know how this country can address. I don't like the trend lines of a lot of these things.

For me personally, I'm prepared to allow my kids to stay in the house longer and force them to save a down-payment. Starting a family may have to wait until they are financially stable, which might be longer than I'm projecting for them at the moment.

What's normal in American culture may be changing. I don't like it, but it may just be the reality of the situation.

 

[Buckna]

Just refi'd and knocked a full point off my rate from the purchase a year and a half ago. Redid my kitchen and floors and appraisal came back generous and eliminated PMI entirely. Payback period is about 6 months on the refi closing costs. I'm not changing my payment every month and if I manage to stick with that forever it will knock 8 years off the loan (we'll see, I'm sure I'll move again someday but would probably rent this house out at that point.)

 

[stbugs]

https://nypost.com/2025/11/11/busin...-seniors-as-age-of-average-homebuyer-hits-59/

Some interesting stats in this piece:

"The National Association of Realtors scrapped a planned cover image of a young, expecting couple on its annual survey — and replaced it with an older pair nearing retirement as the average US homebuyer has reached age 59."
"According to the report, the median age for all buyers is 59 while the median age for first-time buyers is 40 — both all-time highs.
The share of first-time buyers fell to 21%, a record low."
"By comparison, the median age of first-time homebuyers in the 1980s was in the late 20s."

I’m not sure this is that crazy. My wife and I were in our late 20s buying our first house the summer before we got married in the late 1990s. We are about to put our second house (9 years in house 1 and 20 in house 2) up for sale to build our semi-retirement place. Our kids are not quite at home buying age and I have no idea what it will be like for them but we have a zillion friends in the same stage buying their kids are gone house.

I have no clue about all of the demographics back in the 80s but people in their 50s and 60s should have the amount of home equity that they are the biggest part of home buyers even if it’s more of a lateral move.

 

[Chadstroma]

Some thoughts on the 50-year mortgage. I'm in the camp of it's not for me, but maybe others are interested. I've signed four 30-year mortgages in my life. The average span was 3-5 years until I sold. I've had my current for almost 4 years with no plans to move and should be paid off early.

The homebuying industry was jolted over the weekend by a President Donald Trump social media post that claimed a 50-year mortgage could be a game-changer for the housing market.

Of course, no other details were announced. Still, the real estate industry’s online community overwhelmingly thought this was a bad idea for house hunters, suggesting the two decades of added borrowing compared with the traditional 30-year mortgage would make modest savings not worth the effort.

Sadly, too many discussions surrounding homebuying challenges lean on assumptions created in a financial era that may never return. Fresh thinking is welcome to me, and I hope new ideas emerge from the debate about how to put financially strapped home seekers in a buying mood.

A top concern from the weekend’s online chatter about a 50-year mortgage is the potential delay in owning a home mortgage-free.

First of all, very few borrowers hold a 30-year mortgage for its full term. Refinancing or other early payoffs – often through a sale – end the mortgage. There’s no reason a 50-year loan would act differently. So, why shouldn’t a buyer grab a few years of savings?

Additionally, consider the current state of ridiculously elevated home prices. Barring a sharp decline in values, paying off the mortgage may no longer be a realistic goal for the typical homebuyer.

Plus, one shouldn’t quickly dismiss savings of “just a few hundred bucks” a month. That’s real money to new homeowners who likely spent almost their last penny to close the purchase.

The numbers​

Yes, we have to do some math to show why a 50-year loan is not the worst idea ever.

My trusty spreadsheet examined the costs of a $500,000 mortgage on a 30-year loan at a 6.25% rate, as well as two variations on a 50-year loan: one at the same rate and another scenario with a rate that’s half a point higher, at 6.75%. Some real estate gurus suggest a 50-year loan would carry a significantly higher rate – though I’m not convinced.

The 30-year loan would cost $3,079 a month. At the same rate, a 50-year term would cost $2,725 – saving $374 a month, or an 11% discount. At the higher rate, it’d be $2,913 a month – saving $165 a month, or 5%.

Now with the 30-year loan, if held for those three decades, it’s obviously paid off. But the 50-year deals? $373,000 is still owed at 6.25% after 30 years. It’s $383,000 at 6.75%.

To many folks, that remaining balance is a problem. What is forgotten, however, are the monthly savings generated by the 50-year loan’s lower monthly costs.

At 6.25%, the 50-year-old loan’s $354 a month savings add up to $127,000 over 30 years. That could be $202,000 if invested in a 3% savings account or $698,000 if invested in the stock market, assuming a 10% annual return. These earnings, depending on investment earnings, could help pay down or pay off the mortgage at that point.

This potential nest egg is smaller when eyeballing the 50-year loan with a 6.75% rate. The $165-a-month saved adds up to $60,000 over 30 years, or $94,000 if invested at 10%, or $327,000, assuming 10% annual stock returns.

The dark side​

Look, the 50-year mortgage is no panacea for affordability. It might work for a special kind of thrifty buyer.

Fixing housing affordability takes some unorthodox thinking. A 50-year mortgage, if used wisely, could be one tool in housing’s repair kit.

The big question is what most house hunters do with the potential upfront savings. What if the smaller monthly payments are not being saved?

That cash might be used to spend more on the house. A 50-year loan can give a borrower 13% more buying power vs. a comparably priced 30-year mortgage.

This is a risk associated with any financial incentive to house hunters. These deals may benefit a few buyers, but they are likely also to drive up housing costs for all.https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/11/11/trumps-50-year-mortgage-isnt-the-worst-idea-ever/

My take on it is that like all mortgage products, it isn't for everyone but it could be for someone. The people who freak out on it, they focus on 50 years and the interest paid over the entire 50 years. The reality is that whether 15 or 30 or something in between, the vast majority of mortgage loans lifespan is about 7 years.

This is something that they are looking at really for First Time Home Buyers (FTHB) to help entry into the home owning market. No matter what the interest cost of a 50 year mortgage, it is less cost than renting. On a $2000 mortgage payment for a 50 year mortgage over 10 years at 6.5% the interest paid would be $210K with $30K paid towards principal. Add in about $700 for tax/insurance for $84K paid for that same 10 years. If you rented a comparable property for 10 years- using actual rental comps in my area- the lowest would be about $2500 and ranging to $3000 for that price point. Using the lower of comp of $2500 that is a cost of $300K- and that is conservative as rents are very much impacted by inflation and tend to go up without any major change of real estate scene. So, taking the most conservative route- the homeowner is still ahead in pure costs over the renter. This is not taking into account equity added from property appreciation or rents rising over that same period of time- both are not guaranteed but over that period of time, it nearly is. Even though the equity is not as much as it would be with the 30 year, if it was a question of buying or not buying for a FTHB- buying is the better option with the 50 year.

There will be people who demonize it but that is how I see it. Looking at the hard numbers and a specific scenario. Using that same scenario, the difference in payment is about $200. For many of us, that $200 seems like not much of a difference but I can tell you that I have had numerous conversations with aspiring home owners where the $200 difference was the difference of buying or not.

My biggest fear with it would be that it would be over sold. Similar to the Option ARM which for the average person is seen as the pure evil of mortgage products but it was actually a very good product FOR THE RIGHT CONSUMER WHO FULLY UNDERSTOOD IT. The biggest problem with Option ARMs was not being what they were but that they were over sold to people who were not good fits for them and did not understand them at all. I still remember conversations with homeowners ahead of the real estate meltdown of 2008.

It certainly will not be the magic fix to helping FTHBers enter the market but it may help some.

 

[FarFromHome]

My take on it is that like all mortgage products, it isn't for everyone but it could be for someone. The people who freak out on it, they focus on 50 years and the interest paid over the entire 50 years. The reality is that whether 15 or 30 or something in between, the vast majority of mortgage loans lifespan is about 7 years.

This is something that they are looking at really for First Time Home Buyers (FTHB) to help entry into the home owning market. No matter what the interest cost of a 50 year mortgage, it is less cost than renting. On a $2000 mortgage payment for a 50 year mortgage over 10 years at 6.5% the interest paid would be $210K with $30K paid towards principal. Add in about $700 for tax/insurance for $84K paid for that same 10 years. If you rented a comparable property for 10 years- using actual rental comps in my area- the lowest would be about $2500 and ranging to $3000 for that price point. Using the lower of comp of $2500 that is a cost of $300K- and that is conservative as rents are very much impacted by inflation and tend to go up without any major change of real estate scene. So, taking the most conservative route- the homeowner is still ahead in pure costs over the renter. This is not taking into account equity added from property appreciation or rents rising over that same period of time- both are not guaranteed but over that period of time, it nearly is. Even though the equity is not as much as it would be with the 30 year, if it was a question of buying or not buying for a FTHB- buying is the better option with the 50 year.

There will be people who demonize it but that is how I see it. Looking at the hard numbers and a specific scenario. Using that same scenario, the difference in payment is about $200. For many of us, that $200 seems like not much of a difference but I can tell you that I have had numerous conversations with aspiring home owners where the $200 difference was the difference of buying or not.

My biggest fear with it would be that it would be over sold. Similar to the Option ARM which for the average person is seen as the pure evil of mortgage products but it was actually a very good product FOR THE RIGHT CONSUMER WHO FULLY UNDERSTOOD IT. The biggest problem with Option ARMs was not being what they were but that they were over sold to people who were not good fits for them and did not understand them at all. I still remember conversations with homeowners ahead of the real estate meltdown of 2008.

It certainly will not be the magic fix to helping FTHBers enter the market but it may help some.

Been waiting for your take on it buddy and I agree with it all.

 

[Chadstroma]

Some thoughts on the 50-year mortgage. I'm in the camp of it's not for me, but maybe others are interested. I've signed four 30-year mortgages in my life. The average span was 3-5 years until I sold. I've had my current for almost 4 years with no plans to move and should be paid off early.

The homebuying industry was jolted over the weekend by a President Donald Trump social media post that claimed a 50-year mortgage could be a game-changer for the housing market.

Of course, no other details were announced. Still, the real estate industry’s online community overwhelmingly thought this was a bad idea for house hunters, suggesting the two decades of added borrowing compared with the traditional 30-year mortgage would make modest savings not worth the effort.

Sadly, too many discussions surrounding homebuying challenges lean on assumptions created in a financial era that may never return. Fresh thinking is welcome to me, and I hope new ideas emerge from the debate about how to put financially strapped home seekers in a buying mood.

A top concern from the weekend’s online chatter about a 50-year mortgage is the potential delay in owning a home mortgage-free.

First of all, very few borrowers hold a 30-year mortgage for its full term. Refinancing or other early payoffs – often through a sale – end the mortgage. There’s no reason a 50-year loan would act differently. So, why shouldn’t a buyer grab a few years of savings?

Additionally, consider the current state of ridiculously elevated home prices. Barring a sharp decline in values, paying off the mortgage may no longer be a realistic goal for the typical homebuyer.

Plus, one shouldn’t quickly dismiss savings of “just a few hundred bucks” a month. That’s real money to new homeowners who likely spent almost their last penny to close the purchase.

The numbers​

Yes, we have to do some math to show why a 50-year loan is not the worst idea ever.

My trusty spreadsheet examined the costs of a $500,000 mortgage on a 30-year loan at a 6.25% rate, as well as two variations on a 50-year loan: one at the same rate and another scenario with a rate that’s half a point higher, at 6.75%. Some real estate gurus suggest a 50-year loan would carry a significantly higher rate – though I’m not convinced.

The 30-year loan would cost $3,079 a month. At the same rate, a 50-year term would cost $2,725 – saving $374 a month, or an 11% discount. At the higher rate, it’d be $2,913 a month – saving $165 a month, or 5%.

Now with the 30-year loan, if held for those three decades, it’s obviously paid off. But the 50-year deals? $373,000 is still owed at 6.25% after 30 years. It’s $383,000 at 6.75%.

To many folks, that remaining balance is a problem. What is forgotten, however, are the monthly savings generated by the 50-year loan’s lower monthly costs.

At 6.25%, the 50-year-old loan’s $354 a month savings add up to $127,000 over 30 years. That could be $202,000 if invested in a 3% savings account or $698,000 if invested in the stock market, assuming a 10% annual return. These earnings, depending on investment earnings, could help pay down or pay off the mortgage at that point.

This potential nest egg is smaller when eyeballing the 50-year loan with a 6.75% rate. The $165-a-month saved adds up to $60,000 over 30 years, or $94,000 if invested at 10%, or $327,000, assuming 10% annual stock returns.

The dark side​

Look, the 50-year mortgage is no panacea for affordability. It might work for a special kind of thrifty buyer.

Fixing housing affordability takes some unorthodox thinking. A 50-year mortgage, if used wisely, could be one tool in housing’s repair kit.

The big question is what most house hunters do with the potential upfront savings. What if the smaller monthly payments are not being saved?

That cash might be used to spend more on the house. A 50-year loan can give a borrower 13% more buying power vs. a comparably priced 30-year mortgage.

This is a risk associated with any financial incentive to house hunters. These deals may benefit a few buyers, but they are likely also to drive up housing costs for all.https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/11/11/trumps-50-year-mortgage-isnt-the-worst-idea-ever/

Good post. I have moved and bought so many homes in my life I cant keep track. We like big moves. For us, we have always done 15 year mortgages. That's what we chose. For another family a 50 year mortgage might make sense. That's their choice. I don't understand the negative talk on this as an option. Its an option. Sure, it doesn't make financial sense long term but paying less now to be hammered long term is the American way of doing business. Ha ha

To me, using a 50 year mortgage term to incentivize potential buyers who are currently locked out of home ownership for financial reasons is akin to legalized loan sharking. It's more like renting with the chance for ownership at the end but in reality there will be massive default rates as people aren't going to stay in one home for the length of time required to gain serious equity and make it feasible to buy another house in the future. I can also see home values skyrocket, negating any up front "savings" on the monthly, as demand outstrips supply which is the real problem that needs to be addressed.

I still think that 99% of a payment being made to interest is better than 100% of it being made to rent. Home values will appreciate- history says that will always happen over time regardless of the ups and downs in between. Do you want landlords owning the property that is being appreciated as they collect rents to pay for that mortgage or the people to own the home and get that appreciation? For me, that is the question. (with apologies to all my investor clients)

 

[Chadstroma]

Personally think it’s a ridiculous notion. The rate on a 50 is sure to be at least a half point higher than a 30 given the added risk. At today’s rates a $500,000 loan payment is $150 a month cheaper on a 50 year vs a 30 year. The $150 difference is probably generous on most loans as PMI is going to be more costly as well. For that you get to pay 20 more years.

This is likely the big area where they are working on it. There is a slight advantage of increasing the amortization but if the rate/PMI (or MIP) wipes it out then there is no point. The only way I see this going forward is that it is a FHA product that keeps the same LLPA (Loan Level Price Adjustments) at the 30 and the same MIP. Otherwise, I don't see how this works.

 

[Chadstroma]

Personally think it’s a ridiculous notion. The rate on a 50 is sure to be at least a half point higher than a 30 given the added risk. At today’s rates a $500,000 loan payment is $150 a month cheaper on a 50 year vs a 30 year. The $150 difference is probably generous on most loans as PMI is going to be more costly as well. For that you get to pay 20 more years.

If after 30 years, you still owe 70% of the principal, you are basically renting but you are on the hook for all the major repairs. Seems stupid to me. PMI for 20+ years? Lol. Have fun with that.

And that is the thing... as I pointed out above, most loans do not survive past 7 years. Though this will be changed due to the fact that we had such low rates for the big refi boom where people are holding on to those mortgages much longer than normal but outside of that, most loans are refinanced or the property is sold within about 7 years. It is very rare that someone holds a mortgage for 30 years and by very rare I mean like almost never. The 50 year mortgage would be the same. Another potential I see it is that it would be only available to FTHB and limits on refinancing back into another 50 year but that is a wild guess.

 

[Chadstroma]

Apprently the 50 year offering is already a thing in Southern California.

50 Year Mortgage Loans Introduced In California

Gee it seems like only yesterday that we were talking about the newest innovation in mortgages - the <a href="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/692005_Fannie_Mae_40_Year_Mortgage.asp">40 year loan . Actually it wasn't exactly yesterday, it was January, 2005 and the 40 year loan term wasn't...

www.mortgagenewsdaily.com

Check the date on that. The only current offerings I am aware of is a 40 year IO for investors though I will say that I have stopped saying a loan doesn't exist as I will be in groups where a broker asks for some crazy unicorn of a product and I chuckle to myself then see someone say 'check out this obscure lender doing this...'

This product would have to be a non-QM loan (non-Qualified Mortgage) which means there is no safe harbor and thus a huge risk to do if things go south for a lender. Thus, the loan mentioned above is for investors which safe harbor issues are not a problem with because who cares about investors.

 

[Chadstroma]

What of the low income folks who need housing? As home prices go up so do rent prices. We need more affordable housing and not a shell game pushing the debt load down the road.

Yes, the underlining issue is population increase with massive under building. I have mentioned it before but the 2010's saw a the least amount of homes builts since the 1930's and the current decade is on course to only to what we did in the 60's and 90's.... or in other words, not nearly enough.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

It’s beyond stupid from a financial perspective.

 

[Instinctive]

We do a 30 and will probably try to pack some extra into it for a while and treat it kind of like a 15.

This is the way. Congrats. Our past two mortgages have been 15 and my wife meticulously puts in an extra grand each month. I'm also aware I'm very fortunate financially and super thankful. More importantly I'm in 5th place in League Uno. Ha ha

Yeah I mean at 6.625% as a guaranteed return it makes a lot more sense.

My current home is on a 30-year 2.5%. I'll pay extra into that when you pry the money from my cold dead hands.

 

[MTskibum]

We probably wont be able to truly judge the effects of this until 10-15 years down the road, and even then it will be difficult to separate out the effects of 50 year mortgage versus other noise in the economy.

I do feel bad for people who would be taking on 50 year mortgages though, it seems like it is generally bad for the consumer.

 

[fruity pebbles]

We probably wont be able to truly judge the effects of this until 10-15 years down the road, and even then it will be difficult to separate out the effects of 50 year mortgage versus other noise in the economy.

I do feel bad for people who would be taking on 50 year mortgages though, it seems like it is generally bad for the consumer.

Yeah. My thinking is if you can only afford the house through a 50 year mortgage, then you can’t afford the house.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Unless the underlying goal is to re-create 2008 in a different way as a means to housing market correction, I can't grasp how many are downplaying this. 50 year mortgages ensure far more people have zero to negative equity when the inevitable life hiccup occurs and they have zero reason not to walk away. If the goal is a market correction, this is a great way to trigger one. Since subprime mortgages would be too obvious, let's do this instead

 

[John123]

Some thoughts on the 50-year mortgage. I'm in the camp of it's not for me, but maybe others are interested. I've signed four 30-year mortgages in my life. The average span was 3-5 years until I sold. I've had my current for almost 4 years with no plans to move and should be paid off early.

The homebuying industry was jolted over the weekend by a President Donald Trump social media post that claimed a 50-year mortgage could be a game-changer for the housing market.

Of course, no other details were announced. Still, the real estate industry’s online community overwhelmingly thought this was a bad idea for house hunters, suggesting the two decades of added borrowing compared with the traditional 30-year mortgage would make modest savings not worth the effort.

Sadly, too many discussions surrounding homebuying challenges lean on assumptions created in a financial era that may never return. Fresh thinking is welcome to me, and I hope new ideas emerge from the debate about how to put financially strapped home seekers in a buying mood.

A top concern from the weekend’s online chatter about a 50-year mortgage is the potential delay in owning a home mortgage-free.

First of all, very few borrowers hold a 30-year mortgage for its full term. Refinancing or other early payoffs – often through a sale – end the mortgage. There’s no reason a 50-year loan would act differently. So, why shouldn’t a buyer grab a few years of savings?

Additionally, consider the current state of ridiculously elevated home prices. Barring a sharp decline in values, paying off the mortgage may no longer be a realistic goal for the typical homebuyer.

Plus, one shouldn’t quickly dismiss savings of “just a few hundred bucks” a month. That’s real money to new homeowners who likely spent almost their last penny to close the purchase.

The numbers​

Yes, we have to do some math to show why a 50-year loan is not the worst idea ever.

My trusty spreadsheet examined the costs of a $500,000 mortgage on a 30-year loan at a 6.25% rate, as well as two variations on a 50-year loan: one at the same rate and another scenario with a rate that’s half a point higher, at 6.75%. Some real estate gurus suggest a 50-year loan would carry a significantly higher rate – though I’m not convinced.

The 30-year loan would cost $3,079 a month. At the same rate, a 50-year term would cost $2,725 – saving $374 a month, or an 11% discount. At the higher rate, it’d be $2,913 a month – saving $165 a month, or 5%.

Now with the 30-year loan, if held for those three decades, it’s obviously paid off. But the 50-year deals? $373,000 is still owed at 6.25% after 30 years. It’s $383,000 at 6.75%.

To many folks, that remaining balance is a problem. What is forgotten, however, are the monthly savings generated by the 50-year loan’s lower monthly costs.

At 6.25%, the 50-year-old loan’s $354 a month savings add up to $127,000 over 30 years. That could be $202,000 if invested in a 3% savings account or $698,000 if invested in the stock market, assuming a 10% annual return. These earnings, depending on investment earnings, could help pay down or pay off the mortgage at that point.

This potential nest egg is smaller when eyeballing the 50-year loan with a 6.75% rate. The $165-a-month saved adds up to $60,000 over 30 years, or $94,000 if invested at 10%, or $327,000, assuming 10% annual stock returns.

The dark side​

Look, the 50-year mortgage is no panacea for affordability. It might work for a special kind of thrifty buyer.

Fixing housing affordability takes some unorthodox thinking. A 50-year mortgage, if used wisely, could be one tool in housing’s repair kit.

The big question is what most house hunters do with the potential upfront savings. What if the smaller monthly payments are not being saved?

That cash might be used to spend more on the house. A 50-year loan can give a borrower 13% more buying power vs. a comparably priced 30-year mortgage.

This is a risk associated with any financial incentive to house hunters. These deals may benefit a few buyers, but they are likely also to drive up housing costs for all.https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/11/11/trumps-50-year-mortgage-isnt-the-worst-idea-ever/

My take on it is that like all mortgage products, it isn't for everyone but it could be for someone. The people who freak out on it, they focus on 50 years and the interest paid over the entire 50 years. The reality is that whether 15 or 30 or something in between, the vast majority of mortgage loans lifespan is about 7 years.

This is something that they are looking at really for First Time Home Buyers (FTHB) to help entry into the home owning market. No matter what the interest cost of a 50 year mortgage, it is less cost than renting. On a $2000 mortgage payment for a 50 year mortgage over 10 years at 6.5% the interest paid would be $210K with $30K paid towards principal. Add in about $700 for tax/insurance for $84K paid for that same 10 years. If you rented a comparable property for 10 years- using actual rental comps in my area- the lowest would be about $2500 and ranging to $3000 for that price point. Using the lower of comp of $2500 that is a cost of $300K- and that is conservative as rents are very much impacted by inflation and tend to go up without any major change of real estate scene. So, taking the most conservative route- the homeowner is still ahead in pure costs over the renter. This is not taking into account equity added from property appreciation or rents rising over that same period of time- both are not guaranteed but over that period of time, it nearly is. Even though the equity is not as much as it would be with the 30 year, if it was a question of buying or not buying for a FTHB- buying is the better option with the 50 year.

There will be people who demonize it but that is how I see it. Looking at the hard numbers and a specific scenario. Using that same scenario, the difference in payment is about $200. For many of us, that $200 seems like not much of a difference but I can tell you that I have had numerous conversations with aspiring home owners where the $200 difference was the difference of buying or not.

My biggest fear with it would be that it would be over sold. Similar to the Option ARM which for the average person is seen as the pure evil of mortgage products but it was actually a very good product FOR THE RIGHT CONSUMER WHO FULLY UNDERSTOOD IT. The biggest problem with Option ARMs was not being what they were but that they were over sold to people who were not good fits for them and did not understand them at all. I still remember conversations with homeowners ahead of the real estate meltdown of 2008.

It certainly will not be the magic fix to helping FTHBers enter the market but it may help some.

Pretty much agree with this. I wrote the following at another forum:

I don't really have anything specifically against 50 year mortgages, although I did run the numbers on a mortgage calculator today and for a $320k loan at 6%, the difference in monthly payment going from 30 year to 50 year was about $200, from about 2k to 2.2k. The total payments went from about 800k to about 1.2 million over the life of the loan. This is consistent with numbers someone posted up above. So the relief gained from adding 20 years to a loan just isn't that significant, and the total amount paid is pretty significant.

That said, I've always been a proponent of buying vs. renting for the following reasons:

1) If you rent you gain nothing. Real estate pretty much always increases in value over time so unless you're bailing in a year the risk is almost non-existent and you usually gain equity over your time in a purchase that you don't in a rental.

2) You gain cost certainty with a purchase that you don't in a rental. I worked with a kid who was renting and waiting for the PERFECT starter home. He had his wish list and didn't want to buy until he found it. In the meantime he lived in a one bedroom apartment in Denver during a period of time when prices were going through the roof, both for rentals and purchases. He could have easily purchased a one bedroom condo equivalent or better than his one bedroom apartment but because it wasn't his perfect starter home he didn't want to do that and just kept moving every year when his lease expired and the rent went up too much for his taste.

The reality is, we have the most incoming immigration of any country on Earth. This includes our legal immigration pathways. It's not just the illegals. So we're constantly squeezing our housing markets, especially in the more desirable cities to live in. We either build more or curb immigration to take that pressure off the market.

However, one other downside has since occurred to me. If we bring more people in to the market via a 50 year mortgage that will likely exacerbate the issue and increase prices. If the increase exceeds the difference between the current cost difference between a 30 year and 50 year mortgage, then we're basically back to square 1 but we've increased the mortgage time from 30 to 50 years to get the same financials as we currently have. So I'm really not sure this is ANY part of the answer to this problem. We need to deal with the supply/demand problem.

 

[FarFromHome]

Some thoughts on the 50-year mortgage. I'm in the camp of it's not for me, but maybe others are interested. I've signed four 30-year mortgages in my life. The average span was 3-5 years until I sold. I've had my current for almost 4 years with no plans to move and should be paid off early.

The homebuying industry was jolted over the weekend by a President Donald Trump social media post that claimed a 50-year mortgage could be a game-changer for the housing market.

Of course, no other details were announced. Still, the real estate industry’s online community overwhelmingly thought this was a bad idea for house hunters, suggesting the two decades of added borrowing compared with the traditional 30-year mortgage would make modest savings not worth the effort.

Sadly, too many discussions surrounding homebuying challenges lean on assumptions created in a financial era that may never return. Fresh thinking is welcome to me, and I hope new ideas emerge from the debate about how to put financially strapped home seekers in a buying mood.

A top concern from the weekend’s online chatter about a 50-year mortgage is the potential delay in owning a home mortgage-free.

First of all, very few borrowers hold a 30-year mortgage for its full term. Refinancing or other early payoffs – often through a sale – end the mortgage. There’s no reason a 50-year loan would act differently. So, why shouldn’t a buyer grab a few years of savings?

Additionally, consider the current state of ridiculously elevated home prices. Barring a sharp decline in values, paying off the mortgage may no longer be a realistic goal for the typical homebuyer.

Plus, one shouldn’t quickly dismiss savings of “just a few hundred bucks” a month. That’s real money to new homeowners who likely spent almost their last penny to close the purchase.

The numbers​

Yes, we have to do some math to show why a 50-year loan is not the worst idea ever.

My trusty spreadsheet examined the costs of a $500,000 mortgage on a 30-year loan at a 6.25% rate, as well as two variations on a 50-year loan: one at the same rate and another scenario with a rate that’s half a point higher, at 6.75%. Some real estate gurus suggest a 50-year loan would carry a significantly higher rate – though I’m not convinced.

The 30-year loan would cost $3,079 a month. At the same rate, a 50-year term would cost $2,725 – saving $374 a month, or an 11% discount. At the higher rate, it’d be $2,913 a month – saving $165 a month, or 5%.

Now with the 30-year loan, if held for those three decades, it’s obviously paid off. But the 50-year deals? $373,000 is still owed at 6.25% after 30 years. It’s $383,000 at 6.75%.

To many folks, that remaining balance is a problem. What is forgotten, however, are the monthly savings generated by the 50-year loan’s lower monthly costs.

At 6.25%, the 50-year-old loan’s $354 a month savings add up to $127,000 over 30 years. That could be $202,000 if invested in a 3% savings account or $698,000 if invested in the stock market, assuming a 10% annual return. These earnings, depending on investment earnings, could help pay down or pay off the mortgage at that point.

This potential nest egg is smaller when eyeballing the 50-year loan with a 6.75% rate. The $165-a-month saved adds up to $60,000 over 30 years, or $94,000 if invested at 10%, or $327,000, assuming 10% annual stock returns.

The dark side​

Look, the 50-year mortgage is no panacea for affordability. It might work for a special kind of thrifty buyer.

Fixing housing affordability takes some unorthodox thinking. A 50-year mortgage, if used wisely, could be one tool in housing’s repair kit.

The big question is what most house hunters do with the potential upfront savings. What if the smaller monthly payments are not being saved?

That cash might be used to spend more on the house. A 50-year loan can give a borrower 13% more buying power vs. a comparably priced 30-year mortgage.

This is a risk associated with any financial incentive to house hunters. These deals may benefit a few buyers, but they are likely also to drive up housing costs for all.https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/11/11/trumps-50-year-mortgage-isnt-the-worst-idea-ever/

My take on it is that like all mortgage products, it isn't for everyone but it could be for someone. The people who freak out on it, they focus on 50 years and the interest paid over the entire 50 years. The reality is that whether 15 or 30 or something in between, the vast majority of mortgage loans lifespan is about 7 years.

This is something that they are looking at really for First Time Home Buyers (FTHB) to help entry into the home owning market. No matter what the interest cost of a 50 year mortgage, it is less cost than renting. On a $2000 mortgage payment for a 50 year mortgage over 10 years at 6.5% the interest paid would be $210K with $30K paid towards principal. Add in about $700 for tax/insurance for $84K paid for that same 10 years. If you rented a comparable property for 10 years- using actual rental comps in my area- the lowest would be about $2500 and ranging to $3000 for that price point. Using the lower of comp of $2500 that is a cost of $300K- and that is conservative as rents are very much impacted by inflation and tend to go up without any major change of real estate scene. So, taking the most conservative route- the homeowner is still ahead in pure costs over the renter. This is not taking into account equity added from property appreciation or rents rising over that same period of time- both are not guaranteed but over that period of time, it nearly is. Even though the equity is not as much as it would be with the 30 year, if it was a question of buying or not buying for a FTHB- buying is the better option with the 50 year.

There will be people who demonize it but that is how I see it. Looking at the hard numbers and a specific scenario. Using that same scenario, the difference in payment is about $200. For many of us, that $200 seems like not much of a difference but I can tell you that I have had numerous conversations with aspiring home owners where the $200 difference was the difference of buying or not.

My biggest fear with it would be that it would be over sold. Similar to the Option ARM which for the average person is seen as the pure evil of mortgage products but it was actually a very good product FOR THE RIGHT CONSUMER WHO FULLY UNDERSTOOD IT. The biggest problem with Option ARMs was not being what they were but that they were over sold to people who were not good fits for them and did not understand them at all. I still remember conversations with homeowners ahead of the real estate meltdown of 2008.

It certainly will not be the magic fix to helping FTHBers enter the market but it may help some.

Pretty much agree with this. I wrote the following at another forum:

I don't really have anything specifically against 50 year mortgages, although I did run the numbers on a mortgage calculator today and for a $320k loan at 6%, the difference in monthly payment going from 30 year to 50 year was about $200, from about 2k to 2.2k. The total payments went from about 800k to about 1.2 million over the life of the loan. This is consistent with numbers someone posted up above. So the relief gained from adding 20 years to a loan just isn't that significant, and the total amount paid is pretty significant.

That said, I've always been a proponent of buying vs. renting for the following reasons:

1) If you rent you gain nothing. Real estate pretty much always increases in value over time so unless you're bailing in a year the risk is almost non-existent and you usually gain equity over your time in a purchase that you don't in a rental.

2) You gain cost certainty with a purchase that you don't in a rental. I worked with a kid who was renting and waiting for the PERFECT starter home. He had his wish list and didn't want to buy until he found it. In the meantime he lived in a one bedroom apartment in Denver during a period of time when prices were going through the roof, both for rentals and purchases. He could have easily purchased a one bedroom condo equivalent or better than his one bedroom apartment but because it wasn't his perfect starter home he didn't want to do that and just kept moving every year when his lease expired and the rent went up too much for his taste.

The reality is, we have the most incoming immigration of any country on Earth. This includes our legal immigration pathways. It's not just the illegals. So we're constantly squeezing our housing markets, especially in the more desirable cities to live in. We either build more or curb immigration to take that pressure off the market.

However, one other downside has since occurred to me. If we bring more people in to the market via a 50 year mortgage that will likely exacerbate the issue and increase prices. If the increase exceeds the difference between the current cost difference between a 30 year and 50 year mortgage, then we're basically back to square 1 but we've increased the mortgage time from 30 to 50 years to get the same financials as we currently have. So I'm really not sure this is ANY part of the answer to this problem. We need to deal with the supply/demand problem.

Good post.

 

[-OZ-]

Personally think it’s a ridiculous notion. The rate on a 50 is sure to be at least a half point higher than a 30 given the added risk. At today’s rates a $500,000 loan payment is $150 a month cheaper on a 50 year vs a 30 year. The $150 difference is probably generous on most loans as PMI is going to be more costly as well. For that you get to pay 20 more years.

If after 30 years, you still owe 70% of the principal, you are basically renting but you are on the hook for all the major repairs. Seems stupid to me. PMI for 20+ years? Lol. Have fun with that.

Yeah, but at least they the advantage of an inflation hedge. Renting our house today would cost double what it did when we first rented 10 years ago - and then bought the house 9 months later.

 

[-OZ-]

Some thoughts on the 50-year mortgage. I'm in the camp of it's not for me, but maybe others are interested. I've signed four 30-year mortgages in my life. The average span was 3-5 years until I sold. I've had my current for almost 4 years with no plans to move and should be paid off early.

The homebuying industry was jolted over the weekend by a President Donald Trump social media post that claimed a 50-year mortgage could be a game-changer for the housing market.

Of course, no other details were announced. Still, the real estate industry’s online community overwhelmingly thought this was a bad idea for house hunters, suggesting the two decades of added borrowing compared with the traditional 30-year mortgage would make modest savings not worth the effort.

Sadly, too many discussions surrounding homebuying challenges lean on assumptions created in a financial era that may never return. Fresh thinking is welcome to me, and I hope new ideas emerge from the debate about how to put financially strapped home seekers in a buying mood.

A top concern from the weekend’s online chatter about a 50-year mortgage is the potential delay in owning a home mortgage-free.

First of all, very few borrowers hold a 30-year mortgage for its full term. Refinancing or other early payoffs – often through a sale – end the mortgage. There’s no reason a 50-year loan would act differently. So, why shouldn’t a buyer grab a few years of savings?

Additionally, consider the current state of ridiculously elevated home prices. Barring a sharp decline in values, paying off the mortgage may no longer be a realistic goal for the typical homebuyer.

Plus, one shouldn’t quickly dismiss savings of “just a few hundred bucks” a month. That’s real money to new homeowners who likely spent almost their last penny to close the purchase.

The numbers​

Yes, we have to do some math to show why a 50-year loan is not the worst idea ever.

My trusty spreadsheet examined the costs of a $500,000 mortgage on a 30-year loan at a 6.25% rate, as well as two variations on a 50-year loan: one at the same rate and another scenario with a rate that’s half a point higher, at 6.75%. Some real estate gurus suggest a 50-year loan would carry a significantly higher rate – though I’m not convinced.

The 30-year loan would cost $3,079 a month. At the same rate, a 50-year term would cost $2,725 – saving $374 a month, or an 11% discount. At the higher rate, it’d be $2,913 a month – saving $165 a month, or 5%.

Now with the 30-year loan, if held for those three decades, it’s obviously paid off. But the 50-year deals? $373,000 is still owed at 6.25% after 30 years. It’s $383,000 at 6.75%.

To many folks, that remaining balance is a problem. What is forgotten, however, are the monthly savings generated by the 50-year loan’s lower monthly costs.

At 6.25%, the 50-year-old loan’s $354 a month savings add up to $127,000 over 30 years. That could be $202,000 if invested in a 3% savings account or $698,000 if invested in the stock market, assuming a 10% annual return. These earnings, depending on investment earnings, could help pay down or pay off the mortgage at that point.

This potential nest egg is smaller when eyeballing the 50-year loan with a 6.75% rate. The $165-a-month saved adds up to $60,000 over 30 years, or $94,000 if invested at 10%, or $327,000, assuming 10% annual stock returns.

The dark side​

Look, the 50-year mortgage is no panacea for affordability. It might work for a special kind of thrifty buyer.

Fixing housing affordability takes some unorthodox thinking. A 50-year mortgage, if used wisely, could be one tool in housing’s repair kit.

The big question is what most house hunters do with the potential upfront savings. What if the smaller monthly payments are not being saved?

That cash might be used to spend more on the house. A 50-year loan can give a borrower 13% more buying power vs. a comparably priced 30-year mortgage.

This is a risk associated with any financial incentive to house hunters. These deals may benefit a few buyers, but they are likely also to drive up housing costs for all.https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/11/11/trumps-50-year-mortgage-isnt-the-worst-idea-ever/

My take on it is that like all mortgage products, it isn't for everyone but it could be for someone. The people who freak out on it, they focus on 50 years and the interest paid over the entire 50 years. The reality is that whether 15 or 30 or something in between, the vast majority of mortgage loans lifespan is about 7 years.

This is something that they are looking at really for First Time Home Buyers (FTHB) to help entry into the home owning market. No matter what the interest cost of a 50 year mortgage, it is less cost than renting. On a $2000 mortgage payment for a 50 year mortgage over 10 years at 6.5% the interest paid would be $210K with $30K paid towards principal. Add in about $700 for tax/insurance for $84K paid for that same 10 years. If you rented a comparable property for 10 years- using actual rental comps in my area- the lowest would be about $2500 and ranging to $3000 for that price point. Using the lower of comp of $2500 that is a cost of $300K- and that is conservative as rents are very much impacted by inflation and tend to go up without any major change of real estate scene. So, taking the most conservative route- the homeowner is still ahead in pure costs over the renter. This is not taking into account equity added from property appreciation or rents rising over that same period of time- both are not guaranteed but over that period of time, it nearly is. Even though the equity is not as much as it would be with the 30 year, if it was a question of buying or not buying for a FTHB- buying is the better option with the 50 year.

There will be people who demonize it but that is how I see it. Looking at the hard numbers and a specific scenario. Using that same scenario, the difference in payment is about $200. For many of us, that $200 seems like not much of a difference but I can tell you that I have had numerous conversations with aspiring home owners where the $200 difference was the difference of buying or not.

My biggest fear with it would be that it would be over sold. Similar to the Option ARM which for the average person is seen as the pure evil of mortgage products but it was actually a very good product FOR THE RIGHT CONSUMER WHO FULLY UNDERSTOOD IT. The biggest problem with Option ARMs was not being what they were but that they were over sold to people who were not good fits for them and did not understand them at all. I still remember conversations with homeowners ahead of the real estate meltdown of 2008.

It certainly will not be the magic fix to helping FTHBers enter the market but it may help some.

Pretty much agree with this. I wrote the following at another forum:

I don't really have anything specifically against 50 year mortgages, although I did run the numbers on a mortgage calculator today and for a $320k loan at 6%, the difference in monthly payment going from 30 year to 50 year was about $200, from about 2k to 2.2k. The total payments went from about 800k to about 1.2 million over the life of the loan. This is consistent with numbers someone posted up above. So the relief gained from adding 20 years to a loan just isn't that significant, and the total amount paid is pretty significant.

That said, I've always been a proponent of buying vs. renting for the following reasons:

1) If you rent you gain nothing. Real estate pretty much always increases in value over time so unless you're bailing in a year the risk is almost non-existent and you usually gain equity over your time in a purchase that you don't in a rental.

2) You gain cost certainty with a purchase that you don't in a rental. I worked with a kid who was renting and waiting for the PERFECT starter home. He had his wish list and didn't want to buy until he found it. In the meantime he lived in a one bedroom apartment in Denver during a period of time when prices were going through the roof, both for rentals and purchases. He could have easily purchased a one bedroom condo equivalent or better than his one bedroom apartment but because it wasn't his perfect starter home he didn't want to do that and just kept moving every year when his lease expired and the rent went up too much for his taste.

The reality is, we have the most incoming immigration of any country on Earth. This includes our legal immigration pathways. It's not just the illegals. So we're constantly squeezing our housing markets, especially in the more desirable cities to live in. We either build more or curb immigration to take that pressure off the market.

However, one other downside has since occurred to me. If we bring more people in to the market via a 50 year mortgage that will likely exacerbate the issue and increase prices. If the increase exceeds the difference between the current cost difference between a 30 year and 50 year mortgage, then we're basically back to square 1 but we've increased the mortgage time from 30 to 50 years to get the same financials as we currently have. So I'm really not sure this is ANY part of the answer to this problem. We need to deal with the supply/demand problem.

Right. This seems to benefit sellers more than buyers.

 

[-OZ-]

We do a 30 and will probably try to pack some extra into it for a while and treat it kind of like a 15.

This is the way. Congrats. Our past two mortgages have been 15 and my wife meticulously puts in an extra grand each month. I'm also aware I'm very fortunate financially and super thankful. More importantly I'm in 5th place in League Uno. Ha ha

It’s funny to me that both refinances had the same quoted rate for the 30 as the 15. Taking the 30 is an easy choice there. No interest in paying it off early either but the crazy low rate (2.25%) keeps us from moving. Which I’m very interested in, but we might not be able to get a mortgage for the house we want. So there’s a fair chance we buy the next house in cash if rates stay above 6.

 

[Chadstroma]

We do a 30 and will probably try to pack some extra into it for a while and treat it kind of like a 15.

This is the way. Congrats. Our past two mortgages have been 15 and my wife meticulously puts in an extra grand each month. I'm also aware I'm very fortunate financially and super thankful. More importantly I'm in 5th place in League Uno. Ha ha

It’s funny to me that the last three times I’ve looked at rates - purchase, refi, refi; our quoted rate for the 30 was the same as the 15. Taking the 30 is an easy choice there. No interest in paying it off early either but the crazy low rate (2.25%) keeps us from moving. Which I’m very interested in, but we might not be able to get a mortgage for the house we want. So there’s a fair chance we buy the next house in cash if rates stay above 6.

I can't ever think of a time that that I have seen 15 and 30 priced out the same. Close enough where it doesn't make that much of a difference? Yes. Same. Never. Whether in banking or broker. The only way I can think of that being possible would maybe be a CU as they have some oddball pricing sometimes. Pricing for 30, 25 and 20 being the same. Yes. 30 and 15 the same? Never.

 

[Chadstroma]

However, one other downside has since occurred to me. If we bring more people in to the market via a 50 year mortgage that will likely exacerbate the issue and increase prices. If the increase exceeds the difference between the current cost difference between a 30 year and 50 year mortgage, then we're basically back to square 1 but we've increased the mortgage time from 30 to 50 years to get the same financials as we currently have. So I'm really not sure this is ANY part of the answer to this problem. We need to deal with the supply/demand problem.

Maybe and maybe not... a few things that I would say that might not have it make that impact.

First, as you noted, the difference from a 30 to a 50 is not earth shattering. The amount of difference we are talking about here is a couple hundred on a $300Kish house. Now, can that be the difference for some- yes. Would it be the difference for a lot of FTHBers? Likely not.

Second, as I alluded to earlier, the target consumer for this would be FTHB and the type of client that I see this being a fit for is financially and credit wise really trying to make that initial jump from forever renter to home owner. For many, they will need more to make that jump that just moving the amortization out to 50 years.

Third, again, this would be for those FTHBers and if it moved the needle enough then maybe it would help move the needle on the one thing that needs to happen to really help which is building more FTHBer type of properties. If they can sell them then they will build them.

But one thing is absolutely true, this is not some magical fix. It isn't really the fix either. As I said before, I am not really passionate about it either way (though the idea of this giving Dave Ramsey high BP makes me smile), I can see how it could help a small niche amount of people make that jump but I fear it would be over sold by a bunch of sales people rather than a solution that a professional helps fit the right person with, with a solid plan and understanding of.

 

[dutch]

I can see how it could help a small niche amount of people make that jump but I fear it would be over sold by a bunch of sales people rather than a solution that a professional helps fit the right person with, with a solid plan and understanding of

Knowing this is bound to happen is why this is a truly awful idea. This is financial snake oil waiting to take down a lot of unknowing or gullible people. And it still doesn't help bring affordable housing to the masses. With AI taking jobs and more people working for get by wages there needs to be a robust and thoughtful discussion on how best to put a decent roof over everybody's head, offering "low monthlies" for a longer term is just a slick marketing campaign that offers more indentured servitude and less independence. We can eat cake all day without the help of the banks but we need bread and water too.

 

[-OZ-]

We do a 30 and will probably try to pack some extra into it for a while and treat it kind of like a 15.

This is the way. Congrats. Our past two mortgages have been 15 and my wife meticulously puts in an extra grand each month. I'm also aware I'm very fortunate financially and super thankful. More importantly I'm in 5th place in League Uno. Ha ha

It’s funny to me that the last three times I’ve looked at rates - purchase, refi, refi; our quoted rate for the 30 was the same as the 15. Taking the 30 is an easy choice there. No interest in paying it off early either but the crazy low rate (2.25%) keeps us from moving. Which I’m very interested in, but we might not be able to get a mortgage for the house we want. So there’s a fair chance we buy the next house in cash if rates stay above 6.

I can't ever think of a time that that I have seen 15 and 30 priced out the same. Close enough where it doesn't make that much of a difference? Yes. Same. Never. Whether in banking or broker. The only way I can think of that being possible would maybe be a CU as they have some oddball pricing sometimes. Pricing for 30, 25 and 20 being the same. Yes. 30 and 15 the same? Never.

i just know what i was quoted. VA if that matters. Correction - only for the refinances. The purchase iirc was 0.125 difference.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

50 year mortgages and getting rid of the credit score minimum...

Fannie Mae removes minimum credit score requirements from DU

Fannie Mae's November 2025 update removes minimum credit score requirements from its DU system, sparking debate on borrower risk assessment.

www.housingwire.com

Yeah, they're trying to crash this thing

 

[massraider]

50 year mortgages and getting rid of the credit score minimum...

Fannie Mae removes minimum credit score requirements from DU

Fannie Mae's November 2025 update removes minimum credit score requirements from its DU system, sparking debate on borrower risk assessment.

www.housingwire.com

Yeah, they're trying to crash this thing

This all seems GREAT

 

[RCon]

50 year mortgages and getting rid of the credit score minimum...

Fannie Mae removes minimum credit score requirements from DU

Fannie Mae's November 2025 update removes minimum credit score requirements from its DU system, sparking debate on borrower risk assessment.

www.housingwire.com

Yeah, they're trying to crash this thing

Makes sense. Who got rich off the 2008 housing crisis? Why wouldn't those same people want to repeat the process?

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

We should be building houses faster than data centers but house builders aren’t building normal houses anymore. Every house now is 3k sqft, has 10’ ceilings and granite tops.

We need a ton of builders like the post WW2 builders similar to Levett & Sons.

Levitt & Sons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I assume code wouldn’t allow homes to be built like this but we need more small single family homes - not apartments or condos. (if it were up to me, I would destroy every apartment and condo building in the world but that’s a whole Nother theory/story)

 

[Max Power]

We should be building houses faster than data centers but house builders aren’t building normal houses anymore. Every house now is 3k sqft, has 10’ ceilings and granite tops.

We need a ton of builders like the post WW2 builders similar to Levett & Sons.

Levitt & Sons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I assume code wouldn’t allow homes to be built like this but we need more small single family homes - not apartments or condos. (if it were up to me, I would destroy every apartment and condo building in the world but that’s a whole Nother theory/story)

Building smaller is less profitable for builders. Land, labor and material costs are up. Devoting all that to a single family starter home doesn't make sense to most builders.

Now DIY tiny Homes is a cool market I wouldn't mind seeing grow. It's not my style of living, but could make sense to young homeowners.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

We should be building houses faster than data centers but house builders aren’t building normal houses anymore. Every house now is 3k sqft, has 10’ ceilings and granite tops.

We need a ton of builders like the post WW2 builders similar to Levett & Sons.

Levitt & Sons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I assume code wouldn’t allow homes to be built like this but we need more small single family homes - not apartments or condos. (if it were up to me, I would destroy every apartment and condo building in the world but that’s a whole Nother theory/story)

Building smaller is less profitable for builders. Land, labor and material costs are up. Devoting all that to a single family starter home doesn't make sense to most builders.

Now DIY tiny Homes is a cool market I wouldn't mind seeing grow. It's not my style of living, but could make sense to young homeowners.

Give them tax credits/incentives to do so.. I’m for far less government but there are times when - for the good of the nation- it needs a good kick in the pants.

We are expected to spend 6.7 trillion dollars on data centers in the next 4-1/2 years. We just signed an executive order to remove a lot of permits and regulations to get them built.

Now do that for housing.

 

[Max Power]

We should be building houses faster than data centers but house builders aren’t building normal houses anymore. Every house now is 3k sqft, has 10’ ceilings and granite tops.

We need a ton of builders like the post WW2 builders similar to Levett & Sons.

Levitt & Sons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I assume code wouldn’t allow homes to be built like this but we need more small single family homes - not apartments or condos. (if it were up to me, I would destroy every apartment and condo building in the world but that’s a whole Nother theory/story)

Building smaller is less profitable for builders. Land, labor and material costs are up. Devoting all that to a single family starter home doesn't make sense to most builders.

Now DIY tiny Homes is a cool market I wouldn't mind seeing grow. It's not my style of living, but could make sense to young homeowners.

Give them tax credits/incentives to do so.. I’m for far less government but there are times when - for the good of the nation- it needs a good kick in the pants.

We are expected to spend 6.7 trillion dollars on data centers in the next 4-1/2 years. We just signed an executive order to remove a lot of permits and regulations to get them built.

Now do that for housing.

I'm not totally opposed to the idea, but why promote single family starter homes over multi-family units? They are more expensive and less convenient. If the goal is to put a decent roof over a lower income family, the multifamily units seem to be the best solution.

 

[RCon]

Now DIY tiny Homes is a cool market I wouldn't mind seeing grow. It's not my style of living, but could make sense to young homeowners.

I wonder if this could make sense for empty nesters looking to downsize. In theory, if they are buying in cash (using profits from larger home sale), that could also solve the problem of people not wanting to let go of ultra-low mortgage rates.

I know at least a few people who have already told me they want to do exactly this once they have empty nests.

 

[MTskibum]

I dont think home ownership over renting is all it is cracked up to be. Looking at list of US home ownership rates some of the poorest states have some of the highest home ownership.

Rank List: States in Profile

www.statsamerica.org

Not just in US either, if you look globally countries like Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Japan, US, all have low home ownership rates compared to countries like Cuba.

Home Ownership by Country 2025

Data and analysis on home ownership by country, including countries with the highest percentage of home ownership and countries where the most people own their homes.

worldpopulationreview.com

I bought my home ~10 years ago and I am not sure how much better off I am financially verse renting. Our house has gone up ~100k in that time, however we replaced roof, and we have 2 different AC/heater systems and both sets of those were replaced. That was 40k in repairs before the little things like hot water heater, gutters, etc.

We put 50% down on our house, the DJIA was at 11,000 when we bought. If we would have put that 125k into a mutual fund that matched DJIA(which is where the money was sitting when we bought) we would have made 425,000 versus the ~60k we have made from our investment into our home.

 

[-OZ-]

I dont think home ownership over renting is all it is cracked up to be. Looking at list of US home ownership rates some of the poorest states have some of the highest home ownership.

Rank List: States in Profile

www.statsamerica.org

Not just in US either, if you look globally countries like Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Japan, US, all have low home ownership rates compared to countries like Cuba.

Home Ownership by Country 2025

Data and analysis on home ownership by country, including countries with the highest percentage of home ownership and countries where the most people own their homes.

worldpopulationreview.com

I bought my home ~10 years ago and I am not sure how much better off I am financially verse renting. Our house has gone up ~100k in that time, however we replaced roof, and we have 2 different AC/heater systems and both of those need to be replaced. That was 40k in repairs before the little things like hot water heater, gutters, etc.

We put 50% down on our house, the DJIA was at 11,000 when we bought. If we would have put that 125k into a mutual fund that matched DJIA(which is where the money was sitting when we bought) we would have made 425,000 versus the ~60k we have made from our investment into our home.

For sure it doesn’t always work.

We’re lucky, bought 9 years ago for $320k. Now, $530k is a reasonably conservative estimate and an almost identical home in the neighborhood sold for close to $600k last year. It has a pool, but that probably doesn’t add that much value.
We’ve made improvements, bathroom, hvac, fence, other minor stuff that probably adds slightly over $100k to our expenses. So let’s say $100k gain in the last 9 years. We’ve paid the mortgage down to $260k.
But the keys are factors only relevant in homes. Our mortgage plus taxes and insurance run about $1800 monthly. Rent in this area for a similar house runs $2800. We put zero down, so it seems the real comparison is monthly set payments, add the maintenance and improvements, vs our portfolio. To look at it one way, we save $12k annually to accept the risk of repairs. It wasn’t always that big a difference but if we just use $500 monthly at the average, that’s $54,000 saved vs $100k spent or $46k spent and a gain in equity of $270k.
But much of that is luck and circumstance.

 

[The Z Machine]

I dont think home ownership over renting is all it is cracked up to be. Looking at list of US home ownership rates some of the poorest states have some of the highest home ownership.

Rank List: States in Profile

www.statsamerica.org

Not just in US either, if you look globally countries like Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Japan, US, all have low home ownership rates compared to countries like Cuba.

Home Ownership by Country 2025

Data and analysis on home ownership by country, including countries with the highest percentage of home ownership and countries where the most people own their homes.

worldpopulationreview.com

I bought my home ~10 years ago and I am not sure how much better off I am financially verse renting. Our house has gone up ~100k in that time, however we replaced roof, and we have 2 different AC/heater systems and both sets of those were replaced. That was 40k in repairs before the little things like hot water heater, gutters, etc.

We put 50% down on our house, the DJIA was at 11,000 when we bought. If we would have put that 125k into a mutual fund that matched DJIA(which is where the money was sitting when we bought) we would have made 425,000 versus the ~60k we have made from our investment into our home.

Yup, my house has appreciated like 1% annually over 10+ years I've owned it. Not every location saw a huge run up in prices, although most did. I'm hoping Baltimore turns the corner at some point in the next 10 years while I still hold the note.

 

[Chadstroma]

50 year mortgages and getting rid of the credit score minimum...

Fannie Mae removes minimum credit score requirements from DU

Fannie Mae's November 2025 update removes minimum credit score requirements from its DU system, sparking debate on borrower risk assessment.

www.housingwire.com

Yeah, they're trying to crash this thing

The minimum score removal is not really a thing though I understand how someone outside of the industry might freak out about it.

Here is why:
First, let me say why I think they are removing the 620 minimum and it is based in having Vantagescore being approved for mortgage loans for credit scores. The credit score formulas are very different and it would no longer make any sense to have a 620 minimum.... because a FICO 620 is different from a Vantagescore 620.

Now the reason why it really isn't a think is that the DU that is used to underwrite conventional loans does not use the credit score as part of it's risk profile. The things in the credit file are used to build the risk profile, for example, on time payments. If I have a client with a 620 credit score, it is very hard to get an "approve/eligible" which is what you want when you run it. The reason for that isn't the score itself but all the information that leads to the 620 score that is being used for the risk profile. If I am running a file through, unless I have some compensating factors such as large reserves, low LTV, low housing and DTI ratios etc then I am not expecting to get an "approve/eligible". That will not change with the removal of the 620 minimum score. That will not change and there will not be a lot of mortgages being done conventional that are under 620. Even so, tons of loans FHA/VA loans are done below 620. VA loans, which have no credit score minimum, are the best performing mortgages of all.

 

[Captain Cranks]

This is something that they are looking at really for First Time Home Buyers (FTHB) to help entry into the home owning market. No matter what the interest cost of a 50 year mortgage, it is less cost than renting. On a $2000 mortgage payment for a 50 year mortgage over 10 years at 6.5% the interest paid would be $210K with $30K paid towards principal. Add in about $700 for tax/insurance for $84K paid for that same 10 years. If you rented a comparable property for 10 years- using actual rental comps in my area- the lowest would be about $2500 and ranging to $3000 for that price point. Using the lower of comp of $2500 that is a cost of $300K- and that is conservative as rents are very much impacted by inflation and tend to go up without any major change of real estate scene. So, taking the most conservative route- the homeowner is still ahead in pure costs over the renter. This is not taking into account equity added from property appreciation or rents rising over that same period of time- both are not guaranteed but over that period of time, it nearly is. Even though the equity is not as much as it would be with the 30 year, if it was a question of buying or not buying for a FTHB- buying is the better option with the 50 year.

I don't think this is true. Study

"On average, renting a home is cheaper than paying a mortgage in all 50 of the largest U.S. metros in 2025 — with the cost difference between the two growing in 38 metros since last year."

Anecdotally speaking in the Tampa area, rent for a SFH would be far cheaper than the cost of the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and maintenance on the same house.

For example, a house valued at $510K in my hood is being offered as a rental for $2,650/mth. 10% down at 6% interest rate nets you a $3,350/mth payment (includes taxes and insurance). That doesn't include any maintanence costs.

 

[Willy]

Supply and demand get out of whack and the best we can do is subsidize demand? We never learn

 

[-OZ-]

This is something that they are looking at really for First Time Home Buyers (FTHB) to help entry into the home owning market. No matter what the interest cost of a 50 year mortgage, it is less cost than renting. On a $2000 mortgage payment for a 50 year mortgage over 10 years at 6.5% the interest paid would be $210K with $30K paid towards principal. Add in about $700 for tax/insurance for $84K paid for that same 10 years. If you rented a comparable property for 10 years- using actual rental comps in my area- the lowest would be about $2500 and ranging to $3000 for that price point. Using the lower of comp of $2500 that is a cost of $300K- and that is conservative as rents are very much impacted by inflation and tend to go up without any major change of real estate scene. So, taking the most conservative route- the homeowner is still ahead in pure costs over the renter. This is not taking into account equity added from property appreciation or rents rising over that same period of time- both are not guaranteed but over that period of time, it nearly is. Even though the equity is not as much as it would be with the 30 year, if it was a question of buying or not buying for a FTHB- buying is the better option with the 50 year.

I don't think this is true. Study

"On average, renting a home is cheaper than paying a mortgage in all 50 of the largest U.S. metros in 2025 — with the cost difference between the two growing in 38 metros since last year."

Anecdotally speaking in the Tampa area, rent for a SFH would be far cheaper than the cost of the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and maintenance on the same house.

For example, a house valued at $510K in my hood is being offered as a rental for $2,650/mth. 10% down at 6% interest rate nets you a $3,350/mth payment (includes taxes and insurance). That doesn't include any maintanence costs.

Sure, but the real question imo when buying a house is about the long term. One year is virtually meaningless.
You can call that a privileged mentality, maybe it is to a degree. But buying a house should never be about the current year or even the next couple years - other than being able to afford it.

 

[Chadstroma]

It has come out that the FHFA is exploring portable mortgages.