I don't see the problem. It may or may not be a smart decision on the part of homebuyers who would use it but it's not like anyone would be forced into it. What's the downside to having it as an option?

jamey said:

---

YouBet said:

---

jamey said:

---

Trump suggested a 50 year mortgage and its all over Twitter

So many strange takes like if you buy, then you got maintenance, taxes and insurance that doesnt exit if you rent, as if all that stuff plus profit is not calculated into rent pricing

My financial advisor buddies have gone back and forth for at least a decade. They say buying is bad, i say its good and this some before Trumps 50 year mortgage.

I'd have to do some thinking on a 50 year and how sound that idea is. I already bought central metroplex so job location cant force a move. Thats always an assumption for me.



Other than that I live in a neighborhood thats probably 50% renters and 50% owners. Renters pay substantially more per month above the mortgage. At least 700$

---

I said this on the F16 thread or somewhere over there, but you have to factor the TCO of a home. It's not just mortgage + utilities vs rent + utilities.

It's mortgage + taxes + insurance + maintenance (in all its various forms) + random oh **** something broke and I can't call the landlord.

This last category can be a massive financial hit that a renter will never have.

Examples:
- Replacing HVAC for $10-20K a pop.
- Plumbing emergencies that are hundreds to thousands including water heater failure, burst pipe in a wall or underneath a floor.
- Foundation issues at $1K a pier to prevent/fix.
- Tree falls in the yard and destroys something.
- Landscape beautification, maintenance, and replacement is thousands of dollars over course of house lifetime assuming you just don't give a **** about the outside of your house.

These are examples off the top of my head that I've personally dealt with across owning 3 homes. So, the math isn't as clear as people think it is once you start factoring TCO. Buying could certainly still be cheaper over time when factoring TCO, but you better at least have a some kind of idea of what you are getting into with a house. Even if you think you can mitigate some of this through buying a certain type, age, location of a home, bad **** is going to happen with a house that you just didn't budget for.

---

All of that is calculated into rent prices, thats my point. Sure, landlords have insurance in having multiple rentals so they get 1 oh **** 1 year, 3 the next, then 0 but on average its all in the price and evens out over time

Plus profit

By owning you're not spreading out costs for any 1 year but over time you are but are not paying someone elses profits and instead getting appreciation over long periods of time.

When you buy is important. I waited a long time starting in 2005 when I first started looking but saw the bubble building so I waited till 2012, sold for good profit and upgraded in 2016

Now my home has appreciated 50% and renters in my neighborhood pay a solid $700 more in rent than I pay in my mortgage

I'm also a firm believer in the debasement trade. Assets will continue to appreciate

---

I bought one of my rentals at a good time. P&I is about $800. Rent is about 2,200. But, it takes about 7 months of rent just to cover taxes, insurance, and hoa fees. I manage myself, which can be a lot of work, but if between management and leasing fees you can set aside another 1.5 months in rent. So, for most people, it would be about 8 months of rent collection before you could even start paying p&i. Renting is a tough game

Either your cost basis is much lower than current values or your insurance and HOA fees are crazy.

Your carrying costs shouldn't be 150%+ of your mortgage.

Seems like you could better deploy that money elsewhere

Kind of confused by the reaction to this idea on this board. Many people here seem to understand that paying off a 30 year early is unwise if you're able to outperform the rate. Those who choose to do it anyway readily admit it's for mental well-being despite the math.

So if your base case is that paying off a mortgage early actually works against your ability to accumulate wealth in the long run, how exactly is a 50 worse than a 30?

If you're a confident investor and you were opening a new mortgage tomorrow, would you choose a 15 or a 30? Now extend that logic to choosing a 30 vs 50

Diggity said:

---

Either your cost basis is much lower than current values or your insurance and HOA fees are crazy.

Your carrying costs shouldn't be 150%+ of your mortgage.

Seems like you could better deploy that money elsewhere

---

No doubt about deploying elsewhere! It has gone up about 65-70% since I bought it. But rents have gone up about 5%. I just don't think there's another good pace to deploy in this market.

Various news article today are panning the idea. Trump has allegedly pulling back on this already. Seams his FHFA buddy snuck this proposal in the WH behind staff backs and avoided any vetting. Bill Pulte seems to be a bit of a wild card.

I'd not put too much stock in this.

SteveBott said:

---

Bill Pulte seems to be a bit of a wild card.

---

Yah, I'm wondering how much longer he sticks around, I think that he is the one that Bessent told "I'm going to punch your f---ing face!".

My biggest issue with this is that I believe, for most Americans, you should try to have your mortgage paid off by the time you retire to help provide adequate cash flows. 50-year mortgages are not going to help accomplish that.

Two Hundred Year Mortgage. Sorry great grandkids. You owe $1 Trillion in accumulated interest.

Ag CPA said:

---

SteveBott said:

---

Bill Pulte seems to be a bit of a wild card.

---

Yah, I'm wondering how much longer he sticks around, I think that he is the one that Bessent told "I'm going to punch your f---ing face!".

My biggest issue with this is that I believe, for most Americans, you should try to have your mortgage paid off by the time you retire to help provide adequate cash flows. 50-year mortgages are not going to help accomplish that.

---

I'm retired. If we had a mortgage on our house, we wouldn't be living in this house. Our taxes and insurance come out to ~$3k per month. We knew that going in so I'm not surprised by it, but if mortgage had been on the table we would never have done it.

BTHOtrolls said:

---

These mortgage shenanigans will be the republicans equivalent of student loan forgiveness…

At Fannie and Freddie, we are evaluating how to do assumable or portable mortgages, in a safe and sound manner. https://t.co/zGek4XCyii

— Pulte (@pulte) November 9, 2025

A carrot dangled in future election cycles, but pragmatically not possible?

---

Where are the shenanigans? Mortgage portability would put mortgage loans on par with any other secured loan that can accommodate a collateral substitution. As long as the collateral is deemed sufficient from a LTV standpoint, then neither party should have an issue. Assumability is a little more difficult as it would require new borrower underwriting and not be as economical for the lenders.

don't know that the banks would love getting saddled with low interest mortgages that are now expected to fully mature.

Seems like a "heads I win...tails you lose" scenario for them.

I don't know of a ton of other scenarios where you have fixed rate loans that are portable/assumable (outside of FHA/VA).

I'll provide an example where it may make sense to pay off early,. if you expect to retire in the next few years. In retirement many folks are more focused on cash flow than in your working years. Also those same people may have most of their savings in tax deferred accounts and they don't want to touch them in retirement until it's necessary . So you use your tax paid savings to pay off the mortgage and for living expenses in early retirement while letting your tax deferred money continue to grow.

I can see how they'd prefer to write seven to ten year effective loans at 30 year rates as opposed to 30 year loans at 30 year rates.

On portability, it's just a secured loan with the ability to swap for collateral that is fungible. Assuming the bank doesn't want the house in the event of default, they should be indifferent as to which house is securing the loan as long as the value is sufficient to support the borrowing. As far as "head I win, tails you lose" goes, the current financial system is already largely stacked against the consumer. I'm not sure you'll find a tremendous amount of sympathy for people who put themselves out there as the most sophisticated and smartest people in the room.

Portable loans would probably look like current VA loans. These are assignable and are valuable right now due to being 2.5-3.0% fixed. But the loan amount is frozen.

So buy at 200k and 5 years later market is 300k new buyer must pay cash for the equity of 100k OR take a new loan for the 100 at market, currently 6ish.

Eventually the first gets paid off white new loans stacked later. Interesting but I would not put much probability on this either.

Personally, I'd be more likely to move if this was an option, but, in this environment for the house we'd want, the monthly interest alone would be more than we current pay for principal, interest, and taxes. That January 2021 rate is hard to walk away from.

jh0400 said:

---

I can see how they'd prefer to write seven to ten year effective loans at 30 year rates as opposed to 30 year loans at 30 year rates.

On portability, it's just a secured loan with the ability to swap for collateral that is fungible. Assuming the bank doesn't want the house in the event of default, they should be indifferent as to which house is securing the loan as long as the value is sufficient to support the borrowing. As far as "head I win, tails you lose" goes, the current financial system is already largely stacked against the consumer. I'm not sure you'll find a tremendous amount of sympathy for people who put themselves out there as the most sophisticated and smartest people in the room.

---

I don't know how cheap, fixed rate debt is "stacked against the consumer".

Go try to buy a house in South America and you'll see what the process looks like without government subsidies/regulation.

Yea Fannie, Freddie, FHA and VA were all created by .gov to make mortgages affordable. Before those government entities loans were 25% down and 10 year terms more or less. And rates double

They were a huge reason the middle class was created.

I support 50-yr mortgages.

I took out a 30-yr mortgage with no down payment because I wanted to make sure I maintained enough cash to pay all of my various insurance deductibles (home, auto, health) while also losing my job in a worst-case scenario. Every month I didn't have an unexpected expense, I paid like I had a 15-year mortgage. The few months I needed the extra cash, I paid the actual mortgage payment without incurring any fees. Strategy ended up costing me ~$2,000 over the life of the loan, but gave me a ton of freedom to pay what I wanted each month. 15-year mortgage with late fees would've cost me more than the 30-yr paid off in 15 years.

500,000ags said:

---

Why not a 70 yr mortgage?

---

why not a free Porsche for everyone?

at some point this country needs to stop messing around with basic economic realities

supposedly he is getting roasted today from other White House staff

and he should!

One more thing, some of the amortization savings will be lost to a higher rate compared to the 30.

We are at around 6.125-6.25 today. A 50 would probably price at 6.8-7.0. At least 6.625

The difference from a 15 and 30 is .5-.6 varying with daily pricing

I know your'e making a joke but it really isn't the same . Some /many (imo) people would build equity over time because maybe they get raises/better jobs or windfalls or hit a home run on an investment and want to take profits. Lots of people do that on 30 yr loans so why wouldn't they do it on a 50 yr?

I also think many would take a 50 yr loan to get into the house they want and refi to shorter or better terms as well

assuming the anticipated rate bump for 30 Year to 50 year, the monthly savings are minimal and the up front interest you'll pay on the 50 is a bear. In 10 years, you would have only paid off around 3.5% of the principal.

We have 30 year term life insurance policies designed and intended to cover a 30 year mortgage. I would imagine the cost of a 50 year life insurance policy would be pricey compared to the 30 year policy. What if the life insurance only goes to 30 years, you have a 50 year mortgage. Leaves 20 years unprotected and financially risky for the surviving family. Sure the 50 year mortgage sounds like a great way to bring down the monthly payment but its an awful way to try and build any wealth. Youll end up working until well into your 80s, if youre healthy enough to do so.

I want to know when Republicans became so comfortable with fiscal irresponsibility?

So, $150 per month in savings.

That number is the only thing that matters in this conversation for most people. Total interest paid going way, way up over life of loan and length of loan is irrelevant.

Same reason we have 84 month car loans now. All that matters is the monthly payment and if you can tell someone that by doing a 50yr over a 30yr will save them $150 a month, then they are sold.

Have to think like most Americans and not think like this board. We are outliers.

The people who "think like that" rarely, IMO, have a down payment in the first place

I get that . It's not smart for most situations but it could be a good fit for some situations.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

Desperate attempt to prop up a falling market. This administration continues to try to perform can kicking measures instead of addressing the underlying issues.

---

Of course the primary underlying issue is the debt, borrowing and printing dollars. What would you suggest Trump do about that? Nixon taking us off the gold standard in 1971 and insane deficit spending has created a doomsday machine long before Trump took office.

I do think Trump and Bessett are planning on increasing demand for our debt using stablecoins. Frankly I don't understand how that works. But if it does work that should help keep interest rates down. Additionally, I believe Trump wants a strategic Bitcoin/crypto reserve which should appreciate in dollar terms as the dollar continues its inevitable devaluation. It's my understanding Trump wants to use crypto to help manage our debt. That would in innovative.

By the way, you are an awesome poster. I always learn something when I read your posts.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I said this on an another thread, but thats how I look at it when someone says they want to do a 15 yr loan instead of 30. Almost no one is keeping the same loan terms for more thsn 5 yraes, much less living in their house the life of the loan.

so while this feels very doom and gloom for society in a way, itll be another tool for a savvy buyer/lender and eventually will be the new norm.

---

With rates staying above 6% the people that refinance during COVID or shortly thereafter will keep same terms for longer than five years. We refinanced in January 2021 to a 2.99% rate. We don't plan on moving for 10+ years and with that low rate we will keep our terms for that period. We did a 30 year.

Banks Now Requiring Your Grandkids To Co-Sign Your 50-Year Mortgage https://t.co/B0j05yyCNa pic.twitter.com/bTEPt1kDUS

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) November 11, 2025

Local news had a young RE agent on today, and of course he said he was in favor .... because ..... wait for it ..... it would help move houses currently sitting for a long time.

Never mind that the loan would be essentially interest-only for decades, never mind it wouldn't build much equity for the owner for decades, never mind that the house could go underwater since principal isn't being paid and the only equity is the down payment, and never mind that housing will actually become more expensive overall.

Just a terrible idea.