The Real Cost Behind the New 50-Year Mortgage Idea
So, there’s been a lot of talk lately about this proposal from the Trump administration suggesting a new kind of home loan—a 50-year mortgage. At first glance, it sounds like a simple way to make housing more affordable. And to be fair, based on early analysis from UBS Securities, it would make monthly payments noticeably smaller. But once you dig even a little deeper, the picture becomes much more complicated.
According to UBS analyst John Lovallo, the basic math shows a pretty clear trade-off. On a median-priced home, stretching the loan from the usual 30 years to 50 years could lower the monthly payment by about $119. For many buyers, that’s not insignificant. In a market where affordability is near historic lows and every dollar counts, that kind of short-term relief might feel like a lifeline.
Also Read:- Makhachev Shrugs Off Craig Jones’ Role in UFC 322 Prep
- Melissa McCarthy Returns to SNL for a Big December Night
But here’s the catch—the long-term burden balloons. That same UBS estimate shows that the total interest paid over the life of a 50-year loan could end up doubling compared to a 30-year loan. So while the monthly payment becomes easier to manage, the homeowner ultimately pays far more. And because the loan stretches on for half a century, building equity happens at a much slower pace. Most of the early years would still be going toward interest rather than ownership.
There’s also a demographic wrinkle to consider. The median first-time homebuyer in the U.S. is now around 40 years old. That means many borrowers taking out a 50-year mortgage wouldn’t live long enough to pay it off. And as one economic expert pointed out, passing mortgage debt to your children is definitely not the goal policymakers usually aim for.
Additional assessments have reached similar conclusions. The Associated Press estimated that a typical borrower would end up paying roughly $389,000 more in interest with a 50-year loan. LendingTree’s own analysis painted an even starker picture—for example, a $500,000 mortgage at just over 6% could generate more than $1.1 million in interest alone over five decades. And if home prices ever take a downturn, imagine being underwater on a mortgage not for a few years, but for potentially decades.
Even with these concerns, UBS did outline why this proposal exists in the first place. The U.S. housing market is deeply strained. Affordability is among the worst levels since the 1980s, productivity in construction has actually declined over the decades, and the nation is short an estimated 7 million homes. UBS argues that the real solution isn’t longer mortgages but direct investment in housing infrastructure, especially through more efficient building materials like manufactured wall panels.
Interestingly, Trump himself seemed to downplay the idea during a recent Fox News interview, calling it “not a big deal” and suggesting it may only “help a little bit.” Early reactions show it hasn’t been popular even among his supporters.
So while a 50-year mortgage sounds like affordability relief, the full picture suggests something else entirely: a trade-off that eases today’s budget pressure but stretches tomorrow’s debt farther than ever.
Read More:
0 Comments