Last weekend, President Trump tweeted the idea of creating a 50-year mortgage as a way to help lower payments for Americans who want to buy a home.

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte called the proposal “a complete game changer.”

It might sound clever – but it just isn’t.

Let’s look at why stretching debt across half a century would likely be disastrous for home buyers—and what history tells us about ideas like this.

While the idea is (so far) quite light on detail - administration officials are saying that a 50-year mortgage would lower monthly payments and help Americans who are currently priced out of the housing market.

The logic is that if you just lengthen the term of a loan you can reduce the monthly payment – but that simplicity hides a much more complicated reality.

Extending mortgages to half a century would alter how lenders price risk, how investors value mortgage-backed securities, and would require changes to federal law.

US Home prices have risen about 45% since 2020, with most of that increase having occurred during the pandemic years when interest rates fell near zero.

Today - mortgage rates are at their highest level in twenty years, and you would normally expect that to depress home prices – but instead home prices have barely budged since rates went up.

Limited housing supply has kept values elevated – but - sales volumes have dropped to their lowest level in decades.

On top of that - the average age of a first-time buyer has now reached 40.

Against that backdrop, a longer loan term might look like a lifeline—until you check the fine print.

The economics—and politics are unfortunately way more complicated than the headlines suggest.

On the bright side however this proposal would allow many Americans the opportunity to pass something down to their kids – unfortunately that thing would be a mortgage…

The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage feels like a permanent feature of American life, but it was born out of crisis.

Ben Castleman wrote an excellent history of the US mortgage market a few years ago in The New York Times.

He explains that before the Great Depression - home loans were underwritten by banks – and not backed by the US government.

They usually had terms of 10 years or less (as lenders don’t like making really long term loans) and, unlike mortgages today, they were not “self-amortizing” meaning that borrowers just made interest payments and the loan carried a balloon payment at the end.

This meant that borrowers would often have to take out a new mortgage to pay off the old one if they hadn’t saved up.

When the financial system collapsed during the Great Depression, refinancing dried up and foreclosures soared – such that in the early 1930s, nearly 10 percent of U.S. homes – and I mean homes – not mortgages - were in foreclosure.

To stabilize the housing market, the federal government issued government-backed bonds so that they could buy up defaulted mortgages and reissue them as fixed-rate loans that had longer maturities and lower monthly payments.

The government then sold off those mortgages to private investors, with the Federal Housing Administration providing mortgage insurance so those investors knew the loans they were buying would be paid off in full.

Fannie Mae and, later, Freddie Mac changed the scale of the system by creating a secondary market.

They bought mortgages from lenders, bundled them into securities, and sold them to investors.

That liquidity allowed banks to recycle capital and offer even more loans, turning the 30-year mortgage from a government experiment into a mass-market product.

By the 1960s, the 30-year mortgage had become the dominant structure.

Its appeal was obvious: predictable payments, no prepayment penalties, and the ability to refinance when rates fell.

Castleman points out that for US homeowners the 30 year fixed rate loan is a one-sided bet.

If inflation goes way up, the lenders lose and the borrowers win.

While if interest rates fall, the borrower can just refinance at a lower rate.

Other countries took different paths.

In Britain and Canada, fixed rates typically last just a few years – and until recently Canadian Mortgages were 25 year loans.

Germany offers long-term fixed rate loans but restricts refinancing.

Denmark’s system resembles America’s but demands higher down payments and stricter underwriting.

The U.S. stands out for combining long duration, fixed rates, and easy refinancing—a mix that shields existing homeowners but can freeze mobility when interest rates rise – which is what we have just seen.

On paper, it sounds easy - stretch the term and shrink the payment.

In practice, it would be a legislative and financial contortion act - it would require rewriting federal law.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, qualified mortgages can’t have terms longer than 30 years, so a 50-year product would need new legislation before lenders could offer it at scale.

Before digging into why a fifty year loan wouldn’t even reduce monthly payments – let me tell you about this weeks video sponsor Gamma – a presentation tool that I’ve used to create many of the images in this weeks video.

For business people and marketers, presentations are the language of persuasion.

If you present your ideas well, they lead to favorable decisions and investments.

A boring presentation, on the other hand, can put your audience to sleep.

Gamma can be thought of as a modern alternative to PowerPoint.

And if you're not a graphic designer, but have a big idea to communicate, presentations just got a whole lot easier as Gamma can take simple text or a document and quickly turn it into an impressive presentation in seconds.

To try out Gamma, I took the transcript of last week's video, uploaded it to Gamma, and asked it to create a presentation.

Seconds later, it returned slides that picked out the most important points.

to try it out. Just start with an idea.

Describe what you want and Gamma takes it from there.

Creating a perfect deck in seconds.

I've started using Gamma to make a lot of the slides in my videos as it's so much easier and better than my old workflow.

With GMA, you're not stuck with the 16x9 format that other presentation software’s use.

You can use it to make vertical presentations or even modular websites.

Visit gamma.app app on your computer to sign up for a free account or click the link in the description below.

Reports suggest that the social media announcements caught parts of the Trump team off guard.

According to Politico and CBS, Bill Pulte pitched the idea directly to Trump, who posted it online without any vetting.

Some aides and conservative allies criticized the move, calling it bad policy and bad politics.

Trump later appeared to distance himself from the proposal.

When asked about it on Fox News, he told the reporter it “might help a little bit” but overall he seemed to brush it off.

At first glance - the 50-year mortgage sounds like a great way of cutting monthly loan payments – kinda like the way mortgages were restructured during the great depression – from ten years with a balloon payment to thirty years and self-amortizing.

If a fifty-year mortgage had the same interest rate as a thirty-year mortgage has, the monthly payment on the average American mortgage would fall by around $250 dollars a month.

The problem is - that rates on a fifty-year mortgage wouldn’t be the same as they are on a thirty-year mortgage.

Longer terms carry more risk, and lenders won’t take that risk if they are not compensated for it.

Analysts estimate that a 50-year loan could cost 75 to 100 basis points more than thirty-year does.

With the higher interest rate - the monthly payment would barely change—and in some cases, it would even rise – and even meme stock investors won’t sign up for a higher monthly payment that continues on for twenty additional years.

That’s just not affordability…

Even if the 50 year interest rate wasn’t higher (which it would be) – and you saw that $250 a month saving, the trade-offs are still severe.

After a decade, the average American with a 30-year mortgage has built roughly $60,000 dollars in equity – that’s assuming no house price appreciation.

On a 50-year loan, it would be closer to $11,000 dollars – and that is just because so much is being paid in interest.

With interest rates at 6.4% - the average American will spend around half a million dollars on interest – on their 30 year mortgage - which is more than they pay for their home - but when we extend that mortgage to 50 years they will pay more than a million dollars in interest expense alone.

The other (and probably more important) thing that we have to remember is that if lower payments do make easier to borrow larger sums of money, buyers can be expected to just bid up home prices – as more buying power is introduced into a market struggling with supply – it would erase pretty much all of the promised affordability gain.

The problem isn’t that Americans can’t borrow—it’s that there aren’t enough homes.

If the average U.S. home costs $425,000 and every American was handed $425,000 dollars tomorrow, it wouldn’t mean universal homeownership.

It would mean home prices would spike by roughly $400,000 and the malls would be busy for a few weeks.

That’s what happens when you pump demand into a market with fixed supply: prices rise, affordability doesn’t improve.

The U.K.’s “Help to Buy” scheme in 2022 proved the point.

It let first-time buyers purchase new-build homes with smaller deposits and gave them a government equity loan of up to 20% of the property’s value.

Many joked at the time that it should have been called “Help to Sell scheme,” because it did more for developers than it did for buyers.

Longer mortgages risk the same outcome—boosting demand without adding supply.

The AP points out that other parts of the financial system have already extended loan terms – and with mixed results.

Seven-year auto loans have become increasingly popular as car prices have gone up.

Despite these longer loan terms, auto loan delinquencies have been rising, and the average price of a new car is now just under fifty thousand dollars compared to thirty nine thousand dollars for a new vehicle just five years ago.

Student loans too - were originally designed to be paid off in 10 years, and now there are multiple payment options available that extend repayment out to 20 years.

Most Americans – we should remember - don’t stay in the homes they buy for life.

The average tenure is around 12 years, which means that not that many borrowers ever reach the midpoint of amortization on a thirty-year mortgage.

Mortgage payments are split between interest and principal – meaning that early on, your payment mostly feeds the interest monster – while principal barely gets a snack…

As you make payments, the principal is slowly reduced, which then lowers the amount of interest accrued each month.

This process, called amortization, causes a shift over time, so more of your payment goes toward principal and less toward interest.

On a 30-year mortgage, this shift happens gradually, so by year 10 you’ve paid down a meaningful chunk of the loan.

With a 50-year mortgage, the payment schedule stretches so far that the early years barely touch the principal.

After a decade, you might still owe almost the full amount you borrowed.

The way it works is that the longer the term of the loan – the slower you build equity.

A fifty year mortgage would leave homeowners exposed if prices fall, and limit their ability to sell, relocate, or borrow against their home in an emergency.

For first-time buyers who are now only entering the market at the age of 40, the arithmetic is stark: they would still be making mortgage payments into their 90s.

It’s worth remembering that the word ‘mortgage’ comes from the French words mort and gage meaning “death pledge”.

With a fifty year mortgage - that’s no longer just a figure of speech.

It’s not hard to see either - why lenders might balk at issuing loans that extend deep into retirement – do you really want to take the risk of lending to a person who is no longer earning and may not be in good health?

The idea of borrowing for 50 years to buy an asset you’re unlikely to keep for more than a dozen doesn’t make much financial sense.

You’re essentially either renting the house or renting the money to buy it – you don’t own it until its paid off.

The idea of making mortgage payments in retirement is quite worrying too - in a world where the demand for reverse mortgages has started rising.

With a reverse mortgage, homeowners, typically age 62 or older, get cash from a lender in exchange for the equity in their home.

They continue to live in the property and pay taxes and insurance.

The loans then have to be repaid with interest at the end of their term – which is usually when the borrower either moves out, sells the home or dies.

Reverse mortgages are a controversial type of lending already - because of the increased risk of foreclosure on an elderly retiree if they fall behind on their tax or insurance payments.

According to the Financial Times, the number of US federally insured reverse mortgages grew more than 6 percent in the last year.

Lenders report surging interest from older Americans squeezed by inflation and benefit cuts.

If the current generation of elderly homeowners are facing this level of financial stress - extending mortgage debt into old age with fifty-year mortgages would only make that problem worse.

The psychological dimension really matters too.

A mortgage that outlives a career—and possibly the borrower—really changes the cultural meaning of homeownership.

A home becomes less of an asset and more of a perpetual liability.

Other countries have experimented with ultra-long mortgages – and - Spoiler Alert! it didn’t end well...

Japan introduced 50-year and even 100-year loans during its property bubble in the 1980s.

Those products were designed to let families pass debt across generations.

When the bubble burst, borrowers were trapped in negative equity for decades.

In the UK and Canada, lenders have offered 35- to 40-year mortgages, but these remain niche products.

Regulators tightened rules after concerns that longer terms just inflated home prices and did nothing to improve affordability.

The obvious problem is that longer loans don’t build new houses.

You can play around with monthly payments, but all that will do is push house prices even higher - leaving borrowers with slower equity growth and greater exposure to downturns.

The problem in the US real estate market has nothing to do with an inability or an unwillingness to borrow – it is more driven by a shortage of new housing than anything else.

And that shortage is not going to improve when America has an ageing population a growing labour shortage and is deporting the people who work in construction.

Tariffs are not helping affordability either – According to the NAHB - Tariffs are driving up the cost of building materials, and American consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices.

Turning a 50-year mortgage from a tweet into a product isn’t just a matter of tweaking paperwork—it means rewriting the whole rulebook.

Under Dodd-Frank, any mortgage longer than 30 years cannot meet the Qualified Mortgage standard.

That status matters to lenders as it shields them from certain liabilities and allows them to offer lower rates.

Without this protection - you’re left with a riskier product that lenders won’t touch without charging a significant premium.

The fix isn’t going to be an executive order either… It would require Congress to amend multiple statutes, including those governing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who can’t insure or purchase loans beyond 30 years.

Without their backing, liquidity evaporates and investors aren’t queueing up for a 50-year instrument that behaves like a callable bond with a half-century of credit risk attached.

Even if lawmakers clear that hurdle, the market mechanics get ugly.

Longer maturities magnify prepayment risk, forcing GSEs into more aggressive hedging.

That hedging is pro-cyclical—meaning it amplifies interest rate swings instead of smoothing them.

Alan Greenspan worried about this dynamic with 30-year loans; a 50-year variant would crank systemic risk up another notch.

After all of that - there’s the consumer protection angle.

Regulators designed the rules to prevent borrowers from signing up for loans that they can’t realistically repay.

A mortgage that stretches into your 90s makes that concern more than theoretical.

Disclosure requirements, suitability standards, and retirement-risk assessments would all need a rethink.

If the goal is affordability, there are better ways to get there than stretching debt across half a century.

The obvious fix is supply: build more homes where people want to live.

That means tackling zoning bottlenecks, speeding up permitting, addressing labor shortages and doing away with tariffs that hit construction materials.

Financial engineering is seductive because it looks so easy – and - why do something hard like streamlining zoning and permitting when you can just encourage buyers to take more financial risk.

It’s easier to tweet about mortgages than it is to bulldoze zoning laws.

These approaches attack the real constraint—housing supply—rather than papering over it with longer amortization schedules.

Everyone wants lower prices when they’re buying—or when their kids are—but once they own, they want values to rise forever.

Politicians talk about affordability, but a sharp drop in home prices would be treated as a crisis, not a victory.

Stewart Lee captured the absurdity perfectly on his TV show back in 2008 saying “What’s happened is somewhere, along the line, as a society, we confused the notion of ‘home’ with the possibility of ‘an investment opportunity’. What kind of creature wants to live in an ‘investment opportunity’? Only man. The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat has his stoat-hole… but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.”

A 50-year mortgage won’t make homes affordable.

It trims a few dollars off monthly payments while adding decades of debt and mountains of interest.

That’s not an affordability solution.

The hard truth is that affordability comes from supply, not slogans.

Building homes is messy, political, and slow, which is why gimmicks like ultra-long mortgages keep popping up.

They look like progress but do nothing to fix the shortage.

Japan tried this in the 80s with 50-year and even 100-year loans.

When the bubble burst, families spent decades in negative equity.

America doesn’t need to repeat that mistake.

If you found this video interesting you should watch my video on The Great Depression next.

Don't forget to check out our sponsor Gamma using the link in the description.

Have a great day – and talk to you in the next video. Bye!