(11-09-2025 02:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-09-2025 02:52 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  If you need 50 years to pay for a home, you don't need to be buying a home.

And watch what property values do...lol. Law of unintended consequences.

Let's jack up prices even higher and then make people pay on it for 5 decades.

If you jack up prices, then you are killing the incentive to do it in the first place. Then we're back to square one. That makes zero sense.

Also, how do you jack up prices and kill property values simultaneously?

I'm another one,"this is a bad idea"

"If you jack up prices, then you are killing the incentive to do it in the first place"

And it will be said, "you have 50 years to pay it off"

Wait until lenders start 50 year adjustable loans. Hey, you have 10 whole years to be in a better financial position and refi before the payment jumps $1000 a month. It's a great product. For 1st time buyers and people who don't qualify for current income levels.

lol.

(11-09-2025 03:14 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Don't give mortgages to people who need a 50 year term. It's predatory.

Predatory lending on 30 year terms is what ****** the economy in 2007-8.

Lenders, developers and people who own lots of real estate would love this....oh yeah, our presidents family are developers.

It's not predatory if you can only do it voluntarily. Come on...nobody is being forced to do it, lol.

The mortgage market crashed by lenders not properly vetting potential buyers, and issuing subprime mortgages, and by the media constantly blasting everyone with negative news about W and the economy to get Obama elected, which caused widespread defaults.

I know, b/c I was a homebuilder at the time.

If you lower the monthly cost of a mortgage by extending the years of the loan, without raising the price, you're allowing more buyers to qualify who can now actually afford the payments.

Unless if you increase the supply of housing, increasing demand for housing only increases the cost of housing.

There are too many cities in this country where it is illegal to build anything other than a single family home or an apartment complex. This is one time where I wouldn't mind the federal government flexing on state and local government as there is likely an interstate commerce angle that could be argued for this. Property owners should also be able to develop their property in any way they see for as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

Who buys their first home and keeps it for 50 years? I kept my first for 7.

(11-09-2025 05:18 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Who buys their first home and keeps it for 50 years? I kept my first for 7.

Exactly what I said earlier. It's not a means to an end. It's a means to get into the market legitimately.

If that increases demand, it also increases the need for more housing to be built, which should keep the prices down.

The market went bust last time b/c banks loaned to unqualified buyers. This way, buyers can be legit if their payments are lowered.

Trust me, we have plenty of homebuilders in this country ready and able to build more houses if the opportunity exists. I know. I built large expensive custom homes for several years.

My banker take:

Very, very few people that take out a 30 year mortgage ever pay it off. The average payment duration of a 30-year mortgage is about 7 years (this is why 30-year mortgage rates are generally priced off 7-10 years bonds).

This is mainly because nearly everyone moves. The average person will live in 11 different homes over their lifetime. Secondarily, most people refinance several times if they do maintain long term occupancy at one residence.

For those reasons, I have no problem with a longer amortization for first time home buyers. They will never keep that mortgage and it allows them to capture appreciation in the property which will help them build wealth.

(11-09-2025 05:18 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Who buys their first home and keeps it for 50 years? I kept my first for 7.

Watch what the 50 year PMI and interests rates will be and what the price of your second home ends up jumping to over current FMV.

People getting a 50 year will be the ones most likely to be house poor and/or default.

(11-09-2025 04:53 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Unless if you increase the supply of housing, increasing demand for housing only increases the cost of housing.

There are too many cities in this country where it is illegal to build anything other than a single family home or an apartment complex. This is one time where I wouldn't mind the federal government flexing on state and local government as there is likely an interstate commerce angle that could be argued for this. Property owners should also be able to develop their property in any way they see for as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

A lot of developers building 1300 to 1500 sq ft homes are are splitting them into for sell and rent. If they are building a 60 home lot 35 sold 25 are rentals. Till rental cost gets under control it's going to be hard adding in more home buyers without a huge jump in prices.

If the border holds I think we should start seeing a drop in rental prices with in 18 months. A big part of what was once starter homes and 1100 to 1400 sq ft homes were bought up for the rental market.

When rents are inflated by 75 to 100% of what they were 6 years ago. It's going to help push the panic buying that we saw over the last 4 years. That increases prices more than anything.

The first part of getting homes back to historical numbers (increases) is getting the rental market under control. You move 15 to 20% of those from rentals to buyers it's going to at first raise home prices. But it will also have a negative affect on the number of renters....

If Blackrock and other developers can't fill their rentals. A large part of the entry level to lower middle class homes bought as rentals. Now hits the market. While I haven't researched it just going on my own experience and what I've seen...

at least 15 to 20% of what used to be homes in the for sell market to home owners. Were bought up as rentals over the past 5 years. So while short term home prices increase.

Even without developers building a extra 15 to 20% homes to cover those new buyers getting into the market because of 50 year notes. Over the course of 5 to 8 years, as long as the border is kept under control....

those former rentals hitting the market should balance things out to where we get back to historical price increases. Here's a personal example of the rental market....

I still own a couple rental homes on 21st st in Owensboro KY and 75% of the homes in the 100 to 300 block are now rental homes. Which is a 50% increase in 5 years.

(11-09-2025 05:39 PM)banker Wrote:  My banker take:

Very, very few people that take out a 30 year mortgage ever pay it off. The average payment duration of a 30-year mortgage is about 7 years (this is why 30-year mortgage rates are generally priced off 7-10 years bonds).

This is mainly because nearly everyone moves. The average person will live in 11 different homes over their lifetime. Secondarily, most people refinance several times if they do maintain long term occupancy at one residence.

For those reasons, I have no problem with a longer amortization for first time home buyers. They will never keep that mortgage and it allows them to capture appreciation in the property which will help them build wealth.

We agree again, on this (it's the one thing I mostly had a big problem with) and of course prices will increase at first. But every first time home buyer is one less renter. Take enough out of the rental market and those prices have to at the very least stabilize, if not drop. Then over the next 5 to 8 years all those homes (big part starter homes) bought up for rentals, will be placed on the market....

so mid to long term it help stabilize rent cost and home prices back to historical norms. Unless something else, like a open border adds in millions to the rental market.

(11-09-2025 05:39 PM)banker Wrote:  My banker take:

Very, very few people that take out a 30 year mortgage ever pay it off. The average payment duration of a 30-year mortgage is about 7 years (this is why 30-year mortgage rates are generally priced off 7-10 years bonds).

This is mainly because nearly everyone moves. The average person will live in 11 different homes over their lifetime. Secondarily, most people refinance several times if they do maintain long term occupancy at one residence.

For those reasons, I have no problem with a longer amortization for first time home buyers. They will never keep that mortgage and it allows them to capture appreciation in the property which will help them build wealth.

Thank you. Exactly my viewpoint as a former homebuilder.

Look at a traditional 30 year fixed at around 6% on a 400K purchase with 50k down. With PMI it's about a $2,600 monthly payment.

Now look at that same 400k house with a 50k down payment on a 50 year fixed. Goose the interest a point due to more lender exposure. It's about a $2,600 monthly payment. 600 easy monthly payments nets the bank @ 1,000,000 in interest.

Banks love suckers and BCD paper that pays.

This is just a scam to make bank and real estate portfolios $$.

(11-09-2025 05:58 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-09-2025 05:18 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Who buys their first home and keeps it for 50 years? I kept my first for 7.

Watch what the 50 year PMI and interests rates will be and what the price of your second home ends up jumping to over current FMV.

People getting a 50 year will be the ones most likely to be house poor and/or default.

And whose fault would that be? The bank's.

What you're really saying is you don't think mortgage terms should be allowed past 30 years for anybody, b/c anybody who needs that much help is a major loan risk.

True, but it's up to the bank to ensure the buyer can afford the loan. Most people who obtain home loans are also responsible enough to maintain them. Home ownership is expensive but if you can afford the deal, whatever it may be, then why deprive someone of that opportunity?

It makes for a healthier economy if more people can buy that dream responsibly. Most people's income grows as they age, so if they can afford it in the beginning, it becomes easier over time.

It's the fault of an industry that preys on young people and folks who are desperate whenever it's profitable to do so.

You are pushing 80 so so this won't impact you. This will **** over a lot of people in my kids' generation. Prices will jack and that longer term nets banks higher interest over longer periods.

Keep your eye on the ball. This isn't to help more people buy. It's to help certain interests.

I mean, young first time home buyers are practically priced out before they even get started now. A big percentage of them can't get into a first home. I sincerely want to agree with rath, he's technically correct, BUT, anything that helps those people can't be all bad.

Hell, I was nearly priced out in 1995 when I was making like 20k a year right out of college and bought a dump of a house with my soon to be wife for 70k in a 30 year with a meh rate and we were house poor the minute we closed. Income and housing prices have both changed substantially in 30 years.

If they had a 50 year back then we'd have been the target audience they would have bent over without lube.

They will absolutely funnel the young and people on the edge into 50 year products.

You dont think these people are getting bent over with the rental market? The difference is one has an out the other you stuck on the mercy of the person owning the home you live in. There's a reason they, large corporations ( I did it also but a different reason...bottom prices)) bought up a large share of the starter home market. Which help to price people out of being homeowners. The big difference rates dont mean a thing to those people nor does it matter if they come in and offer 5 to 10% higher.

The rent is going to offset what they pay for it
Tax breaks are going to make them money yearly
driving up prices means when they are ready to get out or the market changes. They still making 30% up with a yearly ROI of 10 to 13%

I believe that is the part most people against this is not seeing. I might be wrong but dont think so....

you take 15 to 20% out of the rental market and stop the flow at the border. Those starter homes that were bought up will at some point start hitting the market....

which more than offsets the higher prices with the increase first-time home buyers.

I personally would rather get screwed owning than by being forced to rent and no hope of recouping moneny when I move.

(11-09-2025 06:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Look at a traditional 30 year fixed at around 6% on a 400K purchase with 50k down. With PMI it's about a $2,600 monthly payment.

Now look at that same 400k house with a 50k down payment on a 50 year fixed. Goose the interest a point due to more lender exposure. It's about a $2,600 monthly payment. 600 easy monthly payments nets the bank @ 1,000,000 in interest.

Banks love suckers and BCD paper that pays.

This is just a scam to make bank and real estate portfolios $$.

Wrong way to look at it. You don’t get a 50/50, you get a 7/50, which would have a rate lower than a 30/30. Home mortgages don’t have prepayment penalties, don’t ever pay for money fixed for more than 10 years because somewhere in that 10 years you can refi for a better rate.

(11-09-2025 06:00 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(11-09-2025 04:53 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Unless if you increase the supply of housing, increasing demand for housing only increases the cost of housing.

There are too many cities in this country where it is illegal to build anything other than a single family home or an apartment complex. This is one time where I wouldn't mind the federal government flexing on state and local government as there is likely an interstate commerce angle that could be argued for this. Property owners should also be able to develop their property in any way they see for as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

A lot of developers building 1300 to 1500 sq ft homes are are splitting them into for sell and rent. If they are building a 60 home lot 35 sold 25 are rentals. Till rental cost gets under control it's going to be hard adding in more home buyers without a huge jump in prices.

If the border holds I think we should start seeing a drop in rental prices with in 18 months. A big part of what was once starter homes and 1100 to 1400 sq ft homes were bought up for the rental market.

When rents are inflated by 75 to 100% of what they were 6 years ago. It's going to help push the panic buying that we saw over the last 4 years. That increases prices more than anything.

The first part of getting homes back to historical numbers (increases) is getting the rental market under control. You move 15 to 20% of those from rentals to buyers it's going to at first raise home prices. But it will also have a negative affect on the number of renters....

If Blackrock and other developers can't fill their rentals. A large part of the entry level to lower middle class homes bought as rentals. Now hits the market. While I haven't researched it just going on my own experience and what I've seen...

at least 15 to 20% of what used to be homes in the for sell market to home owners. Were bought up as rentals over the past 5 years. So while short term home prices increase.

Even without developers building a extra 15 to 20% homes to cover those new buyers getting into the market because of 50 year notes. Over the course of 5 to 8 years, as long as the border is kept under control....

those former rentals hitting the market should balance things out to where we get back to historical price increases. Here's a personal example of the rental market....

I still own a couple rental homes on 21st st in Owensboro KY and 75% of the homes in the 100 to 300 block are now rental homes. Which is a 50% increase in 5 years.

Very good points

Love the if the border holds comment. We all know what that means, if leftist commies dont win back the WH in 28.



Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(11-09-2025 06:30 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I mean, young first time home buyers are practically priced out before they even get started now. A big percentage of them can't get into a first home. I sincerely want to agree with rath, he's technically correct, BUT, anything that helps those people can't be all bad.

My 20 year old has been working since she was 17. She didnt jump into college because she didnt know what she wanted to do.

She has been taking college classes for the last 3 semesters and a summer, she wants to teach. She probably has socked away 60k or so, she is paying her tuition with cash along the way. I can see her marrying the dork she is dating, God help me... but she at least listened to me about post high school life. I could see her having 100k in cash in the next year. Working with her to set up a Roth and another investment account.

A lot of what the younger generations are doing is on their damn parents. I put my foot down on things, especially college, all of her friends went off to out of state colleges, wasted 3 years of mommy and daddy's money or in debt with loans to the tune of 100k or more, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

She will easily have enough to manage the mortgage market when she is ready to leave from under my roof.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk