(11-10-2025 01:20 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Sure you do. You'd understand how dumb of an idea this is otherwise.

It's a great idea for banks and developers. Maybe you are a bank or a developer.

I just said I was a homebuilder. I understand the process. I just disagree with you about whether it could be useful or not. Any mortgage agreement can cause problems if not handled correctly by all parties.

The 50 year mortgage is just another arrow in the quiver to possibly help people realize the American Dream. Assuming adequate safeguards to prevent another 2008 crisis, I do not see the harm in giving qualified prospective homeowners another option.

During FDR's first term, objections were raised to the 30 year fixed mortgage initiative. Among the objections (per AI inquiry) were "tempting low-income buyers into homes they couldn’t afford" and as quoted from Banking magazine (1933): “Extending credit to the unfit will repeat the 1920s bubble.” And yet, over 90 years later 30 year fixed mortgages are common.

(11-10-2025 01:20 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Sure you do. You'd understand how dumb of an idea this is otherwise.

It's a great idea for banks and developers. Maybe you are a bank or a developer.

Insane giveaway to banks. People are arguing who cares people only stay in homes like 7 years anyway. Linked below is an amortization calculator. If you take out a 300k loan for 50 years at 8% (rates would be considerably higher on an even longer term) in 7 years you'd have paid your principal balance down 4,200 and paid almost 167k in interest. There's no leaving your home at that point, you've built up nothing in equity. Hell in 20 years of a 50 year mortgage on those terms you'd have only paid down 22k in principal. All BTW to not actually impact your payment all that much. This is an all time bad idea without some sort of mandates regarding how amortization schedules would be calculated out on loans of this length to allow for more principal payment to be applied up front and less overall interest paid, which hell freezes over before that happens.

https://www.calculator.net/amortization-...#calresult

(11-10-2025 01:35 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The 50 year mortgage is just another arrow in the quiver to possibly help people realize the American Dream. Assuming adequate safeguards to prevent another 2008 crisis, I do not see the harm in giving qualified prospective homeowners another option.

During FDR's first term, objections were raised to the 30 year fixed mortgage initiative. Among the objections (per AI inquiry) were "tempting low-income buyers into homes they couldn’t afford" and as quoted from Banking magazine (1933): “Extending credit to the unfit will repeat the 1920s bubble.” And yet, over 90 years later 30 year fixed mortgages are common.

The 30 year term had nothing at all to do with the American dream. In 1933 banks went to the government and said they were not going to lend money anymore due to uncertainty. In 1934 FDR created the FHA to insure compliant bank loans. In 1938 the government created Fannie Mae to buy and sell those insured loans as a commodity.

In exchange for limiting loan to value to mostly 80-90% as opposed to whatever they wanted as was the case prior to 1934, banks got the extended term and insurance they wanted backing their investments.

This is just banks doing it again with a president that lots of bankers probably have on speed dial after 5 decades of development and financing.

(11-09-2025 02:09 PM)maximus Wrote:  Not too much of a fan of this unless it has some refi incentives somehow. In general I think its a bad idea

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Its a terrible idea for the consumer--and an even worse idea for young homeowners. The small reduction in monthly payment is BY FAR offset by the ridiculously huge increases in interest paid over the years. It would lower a $2,500 payment by about $200. If $200 is difference between being able to buy a home or not buy---then you either need to be looking for a cheaper home or your not financially ready to buy a home at all. Worse yet, the early payments on a loan are so interest heavy, you could make home payments for a decade and make almost no headway on the balance. The other long term issue I noticed is a 50 year loan would mean the percentage of workers retiring with a paid off home would drop dramatically----making retirement more difficult---or even impossible for an even larger number of Americans.

(11-10-2025 02:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2025 02:09 PM)maximus Wrote:  Not too much of a fan of this unless it has some refi incentives somehow. In general I think its a bad idea

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Its a terrible idea for the consumer--and an even worse idea for young homeowners. The small reduction in monthly payment is BY FAR offset by the ridiculously huge increases in interest paid over the years. It would lower a $2,500 payment by about $200. If $200 is difference between being able to buy a home or not buy---then you either need to be looking for a cheaper home or your not financially ready to buy a home at all. Worse yet, the early payments on a loan are so interest heavy, you could make home payments for a decade and make almost no headway on the balance. The other long term issue I noticed is a 50 year loan would mean the percentage of workers retiring with a paid off home would drop dramatically----making retirement more difficult---or even impossible for an even larger number of Americans.

You can also add to your house payment going up by adding the fact that insurance and property taxes go up almost every year.

It would be great if you're not looking to stay in your house more than a few years, IMO.

Lower monthly mortgage payment to help offset the terrible interest rate.

The monthly payments will only be a few bucks lower per month if interest is higher than a 30...and it will be higher than a 30. Same reason why a 30 has a higher interest rate than a 20 year loan.

(11-10-2025 02:49 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The monthly payments will only be a few bucks lower per month if interest is higher than a 30...and it will be higher than a 30. Same reason why a 30 has a higher interest rate than a 20 year loan.

Good point

(11-10-2025 10:00 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-10-2025 09:58 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  That's an exaggeration by the way, to make a point.

Yes. We've met before.

Once you get past my resting face, zero-filter attitude, and heavy sarcasm, I'm actually a blast to hang out with. Just ask my two friends.

(11-10-2025 08:01 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(11-09-2025 01:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Video here:

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6384870387112

This only works if the rates are lower on the product.

320K Mortage (for a 400K home)

At 6% you are paying 1918.56 per month on just the loan (no tax ins etc). Over the life of the loan you are paying $50K more in interest than the actual principal on the loan.

Same thing except for 50 years. In the now, you are paying $1684 (appx $230 less) and now paying $370K more in interest than the original principal on the loan. You will not start building any reasonable equity through balance amortization for at least 20 years.


That is not a deal... without rate relief to go along with it.

Equity rarely is based on amortization, it’s based on leveraged return.

If you buy a $400,000 house and put $80,000 down, you have $80,000 in equity. If the home value increases 4% in year one, that’s $16,000 and represents a 20% return on equity, giving you $96,000 in equity. If your payment was $1,700 a month, you made $20,400 in payments. Minus the $16,000 in equity rise means your net occupancy cost was $4,400, or under $400 per month.

Within 5 years that property appreciation is outpacing your annually outlays. Your home equity is over $150,000, and that’s assuming below historical average appreciation rates. Compounding, leveraged returns are the quickest route to increasing wealth and home ownership is, by far, the safest and easiest vehicle for that. I put $20,000 down on a house in 1999 and have over $400,000 in home equity today and zero annual outlays for housing costs other than utilities and maintenance.

All that said, artificially inflating home ownership rates is a horrible practice. 100% financing is a horrible idea. Negative amortization mortgages are stupid. However, if someone has shown the discipline to save a down payment there should be a mechanism to get them in an appropriate home.

Who knew mortgage options would get so many people stirred up?

Entertaining...

Aw hell. This is all just tied into the plan to spin off Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as publicly traded businesses with the upcoming IPOs. Everyone knows the 50 year terms will be more lucrative to the lender and mortgagee (banks) meaning institutional investors will jump in with more enthusiasm.

This is just designed to goose the market cap on the IPO in 1st quarter 2026.

Yeah, this is all to help muh young people get muh homes (insert eye roll here).

(11-10-2025 03:36 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Aw hell. This is all just tied into the plan to spin off Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as publicly traded businesses with the upcoming IPOs. Everyone knows the 50 year terms will be more lucrative to the lender and mortgagee (banks) meaning institutional investors will jump in with more enthusiasm.

This is just designed to goose the market cap on the IPO in 1st quarter 2026.

Yeah, this is all to help muh young people get muh homes (insert eye roll here).

You can tell you're a closing attorney. You rarely make 2 posts on any subject. This one has you revved up through the rafters.

Who knew that Trump's idea to kick start home ownership would turn into some banking conspiracy to rob people?

I bet you anything Trump, like he does with most ideas he tosses out to the media, hasn't even spoken to anybody outside his Cabinet about this.

(11-10-2025 03:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-10-2025 03:36 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Aw hell. This is all just tied into the plan to spin off Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as publicly traded businesses with the upcoming IPOs. Everyone knows the 50 year terms will be more lucrative to the lender and mortgagee (banks) meaning institutional investors will jump in with more enthusiasm.

This is just designed to goose the market cap on the IPO in 1st quarter 2026.

Yeah, this is all to help muh young people get muh homes (insert eye roll here).

You can tell you're a closing attorney. You rarely make 2 posts on any subject. This one has you revved up through the rafters.

Who knew that Trump's idea to kick start home ownership would turn into some banking conspiracy to rob people?

I bet you anything Trump, like he does with most ideas he tosses out to the media, hasn't even spoken to anybody outside his Cabinet about this.

Thats what I think. Trump's best trait is he is a great problem solver. Trump's biggest liability is that he tends to brain storm in public and throw out ideas that will never make it to the implementation phase. That works fine in business---but people tend to freak out when a president throws out off the cuff suggestions. I think his idea to pay a "tarriff dividend" to most every household of $2,000 is an equally bad idea. Its the same helicopter "Covid" money crap that caused the most recent huge round of inflation. These are two bad ideas that I suspect Trump will not implement as policy once its all said and done.

(11-10-2025 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-10-2025 03:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-10-2025 03:36 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Aw hell. This is all just tied into the plan to spin off Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as publicly traded businesses with the upcoming IPOs. Everyone knows the 50 year terms will be more lucrative to the lender and mortgagee (banks) meaning institutional investors will jump in with more enthusiasm.

This is just designed to goose the market cap on the IPO in 1st quarter 2026.

Yeah, this is all to help muh young people get muh homes (insert eye roll here).

You can tell you're a closing attorney. You rarely make 2 posts on any subject. This one has you revved up through the rafters.

Who knew that Trump's idea to kick start home ownership would turn into some banking conspiracy to rob people?

I bet you anything Trump, like he does with most ideas he tosses out to the media, hasn't even spoken to anybody outside his Cabinet about this.

Thats what I think. Trump's best trait is he is a great problem solver. Trump's biggest liability is that he tends to brain storm in public and throw out ideas that will never make it to the implementation phase. That works fine in business---but people tend to freak out when a president throws out off the cuff suggestions. I think his idea to pay a "tarriff dividend" to most every household of $2,000 is an equally bad idea. Its the same helicopter "Covid" money crap that caused the most recent huge round of inflation. These are two bad ideas that I suspect Trump will not implement as policy once its all said and done.

I can almost guarantee that's what this is. If I had known it was going to give so many people in here hives, I never would have posted it.

Why not? His good ideas deserve to be discussed. So do his rotten ones. He has plenty of both.

And I agree with AC...the tariff distribution thing is about as dumb of an idea as he's had in a long while. Perhaps he thinks he can sway SCOTUS' ruling on the tariff powers issue by causing a potential groundswell of public outcry from people who want a government check.

Strange messaging week.

"Thats what I think. Trump's best trait is he is a great problem solver. Trump's biggest liability is that he tends to brain storm in public and throw out ideas that will never make it to the implementation phase. That works fine in business---but people tend to freak out when a president throws out off the cuff suggestions. I think his idea to pay a "tarriff dividend" to most every household of $2,000 is an equally bad idea. Its the same helicopter "Covid" money crap that caused the most recent huge round of inflation. These are two bad ideas that I suspect Trump will not implement as policy once its all said and done." Attackcoog

I agree 100%. What he's doing is almost like Imadummys promises that he can't deliver. Just shut the Schiff up Trump, you're just giving fodder to the demons.

(11-10-2025 05:37 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Why not? His good ideas deserve to be discussed. So do his rotten ones. He has plenty of both.

And I agree with AC...the tariff distribution thing is about as dumb of an idea as he's had in a long while. Perhaps he thinks he can sway SCOTUS' ruling on the tariff powers issue by causing a potential groundswell of public outcry from people who want a government check.

Strange messaging week.

Why not is b/c I'm fine debating Trump's idea. I just don't want it to be my thread. Just my nature.

I feel like I have to defend the idea when I post it, and in this case, I have so little interest in it, it's just a pain in the butt for nothing.

That's why I said I wished I hadn't posted it. I really didn't think it would be so controversial, since all mortgages are voluntary, lol.

Personally, I don't care if it's implemented, or not. If it isn't, then fine. If it is, nobody is going to be forced into a mortgage they don't want, so who cares?