I disagree @Cernovich May I respectfully offer a rebuttal from my own experiences 🙏 People today love to wax nostalgic about the good 'ole days of buying a home 'cheap'... because they never had to endure the economy back then, when homes were 'cheap'. They only see how it all worked out, that the home is now worth multiples more but neglect 'how it got there'. I am 59. The first home I bought in the 1992, I had to put down 20% of the home amount and I was paying around 9% interest rate (!!!) and i was underwater in the loan for over a decade. Further, the generation of home owners that preceded me had 10%+ interest rate on their mortgages - so the homes 'my generation' was buying from was releasing the prior owners from a huge burden, they thanked us profusely and they would say "free at last" and turn to their loved ones and say "we finally did it" Refinancing boom didn't become a thing until late late 1990's - and we were refinancing FROM 9% TO 6% - then in mid 2000's we refinanced down to around 4% - then in mid 2010's down to around 3.5% a 50 year mortgage is a slam dunk, and with a low down payment, WOW 🤩 if i were a first time home owner i would take it so fast your head would spin, you truly can't go wrong. I think it's inaccurate to look at the duration "you wont pay it off till your 90 years old" because that doesn't anticipate intrinsic appreciation of the underlying asset - nor the leverage it creates for future investments, nor the opportunities for resale. (ten years ago if someone borrowed money from a bank to buy bitcoin, it worked out well. In fact, I borrowed a bunch of money to buy stock in Administaff (now called Insperity $NSP) when it was $2 a share around 2002, it went to $40+. Only in retrosepct do I 'look smart' from holding that risk. Debt is not a new invention, nor is it a bad thing. It's what allows people to improve their economic situation and create generational wealth. Mortgages and home ownership is what created the American middle class and, i can say with authority from living in NYC and the boroughs, that it is also the immigrant success story. People come to America: a. get crappy jobs b. scrape up money to buy a home (something almost totally unobtainable for most people in the countries they are immigrating from, also most of those cultures they are leaving don't permit/tolerate women to work, so it's also the first time that a woman can become somewhat independent, plan and contribute for a future, have her own friends, pick up her kids from school, etc) c. They put their kids through school d. after a decade+ they sell their home to the next generation of immigrants and upper middle class aspirants e. Move to the burbs Lending: It is also my experience having been a significant investor in one of the largest preferred SBA 7(a) and 504 lenders, that people always anticipate arbitraging their loans. How can people get wealthy if they are deprived of the opportunities to hold risk, and this mechanism is expressed thru 'debt'. 🚨 After the Great Financial Crisis of mid 2000s the credit markets got WRECKED and credit worthiness evaluations *excluded* most prospective first time home owners. A lot of the 'lack of home ownership' that we are seeing now, is largely because of that - the problems from the credit markets from the generation before that now doesn't have the liquidity from having a home. In order to resolve bank's unwillingness to lend, and to stimulate the appetite for lending to risky borrowers and to improve the debt's secondary and tertiary markets, we desperately need 50 year paper. H/t to our friend @pulte and others for making this possible. And thank you also Mike, you're awesome 🙏
Trump has too many people in private equity and hedge funds around him. They gobble up housing to harvest tax losses for wealthy clients and big fees. They want every human to be a “bond.” Born in debt. 50 year mortgages.

Nov 9, 2025 · 3:25 PM UTC

Adam, you are one of only about five people in the world who's perspectives I take seriously and I'll change my mind on after listening Thank you for sharing this
9
6
303
thank you my brother
5
1
155
Replying to @adamscrabble
The above is true but what’s different is bonus and accelerated depreciation. Funds that tax loss harvest. Lots of financial engineering issues that need to be solved before talking 50 years.
14
12
310
I agree that PE soaking up starter home inventory and that strategies of tax schemas distort the market, and that needs solutions also. 50yr paper resolves one knot in a complex tapestry of problems & complements the proper sequence for stimulating home ownership
17
7
161
This is a great read thank you Adam. I’m curious how technology & modular/3 D home building reduces home values in 50 years if at all?
1
1
17
i invested 3 decades ago in modular home construction but it was way to early, supple chains, prefab constuction and technology were big contraints, although im not an investor in the category currently, it will clearly be a huge boom going forward and im way in favor of it
4
2
31
Good post, thank you. We've about 150 people in three mex restaurants, great people, every single one of them. Owned for ~15 yrs, but only 10 or so bought homes (most in past several years). The 50-yr might double the # of our people who can afford to get a home, may be great.
1
3
Our first home was $51.5k. $10.5k down (life savings) 15% interest rate. September 1982. Spouse and I together didn't make $10 per hour. It was not easy. Of course, we didn't spend $30 a day at Starbuck's then fucking cry that we couldn't afford a home.
18
4
12
If I'm in my 40s and still haven't bought a home, I'd go for the 50-year mortgage vs the 30 year. Given my age once the home is paid off, I'd rather have an overall cheaper monthly payment.
4
16
50 year mortgages are a band-aid instead of addressing the root causes which are: 1. inability to create new housing supply where there are jobs 2. downward pressure on US wages from A. Illegal immigration B. Legal immigration C. Automation eg AI D. Outsourcing E. US education declines There is an omission in the above analysis and then there is one point which I would argue has changed in an important way. First the error of omission is the cost of education. It's significantly more expensive today in "real terms" than was in 1992, which was also a market peak, I'd add eg "Survive until 1995", so it's not a good representative year regarding housing affordability. Back to education, education was increasingly a job requirement for good, high paying jobs, and it became more expensive than ever as time past. This is key context for looking at housing affordability. Yes, interest rates are high, but Millenials also had to pay their student loans, not just their homes. As for the error, this has changed: "People come to America: a. get crappy jobs b. scrape up money to buy a home (something almost totally unobtainable for most people in the countries they are immigrating from, also most of those cultures they are leaving don't permit/tolerate women to work, so it's also the first time that a woman can become somewhat independent, plan and contribute for a future, have her own friends, pick up her kids from school, etc)" People no longer come to America to permanently live in America. The USD is so powerful relative to their home currencies, health care is so unaffordable, and crime relatively worse. As such, they come to earn money and send it back home because that is where, for most countries (if you're coming from Yemen no, but India or China or any country that isn't in chaos), they will retire and even build a family. A 50 year mortgage is yet another government subsidy, which will be reflected in the price and will likely not improve housing affordability for the young people who need it most, especially if their competition for these homes such as private equity, can have the same rules apply.
1
22
Agree, however my concern is the 50-year will be even more inflationary, driving home prices up faster. That’ll drive competing rents up. Winners will be buyers from 2010-2020 who refi’d at 2.875% Losers will be renters, and those in 2030+ trying to enter an inflated market.
1
2
8
I don’t feel good about the 50 year product, even though: * Holding very long dated assets is an excellent use of government backstop, especially when compared the social security and negative dated student loans. * Borrowers in most states have a lot of flexibility around that actual payment schedule. As you get older you can accelerate payments, and pull them back to a lower baseline when you feel hardship without refinancing from a position of weakness. * More financial products is intrinsically better than fewer, and the government market making in the area will invite private participation, including foreign institutional investors. * I personally have a large interest-only mortgage locked to 2021 rates, which has been a much cheaper source of funds than variable margin accounts. Still it feels bad: it feels like Japan in the early 90s introducing 100 year mortgages, more a symbol of decline than strength. It feels like it’s just another demand subsidy rather than supply reform, so prices will go up for incumbents. There are other policies that could alleviate these fears: Assumable mortgages, because it’s rare to live in a house for 50 years. Exclusion of corporate owners, jumbo, non-primary homes. (Primary multi-unit seems ok). If Pulte combined this with an announcement about true race neutrality, gutting Section 8, and exclusion of all properties in markets with “affordable unit” requirements, it would be a far less bitter pill.
1
We are the same age - we bought our first house in early 1990 and our interest rate was 10% and that was down from where they had been - late 1979 they had reached nearly 15% - imagine that today. The house was $130,000. I remember noticing some of the nicer houses and wondering how we would ever be able to have something like that - it seemed impossible at the time. We ended up selling that house in late 1992. Moved in with my parents while we built our first house. In 2014 we moved into our newly built 6,500 sq ft home once thought unimaginable back in 1990.
at any time, they are free to self-convert their 50yr note to a lower term by paying down principal. So this literally is about simply giving folks the choice to invest in a property (appreciating asset) that they could not otherwise consider, at present.
1
16
This guy never misses. He can't keep getting away with changing my mind this often
Thank you for posted a calm a reasoned version of the pro 50 year argument.
How much was this home? 9% rates are fine on homes that aren’t priced as if rates are at 2%.
9
This sounds persuasive but misses the structural differences in housing today. If 30 yr fixed mortgages no longer make homes affordable, the system is broken. 50 year mortgages benefit incumbents, banks, builders and governments.
2
2
1
29
Thank you for your post-as usual it helps me see this issue differently. Trump administration needs to explain this better. 🙏
1
This is a fantastic post
7
"In order to resolve bank's unwillingness to lend, and to stimulate the appetite for lending to risky borrowers and to improve the debt's secondary and tertiary markets, we desperately need 50 year paper." Why so many risky borrowers in the US? Because your economy does not produce the standard of living Americans used to enjoy (CA balance) As manufacturing was hollowed out, the difference was made up on by printing/borrowing aka more debt US needs to industrialise at record speed. For that needs a new education system (which would take a generation to see results) I How to industrialise w/ USD as world reserve currency? More 50 year debt won't fix a debt problem
1
1
3
👏👏 👏
1
everyone here talking about the high interest rates they paid for their house back in the day. give the amount you paid for your house as well please
25
At the current rates of saving 5% on payments, it doesn’t seem to help. I’m sure @pulte knows that so I expect some other benefits for the 50 year to make it meaningful. A different amortization schedule or the government buys down the rate
Correct. Who am I to say 50 year mortgages are a bad idea? The house I just sold for 350- I purchased 10 years ago for 170. That neighborhood has doubled in value but is become much less safe in that stretch of time. I wouldn’t be able to afford that at 350 10 years ago- not even close. The 50 year mortgage seems like it lets younger people into the home ownership game in a time where it seems impossible.
1
6