A proposed 50-year mortgage, intended to improve housing affordability, is a flawed solution. The extended term means borrowers build equity at a negligible rate, making the financial outcome similar to renting and failing to deliver the key wealth-building benefit of homeownership. It's a demand-side fix for a supply-side problem.

Related Insights

The most effective way to lower housing prices is to increase supply. Instead of artificially freezing rents, which discourages investment, policymakers should remove regulations that make building new units difficult. More construction creates more competition, which naturally drives down prices for everyone.

Meaningful affordability cannot be achieved with superficial fixes. It requires long-term, structural solutions: building 5-10 million more homes to address housing costs (40% of CPI), implementing universal healthcare to lower medical expenses, expanding public higher education, and aggressive antitrust enforcement to foster competition.

The proposal of a 50-year mortgage is not a solution but a symptom of a deeply unhealthy economy. It's like giving insulin to a diabetic: it manages the immediate problem (unaffordable payments) without addressing the root cause (a severe lack of housing supply and inflationary pressures).

Common wisdom to rapidly pay off a mortgage is suboptimal. Due to compounding, investing extra cash—even if the return rate merely matches your mortgage interest—will generate significantly more wealth over time. One investment compounds up while the other debt amortizes down, creating a large wealth gap.

The trope that renting is 'throwing away money' is flawed. Rent is a payment for valuable, non-financial assets like location flexibility, freedom from ownership costs (taxes, repairs), and the option to invest capital elsewhere—potentially in higher-return, more diversified assets like the stock market.

The current housing market shows an unprecedented 40% cost advantage for renting over owning a home. This massive gap presents a significant headwind for new multi-family construction, as developers would need 25-30% rent growth for projects to be financially viable, an unlikely scenario in a soft market.

A major driver of today's housing scarcity is that homeowners, particularly Boomers, who refinanced into sub-3% mortgages have no financial incentive to ever sell. This seemingly positive economic condition has had the negative side effect of locking vast amounts of housing inventory in place, worsening the supply crisis.

For those who can afford a down payment but not the monthly mortgage, Emma Hernan suggests a "buy and rent" strategy. Purchase the property, place a tenant in it to cover the mortgage payments, and build equity. You can then move in years later when your financial situation improves.

Extending mortgage terms doesn't solve housing affordability because it primarily boosts demand for a fixed supply of homes. This drives asset prices higher, as sellers adjust prices to match buyers' new monthly payment capacity. The historical example of Japan's housing bubble, fueled by 100-year mortgages, illustrates this danger.

The most effective solution to the housing crisis is to radically increase supply by removing restrictive zoning and permitting laws. Government interventions like subsidies often create market-distorting bubbles, whereas a free market allows builders to meet demand and naturally stabilize prices.