 |
|
|
|||||
Want more housing market stories from Lance Lamberts ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. Speaking at ResiDay 2025 on Friday, FHFA Director Bill Pulte broke news, stating that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will remain in conservatorshipeasing industry fears that an exit could put upward pressure on mortgage rates. Instead, he said the government plans to sell up to 5% of their shares back to the public. Pulte added, I anticipate that the president will make a decision either this quarter or early next year as it relates to the IPO. Pulte wasnt done breaking news. Amid strained housing affordability, President Donald Trump and Pulte announced on X.com on Saturday that theyre working on a 50-year mortgage option to help lower some homebuyers initial monthly payments. For todays piece, Im going to run through 11-data backed thoughts on 50-year mortgages. Before we get into the article, we should note that we dont know the finer details of the option nor if theyll actually go through with it. 1. A 50-year mortgage would come with a higher interest rate Lenders charge more for longer-term loans because they take on additional risk. The further out the repayment period stretches, the greater the uncertainty around inflation, interest rates, and credit risk. Historically, the 30-year fixed mortgage rate has averaged about 57 basis points higher than the 15-year rate. If a 50-year option were introduced at scale, borrowers could expect an even steeper premiumlikely adding another fraction of a percentage point to the rate in exchange for lower monthly payments. 2. Logan Mohtashami estimates that a 50-year mortgage would carry a rate roughly 42 to 57 basis points higher than the 30-year Logan Mohtashami, lead analyst at HousingWire, tells ResiClub that he estimates that a 50-year mortgage would carry an interest rate roughly 42 to 57 basis points higher than the standard 30-year fixed mortgage. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate, as tracked by Freddie Mac, came in at 6.22% last week. At that level, the average 50-year fixed mortgage rate would be somewhere between 6.64% to 6.79%, assuming Mohtashamis additional premium is correct. 3. The monthly principal and interest on a 50-year mortgage would be a little less than on a 30-year The core appeal of a 50-year loan is obvious: lower monthly payments. Stretching the repayment period over half a century spreads the same principal across 20 additional years, trimming the monthly cost. For example, on a $400,000 mortgage with a 6.22% interest rate, the monthly principal and interest payment would be roughly $2,455 on a 30-year mortgage. A 50-year mortgage at a 6.64% interest rate would lower that to around $2,297a savings of about $158 per month, or roughly 7% less. That could be meaningful for some homebuyers on the edge of affordability. However, its far smaller than the monthly payment reduction that comes from moving from a 15-year mortgage to a 30-year mortgage. I truly empathize with the challenges that young homebuyers face as they embark on their journey to purchase their first home. They finance over 90% of their home purchases, and mortgage rates remain high compared to what they saw from 2011-2022. I applaud the administrations efforts to support young homebuyers this year; their intentions are commendable. Nevertheless, I worry that raising loan amortization will create other challenges. Higher levels of total interest payments and less equity buildup, all for just a few hundred dollars in savingssomething a mere 0.50% to 1.00% decrease in mortgage rates could achieve instead from today’s levels It’s important to recognize that the housing market is already heavily subsidized through the 30-year fixed-rate loan and favorable tax policies. As the market naturally shifts toward favoring buyers, we are seeing an increase in supply and a slowdown in [home] price growth. Historically, this is how the [housing] market has found its balance in other periods after big increases in prices such as we saw from 1943-1947 and 1974-1979the aftermath of those periods didn’t have a housing bubble crash in prices, but in time affordability did get better. – Logan Mohtashami, lead analyst of HousingWire, tells ResiClub My sense is that this is mostly policy theater. The fact is that prices and rates are high and theres not much policy can do about that. Shifting from an already very long 30-year term to 0-year would be pretty marginal for monthlies and would of course do nothing to help lower down payments. – Housing analyst Aziz Sunderji, the founder of Home Economics, tells ResiClub 4. A borrower would pay substantially more in total interest using a 50-year mortgage The total interest paid over 50 years balloons. On that same $400,000 loan example, a 30-year borrower would pay roughly $483,000 in interest by the time its paid off. A 50-year borrower? Closer to $980,000roughly half a million dollars more in financing cost. That gap is the trade-off between short-term affordability and long-term efficiency. The 50-year mortgage dramatically slows the pace of principal repayment, meaning homeowners stay leveraged for longer and build wealth through amortization much more slowly. 5. The vast majority of 50-year borrowers wouldnt actually stick around for 50 years A common online criticism of the 50-year mortgage is that it would leave borrowers paying well into retirementor possibly never living to see the loan fully paid off. Im not going to say thats an invalid concern. But its important to keep in mind that most mortgages already dont reach full term. Even with a standard 30-year fixed mortgage, few homeowners stay put long enough to make the final payment. The typical U.S. homeowner stays in their house for 11.8 years, according to Redfin. 6. A 50-year mortgage borrower builds equity much slower In the early years of any mortgage, most of the payment goes toward interest. Stretch that loan to 50 years, and it takes much longer before principal repayment meaningfully accelerates. In the hypothetical above, after 10 years, a 30-year borrower will have paid off roughly 20% of their balance. The 50-year borrower? Only about 9%. That means homeowners could feel stuck for longerparticularly if home prices flatten or dip. It could also make refinancing or selling in the early years trickier, since equity cushions take more time to form. 7. If the 50-year borrower invests their monthly payment savings, it makes up for some of the slower principal payoff There is a counterargument: If 50-year borrowers invest their monthly payment savings (the difference between what theyd pay for a 15-year or 30-year mortgage), those returns could help offset the slower equity build. In a ResiClub analysis, assuming a $400,000 mortgage, 2% annual home price appreciation, and 7% annual investment returns, the 50-year borrower who invests their monthly savings does start to narrow the gap over time. The 15-year borrower builds wealth fastest through home equity, but over decades, the invested difference can partly close the wealth delta. Of course, that requires actually investing the savings. 8. In a weak home price appreciation market, a 50-year mortgage is less appealing If home price growth remains modest for the rest of the decade while national affordability slowly improves, the 50-year mortgage becomes less appealing, according to ResiClubs analysis. In a higher home price growth environmentlike the 2012 to 2022 perioda 50-year loan becomes more compelling for borrowers whose choice is either buying with a 50-year mortgage (because they cant afford a 15- or 30-year option) or continuing to rent and build no equity at all. 9. Rolling out a 50-year mortgage could create some additional housing demandbut its unlikely to be anything dramatic A 50-year mortgage could pull a modest number of buyers off the sidelines. But dont expect a huge housing demand surge. Given the math and housing backdrop (soft national levels of appreciation), the product would likely remain niche. 10. The public isnt crazy about the idea Early polling suggests the 50-year mortgage isnt winning hearts. In a ResiClub poll conducted November 8, 2025, over 2,300 respondents on X.com weighed in on the Trump-Pulte announcemnt. A majority said their reaction was either unfavorable or very unfavorable. 11. The lackluster public response to the 50-year mortgage rollout decreases the likelihood of it happening Without strong political or market enthusiasm, the odds of a true nationwide 50-year mortgage rolling out in the next few months remain low. For it to gain traction, it would require both regulatory approval and political will. The administration tested the watersand given the response, it may stop short of fully implementing it.
Category:
E-Commerce
Retirement saving requires key decisions: when to start, how much to save, and where to invest. The investing decision has drawn more attention as government regulators work to open 401(k) plans to alternative assets such as private market investments.Below, we compare the paths of two hypothetical retirement savers and their outcomes. A tale of two retirement savers Laura and JR are two 25-year-olds newly employed at the same company, in the same role. Step 1: Deciding to Save On her first day at work, Laura committed 10% of her $75,000 salary to her 401(k). That earned her company’s 3% annual match (it matches 50% up to 6%), and 13% in total savings. She still had room in her budget for weekends filled with activities.JR was more worried about now. Rather than putting money into a 401(k) he wouldn’t touch for decades, he enjoyed his $75,000 salary. Five years later, JR began to build his nest egg. He opted for the minimum contribution rate to qualify for the company match, contributing 6% with a 3% match. Step 2: How to Invest Laura and JR’s employer offered many investment vehicles, including target-date funds. One invested only in public stocks and bonds; the other kept a 15% allocation to private equity and private credit across the glide path.Laura preferred the public-only target-date fund for its simplicity and transparency. JR was also drawn to the target-date options and their ease of use. However, he went with the private market option since it promised higher returns, and to make up for his late start. He figured he could quickly recover five years of missed contributions, given that he had 35 years until retirement. From earnings years to retirement Laura and JR both rose steadily to senior management positions. Their career progression and their salaries stayed in tandem. By the time they were turning 65 and approaching retirement, each was earning $178,620 a year. There had been no changes to their 401(k) contribution rates or their company’s matching formula. As Laura and JR prepared to retire, they reviewed their 401(k)s.For JR, the target-date fund with private markets had paid off. Over 35 years of investing, the fund delivered an annualized return of 8.9%, compared with 8.4% for the public-only option. This left him with a balance of about $2 million. Combined with Social Security, JR felt that he could enjoy retirement without the risk of outliving his savings.The public-only TDF underperformed compared with the private markets TDF, but Laura didn’t mind. Over 40 years of investing, her 401(k) account balance grew to more than $3 million. By starting earlier and contributing more, she harnessed the power of compounding returns to a much greater extent than JR had.JR’s private markets sleeve gave him a small edge, but Laura’s decision to start saving earlier and save more made the real difference. Compounding did the rest, turning her steady contributions into a balance far larger than JR’s.The bottom line: It is far better to focus on how much to save and when to start saving, instead of the whims of the public and private markets. Behind the curtain In illustrating the importance of saving early and saving more, we had to make several assumptions. We assumed that Laura and JR earn the same salary and stay at the same employer for their entire careers, with no breaks in employment. We assumed stocks, bonds, and private markets all delivered the long-term return expectations set by Morningstar Investment Management. It’s not a given that a target-date fund with a 15% allocation to private markets would outperform a similar strategy focused solely on public stocks and bonds, especially after fees.There is debate about whether private equity funds outperform their public counterparts. A Morningstar analysis concluded that private equity funds are best thought of as another form of active management, where a handful of funds may significantly outperform their peers, but median returns are similar (or worse) to public market funds.Moreover, private markets present additional challenges for forecasting due to the heterogeneity in the underlying investments. The results should be viewed as more of a best-case scenario for target-date funds with private market exposure. This article was provided to The Associated Press by Morningstar. For more personal finance content, go to https://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance Jason Kephart, CFA, is a senior principal, multi-asset strategy ratings, for Morningstar.Spencer Look is an associate director, retirement studies for Morningstar Investment Management LLC. Samantha Lamas is a senior behavioral insights researcher for Morningstar. Jason Kephart, Spencer Look, and Samantha Lamas of Morningstar
Category:
E-Commerce
After enough Democrats caved this week and agreed to fund the federal government without guarantees for extending healthcare subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, a big question on the minds of many is Will my health insurance premiums go up? Unfortunately, the answer is likely to be a resounding yes, according to data compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the nonprofit health research institute. Heres how much more individuals and families of four can expect to pay for their healthcare premiums in 2026, unless Republicans decide to extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) enhanced premium tax creditssomething the majority of GOP congresspeople have repeatedly said they have no plans to do. Why are healthcare premiums likely to rise in 2026? Yesterday, eight Democratic and independent senators who are not up for reelection in the midterms next year voted to support a Republican Senate resolution that would fund the federal government and thus end the longest U.S. government shutdown in history. However, the agreement did not include the primary thing that Democrats had been holding out for: an extension of the Affordable Care Acts (ACA) expiring enhanced premium tax credits. This is a credit that millions of Americans received from the federal government to help pay for the cost of Americas expensive healthcare premiums. As part of the deal to reopen the government, the Senate Democrats got the Republicans to agree to a vote on extending healthcare credits before the end of the year. But that is hardly a concession, as with the government now looking set to reopen (the House still has to vote), Democrats have no leverage over their Republican counterparts to compel them to vote in favor of the tax credit extension. Without the extension of the tax credits, tens of millions of Americans will pay more for their health insurance in 2026and in many cases a lot more. The increased financial burden will significantly affect already cash-strapped Americans. How much more the average American will have to pay for their already costly healthcare will depend on their income level. How much health insurance premiums will rise for individuals According to KFF data, individuals can expect to pay up to $1,836 more per year for their healthcare premiums. Heres how that breaks down by income level: $18,000 (115% of the Federal Poverty Level): $378 more $22,000 (141% FPL): $794 more $28,000 (179% FPL): $1,238 $35,000 (224% FPL): $1,582 $45,000 (288% FPL): $1,836 $55,000 (351% FPL): $1,469 $65,000 (415% FPL): Varies How much health insurance premiums will rise for a family of four The dollar amount increases for families of four are even worse, according to KFF. Families of four can expect to pay up to $3,735 more per year: $40,000 (124% FPL): $840 more $45,000 (140% FPL): $1,607 $55,000 (171% FPL): $2,404 $75,000 (233% FPL): $3,368 $90,000 (280% FPL): $3,735 $110,000 (342% FPL): $3,201 $130,000 (404% FPL): Varies As KFF notes in its report, In other words, expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits is estimated to more than double what subsidized enrollees currently pay annually for premiumsa 114% increase from an average of $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026. Non-ACA health insurance premiums will likely rise Its not just the ACA. Americans with employer-based health insurance will likely also see their premiums increase in 2026. According to an NPR report, many employees could see their paycheck deductions for employer-sponsored health care plans surge by 6% to 7% in 2026. Unfortunately, this should come as little surprise, as employer-based healthcare premiums have been surging for more than 25 yearsfar outpacing the rate of inflation. As NPR noted, in 1999, the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan for a family of four had a premium cost of $5,791. By 2024, that premium had skyrocketed to $25,572a 342% increase. Public opinion overwhelmingly supports ACA tax credit extension A KFF poll published on November 6 found that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum support extending the enhanced premium tax credits, including 94% of Democrats, 76% of independents, and 50% of Republicans. Even 44% of MAGA supporters support the tax credit extension. That number jumps higher among Republicans who dont identify as MAGA, with 72% of non-MAGA supporters among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents supporting the extension of credits. Politicians in Congress will have to answer to those same voters come the midterms next year, when many Americans will be feeling the impact of higher premiums.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||