50 Year Mortgages, is it worth it?

When you’ve spent your career helping real-estate buyers and business owners navigate complex financing, you get a feel for what works—and what doesn’t. Lately the idea of a 50-year mortgage has resurfaced as a possible tool to improve housing affordability, but let’s dig in and ask: is this really a good deal for the homebuyer?

What’s being proposed

The typical loan in the U.S. is a 30-year fixed mortgage. The new idea: stretch that to 50 years, so 600 monthly payments instead of 360.  The logic: lower monthly payments make more expensive homes reachable for more people. And yes, from a purely cash-flow standpoint that seems appealing.

A numerical example

Let’s assume a buyer takes out a $500,000 loan at an interest rate of 6.50 % — just to pick round numbers. According to one industry source, the monthly payment under 30 years at that rate might be roughly around (for principal + interest) $3,160 (approximate). Meanwhile, stretching to 50 years might reduce the payment by about $340 per month (so approximately $2,820 monthly) for the same loan amount. 

Over the life of the loan:

• 30-year mortgage (360 payments × $3,160) → roughly $1,137,600 paid (excluding taxes, insurance, etc.).

• 50-year mortgage (600 payments × $2,820) → roughly $1,692,000 paid.

So you’re paying about $554,000 more in total payments (again, interest + principal) for the longer term. That aligns with data showing massive added interest cost. 

In short: you get a lower monthly payment, but you pay way more overall, and you build equity far more slowly.

Pros

• Lower monthly payment: That’s immediate relief for cash-flow and qualifying purposes.

• More purchasing power: Buyers might stretch into homes they otherwise couldn’t afford, at least monthly-payment wise.

• Flexibility early on: For a buyer who plans to hold the property a short time, or refinance later into a shorter term, a 50-year could be a temporary tool.  

• Potential for investment reallocation: If you free up monthly cash, you might invest the difference and generate returns—though that’s speculative.

Cons

• Much higher total interest cost: You’ll pay hundreds of thousands more in interest compared to a 30-year loan.  

• Slow equity build-up: Early years of a mortgage mostly cover interest, so over 50 years you still owe a large principal for a long time. In one example: when the 30-year mortgage ends, the 50-year borrower may still owe ~75-80% of original principal.  

• Longer debt burden / into retirement years: If you start at age 35-40, your mortgage won’t end until 85-90. That can complicate retirement planning.  

• Interest rates may be higher: Lenders typically charge more for longer terms (greater risk). So the assumed rate may not be equal to the 30-year rate.  

• Equity risk / negative equity risk: With slower principal pay-down, a market drop leaves you more vulnerable.  

• Doesn’t solve the big issue: Some analysts say the affordability crisis is driven less by loan term and more by supply constraints, rising costs, regulation, etc.  

So — is it worth it?

In my view: only in very narrow circumstances. If a buyer is young, expects to move or refinance within 5–10 years, and primary goal is qualifying for a home now, a 50-year term could be a strategic tool. But as a long-term solution for a “forever home,” I’d steer cautiously.

If you’re buying and plan to stay for 15-30 years or more, a standard 30-year (or even 15-year) term often makes much more sense financially: you’ll own the home debt-free earlier, build equity faster, and minimize total interest paid. The extra cost of a 50-year loan is just too steep for most.

Final words

When someone asks: “Carl, should I go for a 50-year mortgage?” — I’d say: ask yourself three questions:

1. How long do I plan to stay in this home?

2. Am I comfortable carrying debt deep into middle age or retirement?

3. Could I instead buy something slightly smaller or cheaper, or aim for a shorter term and buy with more cash down?

The 50-year idea is interesting, but it’s a tool — not a magic wand. Use it only if the edge it gives you outweighs the very real long-term cost. I’m all for making homeownership accessible, but we also must protect people from buying debt that bites them for decades.