President Donald Trump proposed 50-year mortgages recently as a solution to persistent affordability issues in the real estate market.

Critics of the plan said it would do little to resolve core problems in the housing market, such as lack of supply, and mean most borrowers would pay significantly more in interest over the life of the loan.

The plan might have some logistical issues: The average life expectancy for an American is around 79 years.

Yet some analysts have argued that most people don’t hold 30-year mortgages for a full term anyway and paying off a high-priced home might not be a realistic goal for the typical homebuyer.

Question: Could a 50-year mortgage work?

Economists

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: Naïve pundits might recalculate mortgage payments without changing rates for the longer loan term. Anyone who assumes that 50-year rates would be the same as 30-year rates does not understand interest rate risk. The increased rate could make this a higher payment than a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. More logical to reduce the monthly payment is an interest-only mortgage with a balloon in five or 10 years, possibly with an option to extend at market rates.

Caroline Freund, University of California-San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: A 50-year mortgage won’t fix affordability. The real issue is lack of supply, and longer loans don’t build more homes. In fact, they could raise prices by boosting demand. We already see too little turnover because many homeowners are locked into very low 30-year rates. And since borrowers can refinance when rates drop, lenders already take on much of the risk.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Extending the mortgage period creates much higher risks for homebuyers as they are exposed to market variances before accumulating much equity. Longer repayment imposes prolonged commitment to debt, increasing vulnerability to economic fluctuations or personal financial hardships. Further fuels pressures by encouraging people to buy homes they cannot really afford. Total cost for homeownership increases while interest payments accumulate over extended period making housing more expensive in long run with little advantage over renting.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: But only in limited circumstances. The longer mortgage will lower the monthly payment, which would allow people who are close to qualify for a mortgage. They won’t build up much equity in the early years, but if the housing market is appreciating rapidly, just getting into the market would allow equity to be built. There is a worry that they won’t outlive their mortgage, but if interest rates decline, the loan can be refinanced to a shorter term.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: After a decade of paying interest on a 50-year loan you’ve built very little equity. This is bad for the borrower because you’ve spent all that money without benefiting yourself, and bad for the lender because the loan is more likely to default. It will only work if the government guarantees the loan, shifting the risk to the taxpayers. When a politician promises to make something more affordable by spending other people’s money, my warning radar goes off.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: A 50-year mortgage does not address the fundamental cause of the housing affordability crisis, which is an insufficient supply of housing. Extending the maturity will have a limited impact on borrowers. Lenders will charge a higher rate for a 50-year mortgage, which will reduce the borrower’s monthly savings arising from the longer maturity. Homeowners with a 50-year mortgage will build equity more slowly and pay more in interest over the life of the loan.

Ray Major, economist

YES: A 50-year mortgage would lower monthly payments for the borrower, allowing more people to afford purchasing a house. Housing prices would then rise as more buyers chase limited housing supplies, wiping out any potential benefits. Furthermore, borrowers would build equity far more slowly. This would create a rent-for-life situation unless they diligently prepay their mortgage with a goal of building equity and reducing the term of the loan.

Executives

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: While creation of a 50-year mortgage would lower monthly payments somewhat, interest rates would likely be higher and long-term costs significantly higher. Buyers would wait 30 years or more to accumulate significant equity outside of appreciation. Given the age of most buyers, many would not outlive their mortgage. A better solution would be a strong economy, low interest rates and eased regulations and restrictions that add costs but no value to building affordable homes.

Phil Blair, Manpower

YES: Getting into the home appreciation game is key to developing family wealth. I am surprised that the additional 20 years do not lower the monthly payments more significantly, probably due to high interest rates and minimal loan repayment. But anything that lets homebuyers afford to purchase a house should be considered.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

NO: The proposal does not build housing, which is really the only way out of this mess. It is dead on arrival as a housing solution. Here’s why: A median $900,000 San Diego home purchased with 10% down, at an interest rate of 6.26%, only yields $250/month lower mortgage payments for 50 vs. 30 years, while greatly indebting the buyer to an additional $750,000 for the extra 20 years. Programs to deliver housing are needed, not political gimmickry.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: For individual buyers, it can be a tool — especially in expensive urban markets like San Diego, where monthly affordability is the barrier. For housing policy, it’s not a solution. The shortage is structural: limited new builds, restrictive zoning, and high construction costs. Financing tweaks don’t address those. A 50-year mortgage works in the sense that it can help some buyers get in the door, but it’s more of a Band-Aid than a cure.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

NO: A 50-year mortgage trims the monthly payment but doubles the total interest paid. After 10 years of payments, when most sell or refinance, about 5% of the principal would be paid. Paradoxically, if monthly payments appear more affordable, demand may drive prices to cancel out the monthly difference. The underlying problem remains a limited supply. People are trapped by their low-interest mortgages. The obvious way to affect housing liquidity is lower interest rates, which will drive further inflation.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: A 50-year mortgage may lower monthly payments slightly, but it can also mean higher interest rates, slower equity growth, increased lifetime interest paid, and the risk of carrying debt into retirement. While the lower monthly cost may seem attractive, it doesn’t address the underlying issues of housing affordability. Solutions require more homes for sale, lower interest rates, and wages and home prices that align with each other. A 50-year mortgage is a short-term fix with long-term risks.

©2025 The San Diego Union-Tribune. Visit sandiegouniontribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.