50-Year Mortgages That Children Can Inherit
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
It’s like fighting inflation by giving out money.
Canada offered 40 year mortgages (federally insured) and then quickly stopped when prices jumped with people maxing out their “lower payments”.
Real estate are great investments, just don’t count your own residence as one.
reminds me of how 0-interest financing and 72-month loans have pushed vehicle prices ever higher.
I love the F-150 and they’re great trucks but I always felt it’s f*ked up a higher trim can easily cost more than an entry level Porsche
1) It allows room for people to jump conclusions, get emotional and generates views.
2) The scheme is never explained in the news.
These long mortgages exist in Japan and Sweden at least. Both have 100-year mortgages. It's like renting in that you pay monthly, never fully own. It's like owning that you have owners rights. Your children have a choice when inheriting to continue the deal or give it up.
They say this is "early stage proposal", which I interpret as being fluff that will lead nowhere.
Indeed, for mortgages, it's common to have laws which explicitly allow them to be inherited. Otherwise, a death could be a goldmine for creditors and a crisis for people living in relatives' homes. In most cases, so long as the child continues coming up with mortgage payments on their parent's home, they're safe, even if they might not qualify for that loan on their own.
A 50-year loan has upsides and downsides. One of the major downsides is that even with tiny additional payments, a loan would typically be paid off in less than 50 years. It's not clear why someone would choose to have an eternal loan, when it can be made less than eternal for not much less. Even with a 30 year loan at 5%, early payments are about 1/5 principal and 4/5 interest.
The flip side is that with reasonable inflation, effective payments will still become trivial after a few decades. And interest rates have recently been closer to zero. The calculus is different for a 2.5% interest loan.
Good for the bakers/lenders as they can collect way more interest for the same property. Wonder how hostile the anti-inflation clause will be.
What is the benefit of a 50 year mortgage from both sides? Forgive my lack of understanding in this area, but it seems like a debt that will never be paid off, unlikely to mature, or a very, very risky bet someone.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2014-06-03%202...
Many people from Western countries don't know that the US mortgages mostly top out at 30 years and find that just as peculiar, just as OP's article about the UK is peculiar. Sweden has mortgages that are between 30 and 50 years and their recent law limits them to 105 years as the maximum.
It has nothing to do with more recent housing affordability trends.
It's arbitrary.
Longer mortgage = more debt paid to lender, and another demand driver towards more lack of affordability.
It's not that arbitrary when considering human lifespans and working years. (Assuming the intent is to actually pay off the debt).
For the lender the benefit is a much larger total amount of interest paid by the borrower over the life of the mortgage.
https://www.calculator.net/mortgage-calculator.html
1) $100,000 mortgage for 30 years at 5% staring July 2022 (with no taxes/insurance/PMI/HOA/other costs [1]) = $93,255.78 total interest paid over life of mortgage
2) Same as #1 except for 50 years = $172,483.26 total interest paid over life of mortgage ($79,227.48 more than #1 above)
For the borrower, the /benefit/ is a lower monthly payment.
Option #1 above -- monthly payment of 536.82
Option #2 above -- monthly payment of 454.14 (82.68 less per month than #1)
[1] leaving out taxes/insurance/etc. is unrealistic, but the question was what was the benefit of 50 vs some other length, omitting these items shows only the difference due to the change in length.
It's frightening to me how people would be willing to pay that much more in the long term for a relatively small change in monthly payment.
the bigger risk is what happens if you don't end up holding onto the property for a full 50 years. it will take a longer time to start building equity vs a 30 year mortgage, and the upfront interest payments are already (imo) a significant problem with 30 year mortgages. it's hard to know for sure you will live in a place long enough to break even on these types of mortgages.
I'm just a layperson, but I don't think this is how lenders typically look at ROI on deployed capital. they can only lend so much. unless they are having trouble finding enough qualified people to lend to, I would expect them to maximize yearly returns on capital rather than absolute returns over the full term of a loan. if the interest rate is the same, wouldn't a 50 year mortgage be strictly worse from this perspective?
in reality, lenders tend to set higher rates for loans with longer terms. but let's suppose you can get a 5% loan with any term you want. you can see from above calculator that the monthly payment starts to converge to some value when you pick a very long term. for a $100,000 loan at 5%, it looks like that value is ~$416.
once you get close to that value, you're not significantly decreasing the monthly payment anymore. what you are doing is lengthening the period of time where you are paying much more interest than principal each month. with a 1000 year loan at 5%, you would only own 3% of the underlying asset after 30 years. for all intents and purposes, you have created a weirdly structured long-term lease.
I guess this isn't all bad though. if your family manages to hold onto the property for a few generations, they will eventually have an absurdly cheap lease in real terms.
how about preventing buy to let, preventing owning more than 2 property, control rents, build more affordable housing.