The 50y mortgage in one chart

Posted on November 17, 2025 by grim

From Sherwood, hat tip Ritholtz:

This entry was posted in Demographics, Economics, Housing Bubble, Mortgages, Risky Lending. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to The 50y mortgage in one chart

  2. Chicago says:
    November 17, 2025 at 6:50 am

    Dammit

  3. Hughesrep says:
    November 17, 2025 at 7:16 am

    Would they need a new federal mortgage agency? I propose naming it the KTC.

  4. Libturd says:
    November 17, 2025 at 7:32 am

    Who was the first tranny in America?

    Susan B. Anthony

  5. Libturd says:
    November 17, 2025 at 7:34 am

    What that chart is missing, is the total interest paid over the term.

  6. VSG says:
    November 17, 2025 at 7:35 am

    THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

    He’s Called ‘Little Trump,’ and His Tactics Are Rankling White House Top Brass.

    Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    Nov 15, 2025 12:01 p.m. ET

    Pulte, a 37-year-old heir to a home-building fortune, has emerged as one of the most polarizing figures inside and outside the Trump administration. Referred to by some as “Little Trump,” his job is to oversee mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , which back nearly half the mortgages in the country.

    Pulte, who heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, told the president he had identified leakers who were undermining the administration. He was carrying a “Ghostbusters”-style poster that featured pictures of administration officials and outside allies, outlined by red circles with lines through their faces, according to officials familiar with the meeting.

    Pulte has routinely made waves from that low-profile post, digging up opposition research on the president’s foes, ousting legal and ethics watchdogs who investigated the FHFA director’s conduct, and lashing out at companies in the housing world. Most recently, he has championed the idea of introducing a 50-year mortgage in the U.S.—a proposal that got a cool reception in Washington, even from many on the right.

    Like many people in the president’s orbit, Pulte enhanced his standing via a pricey membership at Trump’s Palm Beach, Fla., resort Mar-a-Lago. The grandson of William J. Pulte, who had founded home-builder giant PulteGroup, the younger Pulte left the company’s board in 2020 after disagreements with other directors. He led a private-equity firm and focused on social-media philanthropy, in which he would donate to his followers.

    Earlier this year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, at a dinner at a private club backed by Trump Jr., had grown so incensed by Pulte that he threatened to punch him “in the f—ing face,” according to people familiar with the incident, which Politico earlier reported. Bessent had heard that Pulte had been badmouthing him to Trump. After the blowup, Trump told Bessent and Pulte to play nice, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

  7. Dark Phoenix says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:15 am

    Look away, nothing to see here.

    Libturd says:
    November 17, 2025 at 7:34 am
    What that chart is missing, is the total interest paid over the term.

  8. Juice Box says:
    November 17, 2025 at 9:51 am

    I have called this out over the years. FHFA rigs the system. The conforming loan limits only go up, they have never been adjusted down.

    The map is a joke too, whether it be the back woods of Mississippi or Warren County NJ everyone can get an 806,000 home loan.

    https://www.fhfa.gov/data/dashboard/conforming-loan-limit-values-map

  9. grim says:
    November 17, 2025 at 9:52 am

    15 Year
    Total of 180 monthly payments $595,969.29
    Total interest $195,969.29

    30 Year
    Total of 360 monthly payments $886,632.77
    Total interest $486,632.77

    50 Year
    Total of 600 monthly payments $1,398,301.88
    Total interest $998,301.88

  10. grim says:
    November 17, 2025 at 9:54 am

    IMHO – This is how you keep people poor and in debt.

    This has nothing to do with affordability…

    Monthly Payments
    15Y – $3,310.94
    30Y – $2,462.87
    50Y – $2,330.50

  11. grim says:
    November 17, 2025 at 9:55 am

    Pay half a million dollars more in interest to have a $130 a month lower payment.

  12. grim says:
    November 17, 2025 at 9:59 am

    Given the average home ownership range is 7-15 years, it’s unlikely that the average homeowner will ever build equity through pay-downs over their entire life.

    These effectively operate like interest only loans at this duration.

  13. Dark Phoenix says:
    November 17, 2025 at 11:43 am

    The handlers have it under control. They hate you.

    grim says:
    November 17, 2025 at 9:55 am
    Pay half a million dollars more in interest to have a $130 a month lower payment.

  14. Ex says:
    November 17, 2025 at 11:47 am

    Years go by!! This guy: https://imgur.com/gallery/year-2000-nyc-wtc-window-2lLtiu0

    I distinctly remember sitting in a gulf coast restaurant one day about this time with my buddy Steve who I’d just gotten a job at OGNC, thinking “this is it. This is as good as it gets and more importantly, as good as it’s going to get. Just before the layoffs … the walk down to the Path train, box in arms. Desk lamp sticking out the top. A sure sign of “rif” dom. A rite of passage. But oh the stories!

  15. BRT says:
    November 17, 2025 at 12:29 pm

    This was written by my former labmate. He did his PhD at MIT, taught at Harvard, Cornell, and Duke Medical School. A very successful researcher, probably one of the best in the nation in his field.

    By Jason Locasale

    A recent segment was a sad attempt to cloak the shortcomings of academic science in hype, sentimentality, and public relations theater.
    Nearly everyone has had a loved one afflicted by cancer. Mention the word cancer, and people instinctively feel sympathy, fear, or hope.

    When I was a student, I remember thinking about sick cancer patients and being brought almost to tears. That emotion was part of what drew me into cancer research; it felt like the most meaningful way to use science to help people.

    But over time, I learned how that emotion gets monetized. Money pours into anything even vaguely associated with cancer research. Federal grants with the word cancer in the body are treated as sacred. Vast sums flow into university cancer centers with layers of bureaucracy, fundraising arms, and administrators who never see a patient or do a single piece of research. There are countless cancer charities and nonprofit academic cancer centers where executives make exorbitant pay. Questioning whether any of this actually helps patients or advances science is treated as heresy.

    The academic research enterprise feeds on empathy. As much as it pains me to write, the good intentions that once drew idealists to the field have been industrialized into a business model.

    That model was on full display in a recent 60 Minutes segment that turned Harvard’s scientists into stage props — a public relations production designed to shill for money and convince the public that the richest academic institution on earth is somehow underfunded.

    Joan Brugge, a respected cell biologist, was featured on the show as making breakthroughs in cancer on behalf of Harvard University — a narrative the show embraced without skepticism. In truth, her legacy lies in fundamental cell biology. She has done solid work but little that has directly changed cancer therapy or patient outcomes. Presenting her research as crucial to curing breast cancer was misleading and emblematic of the deeper pathology in academic science: the compulsion to oversell. I worked with her and her laboratory around 15 years ago when I was a research fellow and later an instructor on the faculty at Harvard. I actually published, as the lead and corresponding author, what became her most cited original research paper. She is a capable scientist, but the way her work was portrayed in the segment bore little resemblance to reality.

    Universities and their faculty have learned that success in today’s system depends not as much on actually doing science but on marketing the perception of science — framing even routine findings as lifesaving advances. “Cancer” has become a brand, a universal justification for more funding and prestige. The public sees heroism; insiders see dollar signs. One of the strangest features of this ecosystem is how many researchers who do pure basic science — work with no foreseeable medical application — nevertheless frame their research as “curing cancer.”

    Bondi’s Retroactive Ratification of Her Retroactive Ratification of the Comey Grand
    This is a problem not because basic science lacks value — foundational, curiosity-driven research is one of the most important things a society can fund. The problem is that the purpose of the work is rarely stated honestly. Taxpayers and donors are told they are supporting cancer cures when, in reality, they’re supporting studies on cell signaling, structural biology, or organismal physiology. Those projects may have scientific merit, but the justification offered to the public is tenuous. That obfuscation hides a deeper, more fundamental question: How much public funding and philanthropy should go toward basic science itself?

    That is a legitimate debate worth having. But when so much research is sold as “curing cancer,” the question never even arises. The framing erases the distinction between exploratory research and direct medical progress. This blurring is one reason why, despite the money spent, we do not have enough progress in understanding fundamental biology or a reduction in cancer mortality.

    The incentives reward exaggeration. Everyone plays along because transparency would threaten the financial architecture of the entire enterprise. The public thinks it is funding medical breakthroughs; universities know the money is sustaining an enormous ecosystem of labs, trainees, administrators, and overhead. Basic scientists describe themselves as working on cancer because that is the only language the system pays for.

    At 76, Brugge represents a generation that continues to command major funding on the basis of past discoveries while younger scientists struggle to stay afloat in temporary, grant-dependent positions. NIH funding rewards inertia and seniority, not boldness or efficiency, and universities have no incentive to change because the money from those grants sustains vast administrative payrolls.

    David Liu, another scientist featured in the piece, came across better — a genuinely talented researcher whose work on gene-editing reflects real creativity and medical impact. His demeanor reinforced the image of the quirky, idealistic scientist. That’s not an affectation. I remember visiting his house once during an admitted-students’ recruitment event for Harvard’s doctoral program in chemistry. He was showing a group of us the video games he enjoyed and the latest technological gadgets he had set up — a small but memorable confirmation that he exhibited the archetype of the technically obsessed, intellectually curious scientist. In that sense, the profile didn’t distort him.

    But the framing was still misleading. Scientists like Liu are rare, and their success doesn’t validate Harvard and the biomedical research enterprise; it exposes how dependent its public image has become on a handful of outliers. Academia holds them up as proof that the enterprise works when, in reality, they are statistical anomalies floating atop an ocean of inefficiency.

    Liu could move his lab tomorrow to an independent institute or a private venture and continue doing the same science — likely with fewer obstacles and less bureaucracy. His anecdotal success doesn’t validate academia’s efficiency; it arguably shows that innovation can happen despite the system, not because of it.

    It’s also important to recognize that Liu has benefited heavily from Harvard’s brand. The name alone recruits top students and attracts funding. But that prestige is inherited from an earlier era — not created by today’s bureaucratic university. As the brand erodes, as it has in recent years, scientists like Liu will be less inclined to stay. Harvard leans on people like him to project vitality, but his presence is borrowed credibility, not evidence of a healthy system.

    This raises a deeper question that 60 Minutes never asked: How much of the money awarded to biomedical research actually results in work of Liu’s caliber? We spend tens of billions of public dollars each year, yet only a small fraction produces foundational discoveries or widely beneficial technologies. The vast majority may be consumed by administrative expansion, soft-money positions, bloated cancer centers, and incremental or redundant projects framed as breakthroughs to keep the funding cycle alive. The output-to-dollar ratio is far lower than the public is led to believe — and the few genuine innovators are used as marketing tools to justify the inefficiencies surrounding them.

    The segment’s most disingenuous moments came from Donald Ingber and Steven Pinker. Ingber’s suggestion that academia has moved past the woke era is either naïve or self-serving; the same ideological and bureaucratic forces remain intact, merely rebranded under new slogans. Pinker, meanwhile, has positioned himself as the anti-woke reformer capable of changing the system from within. It’s a comforting story for donors and alumni, but it ignores reality.

    Modern universities are not communities of scholars; they are corporations with opaque bureaucracies, large legal and lobbying departments, and marketing offices. They answer to endowments, hospital revenue, and federal contracts, not to the pursuit of truth. The idea that reform can come from within, from the same people who built and benefit from the control of this structure, is wishful thinking.

    What 60 Minutes offered wasn’t journalism; it was advertising. It sold the illusion that academic science is still powered by curiosity and altruism. It replaced analysis with myth — Harvard’s labs as sanctuaries of intellect, its scientists as moral heroes. The real picture is bleaker: sprawling research conglomerates, administrative empires, and laboratories trapped in a perpetual cycle of grant-writing and image management.

    Cancer research, more than any other field, reveals how empathy is converted into capital. Billions in federal funds are sent to “centers,” “initiatives,” and “moon shots” that largely enrich universities and their administrative class. Each year brings another headline about ”major progress,” yet survival rates for most metastatic cancers remain unchanged or very modestly improved. The outputs that matter — reproducible and generalizable discoveries, affordable therapies, measurable patient benefit — grow slower than the budgets and bureaucracies built to chase them.

    The tragedy is that the public still believes. People think that their donations, their taxes, and their faith in science are fueling a collective fight against disease. In reality, they are underwriting a system that spends more on administration, branding, and compliance than on the experiments themselves.

    Reform won’t come from Harvard’s media machine or from panels of senior academics congratulating themselves for incremental change. It will come from building leaner, more accountable institutions that prioritize truth over image management; from funding people, not bureaucracies, and restoring honesty about what science can and cannot do.

    That means separating genuine discovery from marketing. It also means facing an uncomfortable truth: the biomedical establishment has become addicted to public sympathy.

    The 60 Minutes piece wasn’t a celebration of science — it was damage control. A carefully crafted story to reassure viewers that the old institutions still deserve their trust and money. But the real story of American biomedical research is one of drift: a system that feeds on empathy while starving innovation, that confuses visibility with virtue, and that calls marketing itself impact.

    Cancer research deserves better. Science deserves better. And the public deserves to know where its hope and its dollars are actually going.

    Jason Locasale, PhD, is a scientist who studies metabolism. He is interested in academic and scientific reform. @locasalelab @locasalelab

  16. Chicago says:
    November 17, 2025 at 1:01 pm

    BRT: thx

  17. Chicago says:
    November 17, 2025 at 1:03 pm

    Did that exact walk 4/26/2001, got on the PATH to Hoboken…. got home and cracked open the most expensive bottle of red wine I had at the time.

    Ex says:
    November 17, 2025 at 11:47 am
    Years go by!! This guy: https://imgur.com/gallery/year-2000-nyc-wtc-window-2lLtiu0

    I distinctly remember sitting in a gulf coast restaurant one day about this time with my buddy Steve who I’d just gotten a job at OGNC, thinking “this is it. This is as good as it gets and more importantly, as good as it’s going to get. Just before the layoffs … the walk down to the Path train, box in arms. Desk lamp sticking out the top. A sure sign of “rif” dom. A rite of passage. But oh the stories!

  19. OC1 says:
    November 17, 2025 at 1:29 pm

    This was written by my former labmate.

    I am confident that Donald Trump and RFK Jr. are the people who know how to fix the problems with scientific research!

  20. Ex says:
    November 17, 2025 at 1:32 pm

    1:06 That might be the best song for that moment than I can imagine.

  21. Ex says:
    November 17, 2025 at 1:35 pm

    Some of my cast-mates did lots of shit in tech, I suppose we all started out with stars in our eyes. But this was my second IPO after “striving” to get to a top Tier Internet Firm visa vis Razorship, sapient. Those were heady days, I listened to Springsteens tracks that year on the train to focus on the family but it was Richard Ashcroft who really set my spirits ablaze: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnzzhrXt9iM&list=RDwnzzhrXt9iM&start_radio=1

  22. EX says:
    November 17, 2025 at 1:46 pm

    Oh yeah. “My people are making it now” I felt that deeply. We were a great bunch. Awesome time to work in Chelsea, at of all places the old Masonic Lodge. What amazing rooms I wandered into and gazed upon artifacts. During a bathroom break. No kidding, it was wide open. I could be trusted, my grandfather on my dad’s side of the family was a Mason. but I digress

    We were at one point the “largest commercial tenant” in the Woolworth BLDg. Every morning a walking up the pathway past Atlas and just past the WTC. Working directly Nextdoor, Some of my peeps who stayed had a very front row seat for 9/11

    Yet, when asked by my buddy “Steve” if I wanted him to talk to J nelson about me? Cause he thought he could “save” me I declined. I’d had enough. Figured that “if” they hadn’t made it when times were Good they’d never do much in bad times. It was then that omnicom acquired the once $60 stock for .37 a share. While Mr Nelson left with a cool $17m after being once a billionaire on paper. he was in fact made cEO of the current Omnicom Digital

  23. Libturd says:
    November 17, 2025 at 4:47 pm

    Kinda quiet here today.

    About 2,500 more points on the Nasdaq to cross the 200 day moving average.

    Today’s Trump lie of the day:

    President Trump said Monday he would sign legislation into law releasing files linked to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, noting the fallout over the files is a “Democrat problem.”

  24. D-FENS says:
    November 17, 2025 at 4:56 pm

    Release the Epstein files?

  26. very loose anus says:
    November 17, 2025 at 5:44 pm

    Jeffrey Epstein was feeding questions to Rep. Stacey Plaskett during a 2019 congressional hearing — and giving her real time help on how to damage President Trump’s reputation, newly released documents show.

  28. Libturd says:
    November 17, 2025 at 6:08 pm

    Hey Pumps. Bitcoin is down to 92. You told me to buy at 98. It’s now back to April 21st in price. I should still be buying here. Right?

  29. chicagofinance says:
    November 17, 2025 at 6:14 pm

    I remember those days….. I had a really good job, but my cousin who I always considered a slacker starting working for Monster.com. He got the job because he was fluent in French, so they had him cover Canada, France, Belgium, etc. I was so blindly jealous that I went out in December 1999, and scored a job with a strategy and system intergration company. We were actually cash flow neutral, but our lifeline was Thoma Cressey (now Thoma Bravo). I think what happened in 2001 was that they lost so much money on other ventures, that they had to toss the hammer down on us too. I was working at 14 Wall Street across from the exhange, Post Office Square in Boston, and the Riverside T stop in Newton.

    I remember the rage at the time was fresh Krispy Kreme everywhere, and even better was the raw food kiosks where you self-serve picked meats and vegetables onto a plate and then handed it over for a stir-fry. The whole thing was idyllic.

    My ultimate wacko moment was having to put a company function on my corporate AmEx. We were entertaining the banks’ prime brokerage staff at David Bouley’s Danube on Hudson/Duane St. It was something like $20,000 (I got the points ;) ) in February 2000!!! Hilarious. The thing is we actually did some real innovative work, but the client knew that we needed the ‘prove me’ project, so we had to give rock bottom pricing. We created an off market private exchange for securities lending between prime brokers and hedge funds. It was the sh!t….. no matter.

    The thing that stuck with me were these really emotionally messed up tech dudes. It was like they were living out the teenage fantasies in men’s bodies with influence and an expense account. It was good to see it. Helps with my consulting now.

    In fact, just got the call, another gray divorce that I saw coming 10 years ago. You see it. Feel it. But you have to let it play out, because technically it iss none of my business, but I am there to pick up the pieces. Fuck…..where is that wine?

    The co-workers that

    EX says:
    November 17, 2025 at 1:46 pm
    Oh yeah. “My people are making it now” I felt that deeply. We were a great bunch. Awesome time to work in Chelsea, at of all places the old Masonic Lodge. What amazing rooms I wandered into and gazed upon artifacts. During a bathroom break. No kidding, it was wide open. I could be trusted, my grandfather on my dad’s side of the family was a Mason. but I digress

    We were at one point the “largest commercial tenant” in the Woolworth BLDg. Every morning a walking up the pathway past Atlas and just past the WTC. Working directly Nextdoor, Some of my peeps who stayed had a very front row seat for 9/11

    Yet, when asked by my buddy “Steve” if I wanted him to talk to J nelson about me? Cause he thought he could “save” me I declined. I’d had enough. Figured that “if” they hadn’t made it when times were Good they’d never do much in bad times. It was then that omnicom acquired the once $60 stock for .37 a share. While Mr Nelson left with a cool $17m after being once a billionaire on paper. he was in fact made cEO of the current Omnicom Digital

  30. Ex says:
    November 17, 2025 at 6:49 pm

    The grey divorce aka the I don’t want to die with you
    Divorce.

  31. BRT says:
    November 17, 2025 at 6:55 pm

    BTC testing a 2 year uptrend here

  32. Grim says:
    November 17, 2025 at 7:34 pm

    Shredders running overtime at the DOJ

  33. SmallGovConservative says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:11 pm

    Libturd says:
    November 17, 2025 at 7:32 am
    “Who was the first tranny in America? Susan B. Anthony”

    You could be right. I always thought ‘she’ looked more like Anthony B. Susan.

  34. SmallGovConservative says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:18 pm

    For the blue state loons…

    Florida population: 23,372,215 Florida budget: $117.4 billion

    New York population: 19,867,248 New York budget: $237 billion

  35. SmallGovConservative says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:25 pm

    More for the Dem duds…

    ‘Record property tax increases slam Chicago homeowners’ – https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/11/17/chicago-property-tax-bills-skyrocket-2025/

  36. Fabius Maximus says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:35 pm

    “Shredders running overtime at the DOJ” No its the usual smoke and mirrors and Donnie’s MO.

    Before the election “I will release!” That died quickly. Now in this cycle it was Johnson holing up Arizona Chick for 2 months. He had Boebert in the WH last week trying to sway her vote. Marjorie is not Traitor Green. Lost the house vote.

    The Blow Back is severe so he now back to Release Release, Release. But in the background working on the senate to block a vote, that will take a while.

    If it EVER clears the Senate, that Veto pen will wave and some new BS excuse will flow.

  37. OC1 says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:38 pm

    SmallGov-

    Did you bother to read the article you linked?

    Property taxes went up because property values went up.

    Apparently, a lot of people want to live in Chicago!

  38. Fabius Maximus says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:52 pm

    For the blue state loons…
    Florida population: 23,372,215 Florida budget: $117.4 billion
    New York population: 19,867,248 New York budget: $237 billion

    Largest city in NY
    NYC 8,412,513 population, density 29,091.3

    Largest city in FL
    NYC 1,008,485population, density 1,270.7

    We are not exactly apples to apples.

  39. Ex says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:55 pm

    Smallgov has proven time and again to be bereft of common sense.

  40. RentL0rd says:
    November 17, 2025 at 9:04 pm

    Looks like every economist is now predicting a long stock market downturn.. as ling as 15 years.

    Anyone else getting out of the market .. and by how much %

  41. Dark Phoenix says:
    November 17, 2025 at 9:39 pm

    The women forced Trump to concede defeat on the Epstein files.

  42. Dark Phoenix says:
    November 17, 2025 at 9:41 pm

    Boebert. Mace. Green.

    ✅

  43. RentL0rd says:
    November 17, 2025 at 9:52 pm

    Doesn’t matter DP. The SmallPenises here will support their cult leader to the grave.

  44. Chicago says:
    November 17, 2025 at 11:15 pm

    Of course. NYC is the Big Apple. Florida is the Citrus State.

    Fabius Maximus says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:52 pm
    For the blue state loons…
    Florida population: 23,372,215 Florida budget: $117.4 billion
    New York population: 19,867,248 New York budget: $237 billion

    Largest city in NY
    NYC 8,412,513 population, density 29,091.3

    Largest city in FL
    NYC 1,008,485population, density 1,270.7

    We are not exactly apples to apples.

  45. Chicago says:
    November 17, 2025 at 11:18 pm

    I disagree. I think they have Trump dead to rights. To release the files that is.

    Fabius Maximus says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:35 pm
    “Shredders running overtime at the DOJ” No its the usual smoke and mirrors and Donnie’s MO.

    Before the election “I will release!” That died quickly. Now in this cycle it was Johnson holing up Arizona Chick for 2 months. He had Boebert in the WH last week trying to sway her vote. Marjorie is not Traitor Green. Lost the house vote.

    The Blow Back is severe so he now back to Release Release, Release. But in the background working on the senate to block a vote, that will take a while.

    If it EVER clears the Senate, that Veto pen will wave and some new BS excuse will flow.

  46. Chicago says:
    November 17, 2025 at 11:25 pm

    You reap what you sow. You drive out business, you have to plug the hole somewhere.

    NYC beware. Although I was in Chicago in 2024. They really fucked it up. They are trying to pull a CA/SF/LA without the weather, rich people and Silicon Valley. They better watch it because Detroit is on the horizon.

    SmallGovConservative says:
    November 17, 2025 at 8:25 pm
    More for the Dem duds…

    ‘Record property tax increases slam Chicago homeowners’ –

Comments are closed.