The US just announced that they are working on a plan to introduce 50-year mortgages. I don't know what this plan entails, but my first reaction to the headline was: “Yeah, this is a bad idea.” But then I thought to myself, why is a 50-year amortization period too long? And is there any magic to 25- and 30-year mortgages?

At the most basic level, you could think of it this way: the average life expectancy of both sexes in America is currently 78.4 years. That means the average American would need to buy a home — with a 50-year mortgage — at 28.4 years old in order to fully pay it off by the time they die. At that point, why not rent?

A more rigorous analysis of amortization periods would likely involve a myriad of trade-offs related to housing affordability, homeownership rates, asset-price stability, household debt, overall financial risk, and other factors. But the primary feature of a long-ass mortgage is that it's alleged to make homeownership more attainable.

The obvious benefit of a 50-year mortgage is that it lowers a borrower’s monthly payment. For example, an $800,000 mortgage at 6% would create the following payments:

• 25-year amortization: $5,154 per month

• 30-year amortization: $4,796 per month

• 50-year amortization: $4,211 per month

But it's important to keep in mind that this is a synthetic affordability solution. It does not address fundamental constraints such as land use, zoning, construction costs, and the overall supply of new housing. Here's an excerpt from a speech that Carolyn Rogers, Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, delivered last year:

"...we need to resist the temptation to try to solve the housing affordability challenge by tinkering too much with the mortgage market... leaning too much on measures that reduce the short-term cost of financing could have long-term impacts on the financial health of households, the mortgage market and the economy."

The corollary to these lower monthly payments is that if you can afford a monthly payment of $5,154, you now have the option of taking out a bigger mortgage with a longer amortization period. With a 50-year amortization, that same monthly payment could support a $979,173 mortgage.

But what increased leverage does is drive up home prices even further, in the same way that lowering interest rates creates upward pressure. Imagine that mortgage rates drop from 6% to 3%. This same $5,154 monthly payment would now carry a $1.6 million mortgage with a 50-year amortization period.

I'm not an economist and, from what I can tell, there's no perfect amortization period. But there does appear to be a Goldilocks zone that balances a number of the trade-offs, and it is somewhere between 20-30 years. In fact, as recently as 2008, Canada offered government-backed 40-year mortgages. But then a consensus emerged that they were "really not in the best interest of Canadians."

I know that lots of people would love to own a $2 million home. But economic history has shown us that 50-year mortgages are likely to raise home prices for everyone, slow equity build-up for owners, and increase overall financial risk in the system. As Howard Marks once wrote in one of his memos, “There’s no free lunch in economics."

Cover photo by Kimson Doan on Unsplash

This tweet by Sean Sweeney is, of course, 100% true. It is also true of markets and investing in general. When everyone feels confident, money becomes available, and then returns fall. There's too much competition. But when everyone is scared and liquidity dries up, bargains emerge. Now there's very little competition.

Warren Buffett has made an entire career out of playing this paradox. It's his well-known "be greedy when others are fearful" mantra. But in order to do this, you need to be patient, you need to have the resources, and you need to have the right emotional temperament when things are in meltdown.

I am seeing this first-hand in Toronto real estate. To give just one example, development land is right now worth, oh I don't know, roughly half of what it was before (a broad generalization).

There are very good reasons for this. The value of land depends on what you can do with it, and if you can't do anything with it, then it's not worth very much. But as soon as you can once again do something with it, and clarity returns to the market, the bargains disappear.

So to find the "great deals" you have to be willing to wade into areas where most of the market is unwilling to go in the current moment. Put differently, there's money to be made when you're right about something that most people think is wrong, or when you're able to do something that most people can't do for whatever reason.

All of this is easier said than done, but I think about Sean's tweet a lot these days. It's easy to find reasons to say no right now. But here's the approach I'm trying my best to take: it's a great time to be in real estate. In fact, it's a generational opportunity. And so it's my job to find the great deals.

Cover photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash

The word "speculation" usually has negative connotations, especially in the world of finance. That's why you'll hear people deride "condo speculators" and talk about things like crypto as being rat poison. Buying something with the sole hope that someone will pay more for it later is viewed as a negative act.

But is this a fair characterization?

Speculation is fundamental to how markets work. It happens when people bet on some unknowable future rather than on present fundamentals. This is an important feature because it's how new technologies and new business models get funded. Without it, we'd only ever fund what is knowable and what already exists.

This doesn't mean that speculation won't lead to failures — by definition it has to. It's uncharted territory. But consider what speculation has advanced along the way: railway networks, utility infrastructure, the internet, crypto, and AI, among many other things. And in the case of condo speculators, the result was that more, rather than less, housing got built.

That's a good thing.

So I think there's an argument to be made that we actually need more speculation in Canada. We need more risk taking and we need people betting on the future, even in the face of uncertainty. Because when you do that, eventually you end up creating it.

The US just announced that they are working on a plan to introduce 50-year mortgages. I don't know what this plan entails, but my first reaction to the headline was: “Yeah, this is a bad idea.” But then I thought to myself, why is a 50-year amortization period too long? And is there any magic to 25- and 30-year mortgages?

At the most basic level, you could think of it this way: the average life expectancy of both sexes in America is currently 78.4 years. That means the average American would need to buy a home — with a 50-year mortgage — at 28.4 years old in order to fully pay it off by the time they die. At that point, why not rent?

A more rigorous analysis of amortization periods would likely involve a myriad of trade-offs related to housing affordability, homeownership rates, asset-price stability, household debt, overall financial risk, and other factors. But the primary feature of a long-ass mortgage is that it's alleged to make homeownership more attainable.

The obvious benefit of a 50-year mortgage is that it lowers a borrower’s monthly payment. For example, an $800,000 mortgage at 6% would create the following payments:

• 25-year amortization: $5,154 per month

• 30-year amortization: $4,796 per month

• 50-year amortization: $4,211 per month

But it's important to keep in mind that this is a synthetic affordability solution. It does not address fundamental constraints such as land use, zoning, construction costs, and the overall supply of new housing. Here's an excerpt from a speech that Carolyn Rogers, Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, delivered last year:

"...we need to resist the temptation to try to solve the housing affordability challenge by tinkering too much with the mortgage market... leaning too much on measures that reduce the short-term cost of financing could have long-term impacts on the financial health of households, the mortgage market and the economy."

The corollary to these lower monthly payments is that if you can afford a monthly payment of $5,154, you now have the option of taking out a bigger mortgage with a longer amortization period. With a 50-year amortization, that same monthly payment could support a $979,173 mortgage.

But what increased leverage does is drive up home prices even further, in the same way that lowering interest rates creates upward pressure. Imagine that mortgage rates drop from 6% to 3%. This same $5,154 monthly payment would now carry a $1.6 million mortgage with a 50-year amortization period.

I'm not an economist and, from what I can tell, there's no perfect amortization period. But there does appear to be a Goldilocks zone that balances a number of the trade-offs, and it is somewhere between 20-30 years. In fact, as recently as 2008, Canada offered government-backed 40-year mortgages. But then a consensus emerged that they were "really not in the best interest of Canadians."

I know that lots of people would love to own a $2 million home. But economic history has shown us that 50-year mortgages are likely to raise home prices for everyone, slow equity build-up for owners, and increase overall financial risk in the system. As Howard Marks once wrote in one of his memos, “There’s no free lunch in economics."

Cover photo by Kimson Doan on Unsplash

This tweet by Sean Sweeney is, of course, 100% true. It is also true of markets and investing in general. When everyone feels confident, money becomes available, and then returns fall. There's too much competition. But when everyone is scared and liquidity dries up, bargains emerge. Now there's very little competition.

Warren Buffett has made an entire career out of playing this paradox. It's his well-known "be greedy when others are fearful" mantra. But in order to do this, you need to be patient, you need to have the resources, and you need to have the right emotional temperament when things are in meltdown.

I am seeing this first-hand in Toronto real estate. To give just one example, development land is right now worth, oh I don't know, roughly half of what it was before (a broad generalization).

There are very good reasons for this. The value of land depends on what you can do with it, and if you can't do anything with it, then it's not worth very much. But as soon as you can once again do something with it, and clarity returns to the market, the bargains disappear.

So to find the "great deals" you have to be willing to wade into areas where most of the market is unwilling to go in the current moment. Put differently, there's money to be made when you're right about something that most people think is wrong, or when you're able to do something that most people can't do for whatever reason.

All of this is easier said than done, but I think about Sean's tweet a lot these days. It's easy to find reasons to say no right now. But here's the approach I'm trying my best to take: it's a great time to be in real estate. In fact, it's a generational opportunity. And so it's my job to find the great deals.

Cover photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash

The word "speculation" usually has negative connotations, especially in the world of finance. That's why you'll hear people deride "condo speculators" and talk about things like crypto as being rat poison. Buying something with the sole hope that someone will pay more for it later is viewed as a negative act.

But is this a fair characterization?

Speculation is fundamental to how markets work. It happens when people bet on some unknowable future rather than on present fundamentals. This is an important feature because it's how new technologies and new business models get funded. Without it, we'd only ever fund what is knowable and what already exists.

This doesn't mean that speculation won't lead to failures — by definition it has to. It's uncharted territory. But consider what speculation has advanced along the way: railway networks, utility infrastructure, the internet, crypto, and AI, among many other things. And in the case of condo speculators, the result was that more, rather than less, housing got built.

That's a good thing.

So I think there's an argument to be made that we actually need more speculation in Canada. We need more risk taking and we need people betting on the future, even in the face of uncertainty. Because when you do that, eventually you end up creating it.