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

In Ontario, couples with children overwhelmingly live in ground-oriented ownership housing. This form of housing is still the majority for all other households (at least according to 2021 Census data), but apartment rentals make up a much larger share.

Given these figures, it is not surprising that the Missing Middle Initiative has found that family migration patterns within southern Ontario tend to correlate strongly (r = 0.71) with where ground-oriented ownership housing is being built, which largely means outside of the Greater Toronto Area.

This is an important finding if you're worried about Canadians not having enough babies. But this correlation doesn't tell us exactly what's going on. The data suggests that families with children have a clear preference for ground-oriented ownership — even if it means moving farther out — but what other options do they really have?

Three-bedroom apartments remain a relatively elusive housing type because demand is low. But as we have talked about, demand is a function of price, and multi-family buildings are more expensive to construct than low-rise housing. So how much of this perceived consumer preference for ground-oriented housing is actually just people driving until they qualify?

In other words, how many people are simply solving for X amount of space/bedrooms at Y price? And what would happen if we made large three-bedroom apartments in walkable transit-oriented communities the most affordable option? It still wouldn't be for everyone, but I bet that we would see demand adjust.

More importantly, it would give people options.

Charts from the Missing Middle Initiative; cover photo by Jason Ng on Unsplash

Erica Alini of The Globe and Mail just published this article called, "The era of the shoebox condo is over." You should read it, and not just because I'm quoted in it. One thing that I appreciate about the article is that it gets into some of the development economics underlying new projects.

The high-level math provided by Bryn Davidson of Lanefab (Vancouver) once again shows that land is the residual claimant in a pro forma and that the price developers can feasibly pay needs to be greater than the status-quo value. It's exactly what I was getting at in this recent post about the Impossible Toronto publication.

The other thing I'd like to highlight is the following chart showing the share of three-bedroom apartments in newly built condominiums and purpose-built rentals in the city:

What's interesting about this six-year period of completions is that there isn't a meaningful difference between condominiums and rentals. Average unit sizes as a whole tend to be slightly larger in rental projects, but in terms of the share of three-bedroom suites and the average size of those three-bedrooms, the differences aren't meaningful.

This suggests that it's less about investors "distorting" the market (see pundits talking about the condo market), and more about the fact that the demand isn't there. And the reason the demand isn't there is because these types of homes are expensive. If you can afford $5,000 per month in rent, you generally have some options.

Table from the Globe and Mail; cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash