Afford Anything - Should You Ever Get a 50 Year Mortgage? — with Dr. Karsten Jeske

Episode Date: December 10, 2025

#667: Home prices have outpaced wages for more than a decade, and first-time buyers are stretching further every year. Now a new idea is entering the conversation, the 50-year mortgage. It promises lower monthly payments, yet it reshapes everything from equity growth to long-term risk. In this episode we sit down with Karsten Jeske, PhD, CFA from Early Retirement Now, a former Federal Reserve economist known for forensic financial modeling. Together we walk through when a 50-year mortgage might make sense, when it clearly does not, and why the math is rarely as simple as “higher payment versus lower payment.” We also dig into how ultra-long mortgages could push home prices even higher, and what this means for today’s buyers and tomorrow’s retirees. If you’ve wondered whether extended loan terms offer real affordability or just disguise the cost, this conversation gives you a clearer lens. Key Takeaways Why stretching to a 50-year mortgage can look affordable on paper yet leave you with far slower equity growth in the years that matter most. The few cases where a longer mortgage term can support a deliberate strategy, such as freeing cash flow to invest, and why this only works for certain borrowers. How inflation, appreciation, and opportunity cost change the “true” math behind 30-year versus 50-year loans. Why ultra-long mortgages may raise home prices more than they help buyers and what this means for generational wealth. How late-life mortgage decisions, downsizing, and step-up in basis reshape your legacy far more than the length of the loan itself. Resources and Links Early Retirement Now blog, Karsten’s research and mortgage modeling. Chapters Note: Timestamps are approximate and may vary greatly across listening platforms due to dynamically inserted ads. (00:00) 50-year mortgage debate begins (02:52) Karsten says it expands options for sophisticated investors (05:42) Paula focuses on owner-occupants who can't afford houses (11:03) Equity difference: $80K vs $20K after 10 years (18:26) Lower payments could fund other investments (25:17) Lenders package mortgages for institutional investors (29:18) US doesn't issue 100-year bonds despite stability (34:00) Small term premiums create huge returns (43:31) Paying more interest isn't automatically bad (48:08) First-time buyers now average age 40 (56:08) Geographic arbitrage enables mortgage payoff (01:00:20) 50-year mortgages could inflate home prices (01:04:51) Supply constraints drive housing affordability crisis (01:07:29) Fed might pause rate cuts in December Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I believe that if you need a 50-year mortgage, you can't afford the house. But former Fed economist Dr. Karsdenieska disagrees. So I invited him on to the show to have a debate. 50-year mortgage. I'm against it. He's for it. Let's see who wins. What started as a debate ended up turning into a deeply technical and highly nuanced master class in mortgage economics, and that's what you're about to hear. Welcome to the Afford Anything podcast, the show that knows you can afford anything, not everything. The show covers five pillars, financial psychology, increasing your income, investing, real estate, and entrepreneurship.

It's double-eye fire. I'm your host, Paula Pant. I trained in economic reporting at Columbia, which means my training is how to interview an economist. And what do you know? We have one here with us today. Dr. Karsten Yeska is a former research economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, where he participated in monetary policy. policy briefings. That's a fancy way of saying he talked to important people about what the interest rate's going to be. He was also a visiting professor at Emory University where he taught

PhD level courses in macroeconomic theory and he also taught undergrad classes in money and banking. And he spent a decade as the director of asset allocation research at Mellon Capital Management. And what you are going to hear, we tried to make it a pro-con debate, but the debate didn't last. It just turned into an interview. But we started it with the hopes that it could be a debate. And then what ultimately happened was we unpacked, well, he unpacked, mortgage mathematics, behavioral economics, and the nuances of housing policy. So if you want to learn about duration risk, term premiums, internal rates of return,

convexity risk, we're going to unpack all of that in the coming hour. You are about to get an education that you will not be able to find anywhere else. Here he is, our favorite former Fed economist, Dr. Karstenyeska. Karsten, thank you for joining again. Thanks for having me on. This is going to be fun. All right. The debate is on, 50-year mortgage, good or bad.

Yeah. I wrote a blog post where I said it's at least not as bad as people want to make it. So that's as positive as I can get. I am firmly in the camp of, if you need one, you can't afford it. Yeah. Which is a little bit, just to explain my position, and we'll get into this debate right now, but to explain my position a bit further, A, I'm referring to owner occupants.

I'm not referring to rental property investors. Because if you're a rental investor, I can see the argument for, if you want to maximize the potential amount of debt that you can take out from a financial institution, then I can see the argument for, taking out a 50-year mortgage so that your debt-to-income ratio allows you to maximize the number of loans that you take out so that you can buy more properties. I see that argument from a rental investor perspective. But if you're an owner-occupant, and that's what today's debate is going to focus on, if you need one, you can't afford it. Now, that does leave space

for people who want one but don't need it. And we'll touch on that. My central thesis really boils down to the statement that if you need one, you can't afford it. That's my central thesis that I'm here to defend. I agree. If you're so borderline that you don't qualify for the 30-year mortgage, 50 is the only you can afford, probably it could go sideways. And this was my point. So maybe keep this open as an option for very sophisticated investors who say, well, you know, I don't need to pay off my mortgage anyways. Nobody pays up their mortgage anyways days, right? So they move after 10 years and they move to another place and get another mortgage. And even people keep mortgage into retirement these days. So that was definitely my point.

I'm not saying that we should invent the 50-year mortgage to bring more people into the homebuyer pool that previously were not able to afford it. Right. We knew, we know how that ended in 2008. So, say, between 2002 and 2008, we brought in a lot of people into the homeowner pool. who maybe should have stayed renters or at least stayed renters a little bit longer, the marginal borrower who can't afford the 30-year mortgage and then entice them to get the 50-year mortgage. But I always think that more options is better than fewer options. I also would say that some rental properties start out as initially owner-occupied. And so imagine you move a lot for – I know some people who moved a lot for jobs.

Everywhere they moved to, they bought a new house, got a mortgage on it, and then after three to five years, they moved to the next job, but they keep that house, keep it as a rental. By that time, they had accumulated enough for a down payment for a house in their new location, and then, well, if they had had a 50-year mortgage with less payments, might have sped up their down payment savings, so I could be a devil's advocate, and I could cook up all sorts of crazy scenarios of people that absolutely should not get a 50-year mortgage. But I can also show you some examples where maybe the 50-year mortgage, it expands your horizon. And by the way, the 50-year mortgage was actually marketed as that bad case. We bring in more people that can't afford to buy

right now. That's probably not the right route to go. But definitely for sophisticated actors that can afford either the 30 or the 50, and then they consciously pick the 50-year mortgage, might not be a bad idea. I think the area where you and I are in agreement is when it comes to rental property investors, because even owner occupants who become quote-unquote accidental landlords and who have a plan of becoming rental property investors at a rate of one property every three to five years, I count them as rental property investors insofar as they have a portfolio of rental properties. And we hear all the time from people who say,

I never want to hold a property that I'm not living in. And there are plenty of people who feel that way. They don't want to deal with tenants. They don't want to deal with repairs. There are people who know that they don't want that. So I'm thinking specifically about owner occupants in the context of this 50-year discussion. Sure, sure. And to your earlier point where you talk about how nobody or very few people hold a mortgage to maturity,

most people will move after seven to ten years, one of the key differences between the 30 year and the 50 year is the amount of equity that you build during that time span, because often an owner-occupant will use the equity from the sale of their previous home to purchase their next home. They, you know, unlike the rental property investor, they haven't been accumulating a down payment over the span of those seven to 10 years. So they're relying on the sale. It's oftentimes the offer is submitted contingent upon the sale of their previous home. And so with a 50 year, they're just not building equity in the way that they would. And therefore, they're not getting into that next home in the way that they otherwise could. I would agree with you just qualitatively. I don't think quantitatively it's that big difference.

Oh, okay. Let's hear your numbers. So I did the calculations right. So you imagine you have a 30-year mortgage versus a 50-year mortgage. And I think I did something like a $500,000 initial mortgage. I actually put a little bit of a term spread on the 50-year mortgage, so you pay a little bit higher interest rate. How much of a term spread?

I did 25 basis points. We can get into that in just a minute because that's actually also a bit of a touchy subject there. What should be the correct term spread? The $500,000 mortgage, you pay only something like $20,000. down with the 50-year mortgage, and you pay $80,000 down with the 30-year mortgage after 10 years. Now, much of the equity comes obviously. First of all, you should have gotten a home, say maybe a $625,000 home, right?

So you already started with $125,000 in equity. And if you assume that your home at least modestly appreciates by, say, 2% a year, I think most of the home equity building comes from the home price appreciation. And then again, we are not home price speculators and we are not betting on 12% annual appreciation. I mean, I'm just saying that imagine your home price just goes up in line with inflation, something like 2.200 quarter percent. So if you factor that in, just qualitatively the 30-year mortgage builds more equity, but it's not for X the equity, as some people have calculated.

where they just look at the mortgage balance, the nominal mortgage balance. Yeah, of course, it's $20,000 versus $80,000. But you could also make the point that, well, the mortgage balance, inflation has chipped away. In fact, from year one on, you're chipping away 2.25% of the mortgage balance. So inflation does a bigger trick on your mortgage balance than you paying it down with a 30-year or a 50-year mortgage. Now, a 15-year mortgage, I mean, you can definitely see that. So, for example, if you plot the balance of the mortgage, whether it's 30 years or 50 years, right, it's this line that starts very flat and only towards the end, it starts really tilting down.

The 15-year mortgage, definitely that goes down almost, maybe not linearly, but it has a little bit of a tilt in it, has a little bit of this concavity in the mortgage balance over time. Between the 30-year and the 50-year, the mortgage paydown is not that much. And then, of course, you also save money from the lower pay. If you had invested that money at some reasonable investment return opportunity, now, of course, if you had just taken that money and taken it as some free money, right, like you find a $20 bill in your sofa cushion and you just blow the money on something where you don't really spend it reasonably and responsibly. There will be a different story. But imagine you take the savings from the mortgage into account, you invest that some way. That should also help you build some equity if you buy your your next property in 10 years. So, yes, I can see qualitatively, you're right. Quantitatively, the difference is not as big as some people want to make it.

If once you look at the numbers, especially the after inflation numbers, after factoring in some home price appreciation. So if you do the math right, it's not that big a deal. In your own analysis, didn't you find that after 10 years, the 30 year would build $80,000 in equity versus the 50 year would build $20,000 in equity? Yes, absolutely. So that is a 4x difference. Right. It's a 4x difference. So you're basically $60,000 short just due to the mortgage balance.

But instead of having, say, a $420,000 mortgage, you have a $480,000 mortgage. So you take the inflation out of that equation. Now it's no longer so lopsided. I think it's something like for every dollar you pay down in real inflation, adjust the terms for the 30-year mortgage, it's maybe only 70 cents on the dollar for the 50-year mortgage. So it's not as crazy as if you're looking at these nominal numbers. This is only on the mortgage side, right? You had lower mortgage payments. Maybe you had invested that difference in the stock market or in some other productive way.

Maybe you bought more rental properties along the way. I think it's really a very one-sided and also short-sided analysis to just look at the paydown. right? So you build equity also, hopefully, through some property appreciation, not just the mortgage paydown. And your point is, if you invest the differential, then you're building equities, stock equities. Hopefully. When I say that, well, maybe you should entertain the 50-year mortgage, I still can see that maybe now is not the right time to do it. Just because now is not the right time doesn't mean that 50-year mortgage is always bad. For example, if you could have locked in, a 50-year mortgage in early 2022, you would have had an even better way of investing that money potentially, and you would have a longer runway, and the inflation has a longer way of chip away

from that mortgage balance over 50 years rather than 30 years. So maybe now we have a bit of this perfect storm, right, where mortgage rates are still pretty high. So the hurdle rate for my investment is also relatively high. If I want to look around and shop around for investments, where can I put this differential payment, right? If I can afford the 30-year mortgage, but I lower my payment and I look around, where would I invest that? If you were to invest it in government bonds, they would be terrible because there the expected return is way too low. But even in equities, equities seem a little bit expensive and as a Cape ratio or any kind of valuation ratio looks outrageously expensive. But we could have the exact opposite.

opposite situation. It is the perfect storm in a good way, right? Maybe two to three years we could have maybe another economic downturn where interest rates are going to be much lower again. And then also equity valuations are going to look very rich. So from both sides, they both point towards the 50-year mortgage, right? Your investment opportunities are good. And that rate at which you could leverage your investments is also going to be much cheaper. So all I'm saying is don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, just because right now the 50-year mortgage is not the best instrument and vehicle, maybe keep it as an option for later. The holidays are here. That came quickly. It's a little shocking how quickly December crept up

on us. The last couple of months have flown by, and now it is time for last-minute gifts, last-minute home preparation, and that's where Wayfair comes in, because they are, you. your one-stop shop for everything from bedding and linens to decor. If you're having guests over for the holidays and you need to refresh your guest room with bedding or throw pillows or accent chairs, or if you need to find gifts for loved ones, I got three chairs for my parents. I've already given it to them, so this is not a spoiler. But my parents just moved into a one-story ranch house. They have one of those kitchens with an eat-in bar, so I got them three countertop height chairs to place there. And what was cool about,

Shopping for that on Wayfair was the tremendous selection. I wanted something with 360-degree swivel. I wanted colors that matched their furniture. It needed to be specifically counter height, not bar height. Even within those specifications, there was a ton of choice. And that's the thing about Wayfair. Whatever you need, home decor, kitchen essentials, kids' rooms, they have so much selection.

Whatever you need is easy to find, no matter your style, no matter your budget. Get last-minute hosting essentials. gifts for all your loved ones, and decor to celebrate the holidays for way less. Head to Wayfair.com right now to shop all things home. That's W-A-Y-F-A-I-R dot com. Wayfair, every style, every home. Kevin Harlan here. Tomorrow, the NBA on Prime Crew is back.

As the Emirates NBA knockout rounds continue. The action heads to Las Vegas tomorrow for a thrilling semifinals double-header. Four teams remain, but only two will move on. The last two teams standing will then go toe to toe Tuesday night, December 16th, in the championship game. For a shot at the cup, bragging rights, and a place in NBA history. And Prime is your exclusive home for all the action. So don't miss the final chase for the Emirates NBA Cup coming to you live from Las Vegas, starting with the semifinals double header tomorrow at 5.30 p.m. Eastern.

And Prime's also got your front row seat for the championship. game Tuesday, December 16th at 8.30 Eastern. If you're not a prime member, that's not a problem. Sign up for a free 30-day trial to get started today. Restrictions apply. See Amazon.com slash Amazon Prime for details. And don't miss the thrilling conclusion of the Emirates NBA Cup tomorrow. Only on Prime.

Build, play, and display with the 3-1 Megablocks preschool sets. The Building Go race car revamps into a pickup truck and hot ride. and the build and enchant unicorn transforms into a puppy and Pegasus. Each easy-to-build set comes with rolling wheels, 26 blocks, and easy-to-read building steps, compatible with other megablocks sets for endless big building fun. Shop 3-1 megablocks at Walmart for ages 3-plus. If that were the case, if in a hypothetical world, world, you were advising financial institutions, taking the lender's side, would you then advise

them to issue 50-year mortgages at our current interest rates, let's say anything above 6%, but to stop issuing these mortgages once interest rates fall below maybe 4% or 3%. Well, I trust financial institutions that they are smart enough to hedge all these risks. I mean, for example, right now, maybe institutions are not even too interested in issuing these mortgages anyways because they know in a few years they will be refinanced again, which could actually mean maybe now is a good time. Maybe the term spread is not that high right now because maybe they have to offer you pretty lean term spreads, a very small spread or maybe even no spread above the 30 year to get you in the door because if it's too expensive, who would want this 50-year

mortgage? The general direction of interest rates is definitely going down. I mean, we're expecting something like at least two or three more rate cuts from the Federal Reserve. And eventually that's going to drag down the longer term rates as well. And by the way, most banks don't even want to keep mortgages on their balance sheet, right? I mean, normally when you get a mortgage, the bank just originates the mortgage and then it's repackaged. And the people that buy these kinds of packaged mortgage products would be big institutional investors, like sovereign wealth funds, endowments, pension funds, obviously pension funds

a bit on the way out, but especially because pension funds, especially some of these more mature pension funds, they are basically just hedging their future payments. They're not accepting any new retirees anymore. There might be some pension funds that still would like to have very long range fixed income products to hedge their cash flows. The research I did for this blog post that I wrote, I thought, well, okay, so treasuries, yes, sure, they go only up to 30 years, but what kind of corporate bonds and then what kind of other, any kind of bond? For example, we also have some sovereign bonds from other countries that issue bonds, but they're dollar denominated. So how far do they go out? And there's some hundred-year bonds. So I found some bonds with

maturities in the year 2,1211 that were initiated four years ago in the year 2021. I think it's Norfolk Southern Railway. And, you know, at least with the railways, maybe you could make the case. I mean, probably railways should be around in 100 years. There's some other companies. I'm not going to name any names. I say, well, you have a bond that expires in 40 years. I don't know what your business model.

Is that business model still going to be around in 40 years? But anyway, so there's some very long-running bonds, and there seems to be some appetite for that. And who is around in a hundred years? Even if a newborn today bought this bond, I mean, chances are that newborn will never get the payment back in the end, at least not during their lifetime. But, of course, the point is, well, people want to hedge very long-term payment streams, and these ultra-long bonds are one way, right? So it could be pension funds, probably not so much, maybe big endowments and sovereign wealth funds, they still like to invest in very long-dated bonds, especially U.S. dollar, you know, it's a safe haven currency.

There's probably also a lot of foreign demand for these very long maturity bonds. So I think there's definitely going to be some appetite for this from the institutional side. That actually leads to a question that's unrelated to the 50-year mortgage, but it's a question that I've had in my head for a long time. And I know you worked at the Federal Reserve. I have no idea if you have any insight from that into the question I'm about to ask. But why is it that the United States does not issue 100-year bonds? I mean, if I were to make a bet on something being around 100 years from now, I'd be willing to bet that the United States will be around in 100 years. Yeah, I'm surprised. I think we could. We could and we should. Of course,

now the train has left the station a little bit, right? So we should have done this in the late 2010s. But because there are some other countries that have these very long-running bonds, and by the way, as somebody who had invested in that, say in the year 2018-19, 100-year bond, and interest rates go up by, I don't know, even 200 basis points or 300 basis points since then. Yeah, I mean, you definitely lost your shirt there just from the duration effect. But I would support that the U.S. government could look into expanding that horizon and going to, I mean, at least 50 years. So, yeah. Exactly for the point you brought up, right? Because, I mean, we are obviously a country that will still be around in a hundred years. So if we are not, then who else will be?

Right. And if we are not, then we will have much bigger problems than my bond portfolio. Exactly. Yeah. So that leads back to what sparked this conversation, which was the term premium. And just to lay out to the people who are listening, why we're discussing this on the mortgage market right now, there is a spread between the 15-year mortgage and the 30-year mortgage. According to bank rate, that average spread between the 15-year versus the 30-year is just a little bit greater than a half-point, 0.55, 0.55, we can just round that down to a half-point. In much of the conversation around 30-year versus 50-year, there are some people who will apply that linearly. and say, all right, well, if a half point is the spread between 15 and 30, then a half point's also going to be the spread between 30 and 50.

Your argument is that it might not be linear. That might not be the case. Yeah, I mean, and this is not my opinion, right? So this is a lot of this amortization math doesn't really extrapolate linearly. The reason is that very small changes in the term premium, if you pile them up over 50 versus 30 years, that would have a huge impact. So if I were to apply something like another 50 basis point, and some people claim that the term premium is going to be 75 to 100 basis point, which is completely insane.

That'd be insane. That is obviously not going to happen. Because you could calculate, well, what is my internal rate of return of the differential cash flow between a 30-year mortgage and a 50-year mortgage, right? And so I have 600 rows of cash flows, right? And during the first 360, I have the differential payment. So something that I save. So it's a positive cash flow to me as a borrower.

So I get a positive cash flow. And then I get hit over the head for the next 240 months with the 50-year mortgage payment because the 30-year mortgage is paid off. I plot this cash flow, right? a relatively narrow cash flow for 360 months, and then 240 months, a very negative substantial cash flow of the 50-year mortgage payment. So we ask ourselves, well, what kind of an internal rate of return do I have to make this cash flow basically net present value of zero?

And because this is such a long period, and all of these very large payments are so far in the future, to set this net present value down to zero when I sum it up, I have to clobber this with some really, really large internal rate of return, much bigger than the rate of return, say, equal to the 60-year mortgage rate or the 30-year mortgage rate. And that effect is a lot smaller if we go from 15 to 30. And that's just because of geometric growth, right? So something where I apply some kind of a discount rate and I apply it over 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, that's going to have a smaller effect than when I apply it over 50 years.

you need a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot smaller term premiums to squeeze this differential payment internal rate of return, which is something like a hurdle rate, by the way, for both sides of the equation, right, for the borrower and the lender, right? Because the borrower has to ask himself or herself, is it worthwhile for me to have better cash flows for the first 30 years, but then I have a lot more cash flows later?

And then the lender too, right? So the lender gets less revenue, gets less interest, income over 30 years and then gets more interest income for the next 20 years. So what kind of investment return do I want over this horizon? And it turns out that very, very small spreads can create some huge internal rates of return. So, for example, if you plug in something like a 75 or 100 basis point premium, it would create an infinite internal rate of return. So obviously, lenders would like that.

And here's the reason why lenders would like that. if you apply a term premium high enough, it's actually the 50-year mortgage would have a higher monthly payment than even the 30-year mortgage, right? And then nobody would want that. Of course, the lender would love this, right? You get more for 30 years

and then you get even more for years 31 to 50. I mean, that's not going to happen. Every time you have to do these net present value calculations and internal rate of returns, but you have to have some positive and some negative cash flows. If everything is positive, then there is no internal rate of return. The internal rate of return would have to be infinity to press everything down to zero.

So here again, right, so this kind of mass, over 15 years, 15-year mortgage versus 30-year mortgage. So you need much bigger term premiums to bring these differential payments into balance. And whereas over a very long horizon, it's just a tiny term premium, could create some fantastic profit opportunities for the lender, and potentially would create some terrible hurdle rates. for the borrower. So that was my point. And by the way, the bond market gives us some guidance here. So I looked up a few bonds of some corporations. I took the same corporation, but I looked at different expiration dates for their bonds. So at least I would have corporations, well, you know, they have, obviously, it has the same credit rating. Just the maturity of that

corporate bond is 20 years apart. And they have very, very tiny term premium. And as a corporate Bonds are even much more extreme than mortgages, for example, right? Because in a corporate bond, you get only the interest payment, and then at the end you get the big lump sum payment, right? So delaying that by 20 years from a finance math point of view, that's a much bigger deal than spreading out your mortgage amortization for 30 versus 50 years. This is where I came up with that rough estimate. Yeah, probably somewhere between 20 and 25 basis points would be a fair term premium for that longer mortgage, if you're really sure that you hold the mortgage that long, right? And so, for example, if it's paid back early, the lender gains, right? You get more

interest and it's paid back so you don't have to stretch it out. Of course, I mean, there could be obviously some lenders who say, no, no, but I wanted this, right, because I'm a pension fund. I like to hedge the payment over the next 30, 40, 50 years, because this is how long I expect my retirees to live. But again, I mean, to say if I were a private lender and I did a mortgage and somebody paid me something like 25 basis points more for the 50 year mortgage, I would love to get those 25 basis points extra because I'm sure that this person is going to move after 10 years and pay back the mortgage and I pocketed the 25 basis points extra. And I'm not even going to go that far. So this 25 basis point term premium was only calibrated for something where you don't have any

prepayment risk. If you have a prepayment risk, that would make it even more important that, well, we can't have something like a 50 basis point or even 75 basis point term premium. So it would be, nobody would go for that on the borrower side, at least nobody, nobody rational, even though obviously lenders would probably make a lot of money if they offered that. But with the prepayment risk, that was exactly what I was about to ask about next. With prepayment risk, as a lender, you're in a situation in which if rates fall, then the borrower can refinance, but if rates rise, then the borrower holds. Yes. Which, that seems like asymmetric risk from the lender's perspective, right?

Because the lender suffers from duration risk if rates rise and then loses out if rates fall. Right. And by the way, this risk is even worse than the corporate bond market, right? Because most, maybe not most, but many, many corporate bonds also are callable. So there might be a little bit of hurdles, right? I don't think they can be called right away. There's probably some schedule after which you can call the bonds. It might be a little bit more complicated than for the average mortgage borrower,

but most corporate bonds are also callable. And then on top of that, it's this issue, right? You have only interest. These are interest-only loans, and then you get the big payment of the principal back at the end of the mortgage. And the borrower has this fantastic heads I win, tails you lose, right? So if interest rates go up, that's great. I're going to keep this.

and because interest rates are higher, probably inflation is really high inflation, is going to chip away the mortgage balance, especially as a corporation, right? There's never the risk of kind of moving, right? So they can keep the bond for as long as they want. There's no issue if you ever move your headquarters to a different state that you have to pay back all of your corporate bonds. You can keep them. And then if interest rates go down by enough, then you just refinance.

And by the way, they face the same fixed costs. So they have some cost of issuing a bond. Well, you have to pay some big financial institution to rally the investor masses to buy up your bond. And there's some cost, just like a mortgage borrower, any refi is going to be costly. You might have an inspection and a credit check and some legal fees. You take that, you just multiply that by maybe a thousand or so, and then you get the cost that some of the corporate borrowers face. Yes, but yeah, there's this asymmetry. basically the lenders are on the hook for the risk, but then again, they also want to be

compensated for them. It's basically called the convexity risk. The convexity means that there's this non-linearity in the mortgage pricing, so you lose if interest rates go up, but you should gain if interest rates go down, but you don't gain as much as you hope because the thing could be prepaid, which, by the way, you don't have in treasuries, right? So treasury bonds, at least to my knowledge, they're not called. That's why if interest rates go down and you have this very, you have a 5% treasury and interest go down to 1%, you made a ton of profit along the way. At the same time, it's priced into the bond and lenders will know this and they want to

be compensated for that. And corporations could potentially get better rates if they didn't have that prepayment option. So in an efficient market, it's obviously, nobody's being taken. advantage of you, right? I mean, on both sides, on the lender and borrower side, these are very sophisticated actors. So they know what they're doing. The attractiveness or unattractiveness of a 50-year mortgage, much of this is going to come down to what is that term premium, because if that term premium is a quarter point, it's a very different conversation than if it's 75 basis

points. But it strikes me that with a 50-year mortgage, there's more time for rates to move against investors. There's more time for the convexity problem to rear its ugly head from a lender's perspective. And so it stands to reason that a lender would want to be compensated well for that. Right. And to alleviate some of these fears, right? So I did the calculations. For example, you can calculate something, what's called a duration, right? So bonds have a duration. They have a maturity, which is when they're paid off. The duration is this mathematical concept, right where you calculate. And the duration for the bond pricing, the duration has at least two interpretation. One is the duration is over what period on average is the loan paid off? So you look

at all the payments, not just the final payment. And the other very intriguing interpretation is that the duration is something like it measures the interest rate sensitivity of the present value of the loan. And that means that if interest rates go up, right, so you discount at a higher rate. So that means the loan value goes down. So it measures how risky this investment is if you have fluctuations in interest rate. So just to throw out some numbers there, so even some of these bonds that I looked at, right, so there are bonds that have maturity 20 years and 40 years, their duration was really only 12 and 16, right? Because, I mean, there are some payments are flowing already early on. And so on average, the loan is roughly paid after much less than the whole 20 or 40 years.

And then if you do the same thing with the mortgage, you have even surprisingly low duration. So I think I calculated something like somewhere between 11 and 14. So 11 would be the duration for a 30-year mortgage. And 14, so only three years longer, would be for the 50-year mortgage. So if you calculate the interest sensitivity of the price of that loan, yeah, I mean, you go from 11 to 14. I think it was 10.7 versus 13.7. So it obviously has to be higher because it's a longer maturity loan if you increase the mortgage. But it doesn't mean that a 50-year mortgage, the price risk due to interest rate fluctuations, it doesn't have to be 50 over 30.

It doesn't have to be 67% higher risk. It's only 25% more risk from interest rate fluctuations. So these are risks, and people would want to be compensated for that. But most people buy bonds because they tend to be a good diversifier of your equity risk. And then, by the way, each individual mortgage, of course, also has some credit risk built. So imagine we take this big pool of mortgages. It's not just one borrower. So you diversify away a little bit of this idiosyncratic risk, right, where somebody loses a job and can't pay the mortgage.

And then they get angry and they pour concrete down the pipe and make sure that the bank doesn't get the house at full value either. Let's assume that is already all averaged out. And we make this basically almost like a relatively safe government bond minus a little bit, maybe a 1%, 1.5 or 2% chance of maybe some mortgage delinquencies along the money. the way. Lots of people like these kinds of fixed income investments because they behave in a way that has some nice correlations with your other risky assets, right? So the bond risk seems to be at least uncorrelated, sometimes even negatively correlated with your equity risk. Obviously, there is risk and there's duration risk and interest rate risk. Many times the interest rate risk is actually a good risk to take on. There might be even some people who say, well,

I love the interest rate's risk so much. How can I get more of this? And of course, whereas in isolation, obviously, everything's more risk should deserve a bigger premium. So in the big scheme, just having more interest rate risk doesn't necessarily mean that you get terribly penalized for that, because it's a risk that people actually seek to hedge other risks. So either, imagine you're a private investor and you have your equity portfolio, well, maybe you want to have only 75% equities. 25% bonds, because if equities go down in a recession, bonds have some potential to go up and hedge some of that risk, or say you are a pension fund or any kind of an institutional investor where you want to hedge some nominal or sometimes real future cash flows, then you would

also like bonds. And you wouldn't really care too much about the interest rate risk, because if interest rates go up, yes, interest rates go up. That means your portfolio goes down. But if interest rates go up, then the future discounted cash flows that you owe, they might also go down. So you actually like that kind of risk. So it's a risk that is a good risk to take for a lot of actors. Maybe it's just a phase you're going through. You'll get over it. I can't help you with that. The next appointment is in six months. You're not alone. Finding mental health support shouldn't leave you feeling more lost. At CAMH, we know how frustrating it can be trying to access care. We're working to build a future where the path to support is clear, and every step forward feels like

progress. Not another wrong turn. Visit camh.ca to help us forge a better path for mental health care. When you're flying Emirates business class, sipping your favorite cocktail at our onboard lounge, you'll see that your vacation isn't really over until your flight is over. Fly Emirates, fly better. U.S. Soccer team. Reality says the odds are stacked against us. To think our U.S. men's national team can ever raise the world's biggest trophy.

You're the first soccer team to beat them at football. Never. But here's the thing about us. Refusing to accept reality is kind of our thing. Being unrealistic, that's not a flaw. It's a force. It's fuel. Because if you want to be great and make history, never chase reality.

Join U.S. Soccer Insiders today. be part of the journey. I want to return back to the attractiveness of a 50-year loan for the average owner-occupant. And one of the main points that gets brought up, particularly in mainstream media, when we read about the 50-year mortgage, is the massive differential in interest that the average owner occupant. would pay if they were to hold this to maturity. You make the point in your argument that paying interest isn't bad. Elaborate.

Right. So at least if you read between the lines, you sometimes see that people get offended that over time, the longer the mortgages, the more of your payment goes towards the interest and not paying down the principal. I'm not offended by that because you can't just take the sum of your payments because the sum of your payments, you're comparing apples and oranges, right? Because a payment of, say, $3,000 for your mortgage today is very different from a payment $3,000 20 years into the future. There's a time value of money. Everything needs to be discounted back into today's dollars.

And if I take all of these payments and I discount every one of these payments back at the mortgage rate, And I sum them all up, by definition, I get the mortgage principle. So every mortgage has, you pay exactly the principle. And then everything that you pay in nominal dollars in addition is interest. But yeah, I mean, if I discount it down, there's nothing offensive or abusive about paying more in interest. For example, at today's interest rates, even the 30-year mortgage, right, at something like 6% or a little over 6% in some cases. Over 30 years, you would pay more in interest than principal.

And then with the 50-year mortgage, I think it's probably something like a two-to-one. So out of every dollar, you probably pay only 33 cents of principal and 66 or 67 cent of interest. I don't think there's any magic line that you cross, you know, where if you go from more interest than principal, then I don't know, the universe blows up or something like that. For example, going back to that one bond that I described, there was a hundred-year bond, it pays an interest of 4.1%. The principal is paid after 100 years, and through that time, right, 4.1 times 100, you paid for every $100 loan, you paid $410 in interest, and only $100, that's what the principal paid on

is at the end. So it's actually 4.1 to 1. So more than 20% of your payment goes towards the interest. in that corporate bond. And I'm sure that the company that did that is actually quite happy because they locked in a 4.1 rate on a corporate bond 100 years into the future in 2021 when interest rates were really low. So this is in no way abusive.

The discussion reminds me a little bit of this discussion, and I'm sure you have talked about this, when people do the crossover points of Social Security, where they say, well, I'm looking at the total number of payments that I get, and I do this up to my life expectancy, And if I claim it 62 versus 67 versus 70, and here are the crossover points. And a little bit of my soul dies every time when I see that. And by the way, it's very mainstream people publish this.

I've seen this on the web pages of Fidelity and maybe Vanguard 2, where basically commit these crimes against mathematics. It's not the total number. You have to do discount at sums. You have to, an actuarial analysis would actually do the survival probability weighted cash flows and then also discounted at just the right discount. It shouldn't be an equity market expected return. It shouldn't be a cash return.

It probably should be somewhere in between. So that is the proper way to do it. There's a net present value analysis. And if we do a net present value analysis of any kind of mortgage, right, you never pay any interest because the discounted value of all the payments always comes back to be the principal. So I'm not particularly bothered. But definitely is a very effective and cheap shot at the 50-year mortgage. If you say, oh, my goodness, you pay so much in interest over the years.

But for people like us, it's not very convincing that. If that's your only point, then I think that I want the argument in that case. All right. What do you make of the argument that, you know, right now, the average age of the first-time homebuyer nationwide is 40. It hit 40 for the first time. If we take, and of course, most people don't hold one singular mortgage for their entire life, but if you were to buy a home at the age of 40 and hold it for 50 years, you'd be 90 when that mortgage is paid off. That creates a best case scenario assuming no early payments or prepayments. It creates a best case scenario

assuming you never move and only hold one mortgage of having that home paid off at the age of 90. and then for the average person who tends to move every seven to ten years and who sells their home, cashes out the equity, uses it to buy the next home, and then restarts the amortization clock, they would necessarily be restarting with very little equity and then restarting the amortization clock over and over and over to such an extent that ultimately they would, at the end of their life, have built very little equity and maybe have a huge debt that they would pass on to their errors. Right. So again, my same point applies again. So we have to take into account not just the nominal, but also the real mortgage balance. So your property hopefully has increased a little bit. You built some equity there. I view this also with a bit of worry that people get mortgages when, even today, forget about the 50 year mortgage. If you are close to retirement, there are some people that are still getting a new mortgage at age 50 or 55 or 60. And it's again a 30 year mortgage. So it's, again, a 30 year mortgage. So it's, In some way, even today, with today's financial technology, there are some retirees that, well, they are homeowners on paper, but they are really renters, and they are renting a house from the bank. And in some cases, it may make sense, right? So, for example, you could be a retired government employee and you get pretty reliable

cash flows. And you just say, well, I'm not going to pay down my mortgage, right? I just budget for what I pay for my mortgage in retirement. and I keep paying that down and then be done with it because, you know, whether my kids get, so I'm talking from the perspective of other people, so I have one daughter, and by the way, I don't have a mortgage. Imagine I were in that situation. And I say, well, you know, if my daughter gets the house free and clear when I die versus my daughter gets the house and there's still a little bit of a mortgage on it, chances are she's not going to stay in this house anyways.

it will be sold. At the closing table, we take the mortgage balance off. It's still pretty neat. Home equity left after that. Imagine if I had invested the incremental payments, so not having a mortgage, I would have to sell more of my assets. And if I have the mortgage,

maybe my assets actually appreciate faster than the mortgage interest rate. So there's some chance that your kids will still get something, and it's not even clear whether the mortgage versus no mortgage, inheritance is bigger because whatever your mortgage does or whether you have a mortgage or do have a mortgage might also have an impact on your financial wealth. I mean, sometimes people do these calculations. So one person has a mortgage and the other one doesn't have a mortgage.

And then you look at what happens after 20 years. But that's not the issue. The question is, if I'm close to retirement, should I liquidate some of my assets and get rid of the mortgage and then be mortgage-free in retirement? And that would lower my financial assets. So to do a fair comparison, it's not 100% clear that with the mortgage or without the mortgage is better for the ears. I personally don't have a mortgage.

How do I not have a mortgage when I retired when just five years before retirement? I just did my last refinance. There was another nice interest rate trough in late 2012. I don't know if you remember. So I locked it in there and I did the paperwork in early. early January, 2013, almost exactly five years before I retired and sold my place. And five years later, I have no mortgage. So did I pay down my mortgage over five years? Did I have a five-year mortgage if there is even such a thing? And of course, I don't, right? So basically what I did was

I lived in a very expensive area. I lived in San Francisco, right, middle of downtown. I sold the place. Of course, I had some home equity. Then the mortgage job was paid down a little bit, but then again, the big impact on my equity came not from the mortgage paydown. It came from the property appreciation, which wasn't insane. It wasn't insane. I think I had something like a maybe five and a half percent annual property appreciation. So it's more than inflation. And it was a good time to own property in San Francisco. If I had bought a little bit later, I could have bought a little bit more at the trough. Then I could have probably done something like double digit annual return on the on the property price but when I bought it was not the ideal time but I still

made a year did you buy I bought in 2008 which was a bad year to buy in San Francisco and I could have waited maybe until the rock bottom prices in early 2010 that way I would have had better pricing so bought in 2008 sold in 2018 and I walked away with enough equity and then I bought a place in a much cheaper area in Washington State, not in Seattle, which is also quite expensive, and not in Portland, Oregon either, but across the river from Portland. Oh, Vancouver, Washington? Is that one you know? Exactly. Vancouver, Washington is just a little bit away from where I live, which has nothing to do with the Canadian border, right? We are at the southern corner of

Washington State, and it's actually named after Fort Vancouver, right? Vancouver was some, I think, lieutenant or somebody who explored this area. Yeah. It's actually the Washington, Vancouver was founded before the Canadian Vancouver. Of course, Canadian Vancouver is much bigger now. So I bought a place here and now have no mortgage. Not everybody was as lucky as I got when I retired, but you can definitely extrapolate that to other retire. So you retire, you move, you're living very close to the city, maybe you move a little bit away. You don't have to clog up the freeways in the big metro areas, maybe move out.

to where it's a little bit quieter, and then buy a cheaper place. And that is probably the much better way of going from mortgage to no mortgage, from working to retirement, then diligently paying down your mortgage. Because I don't know anybody anymore who has a mortgage from 29 years ago and they're just about to make the last payment of that 30-year mortgage. I mean, that's totally unheard of because of refinances and job moves and other reasons to move, especially right before retirement. And, yeah, I think the best way to go mortgage-free is to just scale down your house or to move to a smaller place, cheaper place.

That's much more reliable nowadays. Although scaling down your house is sometimes difficult in an environment in which home prices are appreciating rapidly. And the premise behind this question, I guess the unknowable is at what rate will home prices continue to appreciate. But I can certainly tell you from my own parents' experience, attempting to move. move, or they did move, but moving in their 80s to a home that was more mobility-friendly, nothing fancy, but just a home that's more mobility-friendly, one-story rather than two-stories so they don't have to use the stairs. Because home prices had appreciated so much, even moving to a further out location, a quote-unquote worse location, even despite doing that,

they still actually ended up paying a premium. exact issue also crossed my mind because I looked around in our area. And so we live closer to Portland in a very good school district. And once our daughter is done with school, why don't we move to a cheaper place further out, well, I wouldn't call it countryside, but somewhere less desirable. And I mean, you'll be surprised that if you move further out, less urban and it's kind of not even suburban, more ex-urban. Prices really don't go down because, well, you also have more land, and then the houses are much bigger than ours.

Yeah. That can be a challenge. And in the era of remote work, you know, you've got higher demand in those areas, at least from knowledge workers. Yeah. So it may not work for everybody. It definitely worked for me, moving from San Francisco to Washington State. It's not going to work moving from St. Louis to Kansas City.

I mean, you probably have the same prices or potentially high. prices. Right. And so that goes back to then the common criticism of the 50-year mortgage, which is you could spend your whole life never building much equity and ultimately end up saddling your heirs with debt. I mean, first of all, debt would require that your home, also the home value goes down to zero, which I hope it doesn't. So there's still a home value behind the mortgage. And it's not about settling your heirs with debt. It just means that you have a little bit less equity. I think it's still, for example, we have the step-up basis for air, so they can inherit a property and basically the capital gains are forgiven. There's still a lot of attractiveness,

not just homeownership, but homeownership as an estate planning tool. And, you know, if you have a little bit of a mortgage, I think most of the time the airs will just sell the home and pay off the mortgage. And I mean, if I had the choice, do I rather want to inherit a a house with the mortgage or without a mortgage. Of course, I want a house without the mortgage. But for most people, we have to do a real horse race at a side-by-side comparison. Do I want to inherit a house with a mortgage plus a big equity portfolio, which by the way also gets a nice step-up basis? Or maybe the people that gave you the money pay down the mortgage and have a much smaller equity portfolio. So it really depends on what's the path of equity returns over the

next few years. I think if we do a real fair comparison, some of this discussion is a bit fear-mongering, right? I mean, you're going to leave debt to your heirs. And even with the 30-year mortgage, right, lots of people are still going to get brand-new mortgages when they move in retirement. So I think just having a little bit of a leveraged life is that's just the lifestyle we have here in the United States. And I saw, I grew up in Germany and there would be totally unthinkable for 50-year-olds still to get a new mortgage. You settle down, you build a house, you pay down the mortgage, you stay there pretty much forever, and that's it. So this is, it's a lot less leverage, a lot less money and liquidity slushing around there. But I mean, it's just the way

Americans roll, I think. Right. And in part, that's the price that we pay for mobility. Right. And that leads to another objection to the 50-year mortgage. And this is actually one of the main objections that I have on a societal level, could this mortgage contribute to rapidly inflating home prices by virtue of getting more people, unqualified borrowers into the market, who then consume supply, which further curtails the supply issue? You know, it's a demand-side solution, essentially. Yes. And if we deal only with the demand and we make it easier for buyers to afford stuff,

Without doing anything on the supply side, yes, I absolutely think that is a huge concern. Ooh, we're in agreement. Especially in the big metro areas, right? There's constraints. You can't just invent new land around San Francisco or New York City or Seattle, right? You have some constraints on how far you can build. Manhattan is literally an island. Yes, that's right.

And so these are just geographic and physical constraints, but I think they're also man-made constraints. So there are rent control, right? I remember some tweets just a week or so ago that had to do with that. And that hampers supplying new homes. By the way, why does rental market have to do anything with owner-occupied? Obviously, if more people could afford to rent and if more landlords built nicer and bigger and cheaper homes for renters, it would take off a little bit of the pressure of people trying to look around and buy houses. So it's really from almost every direction we are constraining the housing market to work properly. We have a renter control. And then it's any kind of building codes, right? The building codes become more involved every year because politicians say, oh, wouldn't it be better if we build houses that have all of these additional features and they're all really nice, but they're making new construction a lot more expensive?

I don't know if people ever think that way, but they should also take into account some of the building codes and zoning and the delays during construction. The permitting process, yeah. I think it's just from identifying a lot of land to the people actually moving into the subdivision there. I think it probably takes five years or so. It takes a very long time. And yeah, there's setback requirements. There's density limitations. It gets very rural after a while. So we have some areas where the lots have to be five acres minimal. Wow.

So it's not 0.5, but 5 acres minimum. And it's just because the people that live there, they don't want multifamily. They don't want a subdivision where people live door to door and window to window. And you look out your bedroom window and then six feet away is somebody else's bedroom window. There are some areas where it's intentional. We don't want this very high density living here. And yeah, so everything contributes to that. And then because we have these constraints, now if you make it cheaper to get the mortgage,

and by the way, it's not cheaper. It only relaxes your cash flow and you bring in more potential buyers. Of course, the constraint and the concern would be that, well, you're just driving up the price because everybody is just lining up. They say, okay, well, I was able to get a $600,000 mortgage if it's 30 years. Now I can get, I don't know, I'm just making up the number, a $650,000 mortgage because it's a 50-year more. So I'm just going to bid up the price to $600.

But then everybody else does the same thing. And you're not building more. Only one person can get that new house. The people that benefit from that are the existing homes. So for example, you are renting, right? But you have rental property. So in some sense, you are a net landlord. And I am a net landlord in the sense that I own this place.

And then I have some real estate rental investments. So for us, it's actually. good if we bring in more people and just drive up prices because you're basically taking away from poor people and giving it to rich people that already own real estate. The average person who gets into the housing market, I don't know if it's really beneficial to them to tie that 50-year mortgage to your leg. Yes, I absolutely agree that we shouldn't only do the 50-year mortgage. And for example, I think that the 50-year mortgage, for me to be a big fan of it, there should probably be some underwriting constraints. You should be able to qualify for the 30-year mortgage,

and then you can also have the 50 as an option. If you can't afford the 30 and you only get the 50, it would contribute to just driving up prices. So I think that is a valid concern. But then again, I also say that just because one method doesn't solve the problem entirely, and it's just a small improvement doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider it. This is a bit concerning that this could have zero effect on building more stuff. I mean, for example, it could have the effect that if we make this 50-year mortgage more available to the commercial side, right? So if you're a landlord and we push more landlords into the 50-year mortgage and they pick this up, and maybe they are the first ones to implement it and the early adapters, maybe it would have an impact on the supply

side where landlords say, okay, now it's more attractive for me to build homes and I have a long horizon and I'd rather have a 50 year horizon than a 30 year horizon. That means I have, I can build my next property faster because the cash flow is a little bit lower for me. That is the one chance I see. But without solving the supply side, it is working only on the demand. I mean, it is doomed to fail just like any other, any other policy that only looks at the demand. Like rental control. Oh yeah, let's control rent. and then everything is going to work out. And, of course, it's not. We all know why if we studied economics. Right. Yeah, and that's exactly a major piece of my objection to it as well. It is a demand-side solution to a supply-side problem. That will likely have the net effect of only driving prices up.

Yeah, I agree with that. All right. We have found a couple of points of agreement. Yes, for sure. Well, thank you for having this discussion. question, Karsten. You bet. I'm glad I could come on the program. Or this debate, I should say. Thank you for this debate. Yeah, either way. It's always my pleasure. Carson, where can people find you if they would like to learn more from you? I have a blog, Early Retirement Now.com,

and I write about retirement-related topics, but of course anything finance-related I sometimes weigh into. And just like this one, try to play devil's advocate there a little bit. I'm on Twitter too. But if you go to my blog, you can find the ways a different route. wants to contact me. Well, thank you for joining the debate with Karsten over the 50-year mortgage. It was intended as a debate. It actually really turned more into an interview-style episode. You know, that's what happens when I talk to Karsten.

He is one of my favorite people to talk about economics with. So thank you for being part of this community. I hope that you enjoyed this discussion slash debate. If you enjoyed today's episode, please do three things. First, share this with friends, family, neighbors, colleagues, share it with the people in your life because that's how you spread the message of F-A-W-I-R-E. Second, subscribe to our newsletter, afford-anything.com slash newsletter. And finally, hang out with the community, afford-anything.com slash community.

It's where you can find like-minded folks who share your fascination with all things finance. Thank you again for being part of the Afford- Anything community. I'm Paula Pant. This is the Afford- Anything podcast. I'll meet you in the next episode. Oh, is there any Fed gossip? Oh, no, I mean, I'm not connected anymore, but the gossip is that they will pause and makes me a little bit nervous.

I mean, this is basically why the market is a little bit jittery right now. So there may be a pause in the rate cuts in December, which makes me wonder why would they pause? Well, we don't have the data, but out of caution, if the reason why you did the rate cuts at the beginning is because you're worried about a slowdown, and now we have less data, so probably still do the rate cuts. What difference does it make if you reach the, say, the 3% or whatever the landing point is supposed to be? If you reach the landing point by one or two meetings early, if there is a slowdown and then we lose the data and we don't observe the data for a while and say, oh, no, we should stop lowering rates now. That's a really dumb thing to do, right? So you take the foot off the gas, right?

Oh, and now, oh, now we're literally driving in a car, right? You take the foot off the gas. You want to slow down because you're worried about something bad happening. And now you get into the fog. They said, okay, no, I'm no longer taking the foot of the gas. I'm going to keep the foot on the gas because there's fog. I don't even know what's going on. And no, I mean, you should still take the foot of the gas if you have less information now.

So it's really, really weird stuff going on at the Fed. So I think this is going to have some, it reminds me of 2018. Remember that? In 2018, where it was a Fed meeting in December, everybody said, okay, it's kind of we got this in the bag. And then Jerome Powell comes out swinging and is sounding really hawkish. and then sends the market off into the Christmas break with everybody with total confusion and people are scared that the Fed is going to be way too hawkish. And it was basically a total meltdown, right?

The days before Christmas, 2018, was very bad in the stock market. I'm concerned that something like that is going to happen again. They're going to say, oh, yeah, I mean, we're not really sure about the slowdown anymore. So you're afraid about inflation now again? Very, very strange. What's going on?