Is a 50 year mortgage too desperate? 31% of first-time buyers stopped saving for retirement to fund a down payment. 74% would take a 50-year term. Saves $267/mo. Costs $458,000 more. $14K in equity after a decade instead of $59K. Would you apply? 👇

Forget saving for retirement, people are worried they won't have a place to live until then. 31% of first-time home buyers said they have turned off or reduced contributions to their 401k so that they can save for a down payment. And 74% of them said they would take a 50-year mortgage in order to be able to afford a home. Now, I've been in the mortgage industry for 14 years. I have a Master's in Marriage and Family Therapy. I'm not going to shame anyone for considering any of these ideas. I understand the circumstances out there. But I have to explain this to you because a $400,000 loan spread out over 50 years instead of 30. It gets you a better monthly payment. It saves you $267 a month and that is real money. That might be a grocery bill. It might cover a week of daycare. It's meaningful. But if you finance $400,000 over 50 years instead of 30, you end up paying $48,000 in interest and the principal part sucks too because after 10 years of making your payment on time, every single month, you would have only paid down $14,000 of your loan balance. 10 years only gets you $14,000 versus a 30-year loan where after that amount of time, you would have paid off almost $60,000 of your balance. The retirement piece is another layer on top of this because 78% of younger millennials said they planned a pool from their 401k to make a down payment. Not necessarily a bad idea. But if we drain the account that's supposed to pay your bills at 70 and you finance a home on a 50-year loan, that means you're not paying it off until you're 82. See the catch here? I'm not telling you, not to buy. I just want to ask you a question. If you are prioritizing buying a home over saving for retirement, would you really consider a 50-year loan if it existed?