The 40-Year Mortgage Is No More Risky Than Any Other Mortgage Product But The Media Says Otherwise

Another day, another "mortgages are risky" article in the papers.  Today, the headline of an article in USA Today screamed: "Stretching mortgage to 40 years can be risky".

We get it!  Mortgages are risky.  In any form.  Of any product.  With any terms.  They're risky.

McPaper piece cites the same tired arguments against the 40-year loan:

1. Principal is not paid down fast enough
2. The total interest charges over 40 years are larger than with a 30-year mortgage
3. The 40-year loan is a "desperation" loan for people that should not be even considering homeownership
4. When home values flatten, homeowners with 40-year loans will be left stranded and unable to sell

You have seen these arguments before -- they're the same ones people use debunk negatively amortizing loans such as the Option ARM, and Interest Only products.

What makes them wrong is that these arguments are all based on a single tenet -- that paying down a principal balance is a good thing.  That's not always true.

In fact, purposefully maintaining low levels of home equity can be an excellent mortgage planning strategy.

"New" loan products like the 40-year mortgage are not dangerous to everyone; they are only dangerous to homeowners who operate without a financial plan.  It's not the loan that is risky, it's the behavior of the person paying the loan.