Compounding Interest: Reader Replies, Part I

After my recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, “The Case Against 30-Year Mortgages,” readers had plenty to say. Some were critical, most were kind, and many brilliantly insightful. Below is a selection of responses, shared anonymously for privacy, that reveal how deeply Americans feel about the strange alchemy of homeownership, debt, and the illusion of affordability.

Read the full series here.

Consider this a sampling of the national conversation: an “annual percentage reaction” or “compounding interest” to a very old American habit: borrowing our way into the dream.

“The Fine Print and the False Promise”

I’m intrigued by your premise but two things you failed to address are the ability to prepay without any penalty and the ability to sell at any time without penalty . These aspects of the 30 year seem to place your overarching argument on shaky footing. I’m curious as to your thoughts.

Yes, there may be irrational value inflation, but that macroeconomic aspect has also allowed many homeowners to avail themselves of such value creep upon a sale. For new home buyers the game is the same it was 50 years ago. You got a job there’s a house for you, albeit it may end up being much more than you naively assumed.

Thought proving ideas always make us better. Thanks!

–J.C.

My Reply

I appreciated J.C.’s thoughtful challenge and it gave me an excuse to be blunt.

Hey J.C.,

Thanks for your comments. I’m going to be frank with you: I wanted to use the modern mortgage as a proxy to expose how stupidly asinine the concept of APR is. Time to ban APR from the dictionary. It makes long-term loans look cheap, short-term loans look expensive, makes the marketplace more confusing, and hides the true price of a product behind a sanitized annual rate.

APR needs to go. That’s what I want you to walk away with.

–Patrick

The Conclusion

That point no one would disagree with. I myself, even with a law degree, have no idea what the hell it really means, let alone how to calculate it…  BUT they sure use it to seduce you! 

Lovely to chat!

–J.C.

Reflection

J.C.’s response gets to the heart of it: even people trained in law and finance can’t define APR without a calculator and a prayer. Yet it’s the single metric the federal government insists must represent “truth in lending.” If you can’t explain a transparency standard in plain English, it isn’t transparent.

From @WSJopinion: The mortgage isn’t the foundation of the American Dream. It’s the scam of the century: a loan so exploitative it required a federal law to disguise its true nature, writes Patrick M. Brenner. https://t.co/0AI2KTgT6J

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) October 9, 2025