Should I Take a Reverse Mortgage?

By Alison Rogers | Sep 25, 2009 |

Dear Ali: I’m retired and some of my stocks have suffered all this financial trouble we’ve been having, so my banker mentioned a reverse mortgage to me. What do you think, is that worth looking into, or is there a catch? I can’t tell if they’re scams or not.

A: They’re not scams, but the title “reverse mortgage” is a little confusing, I think. The product — FHA (which calls it a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage) and Financial Freedom are big providers — is really a loan from the bank available to people age 62 and older.

It’s a loan where the bank gives you the money in dribs and drabs, and the loan is repaid under a couple of different circumstances, usually when the house is sold because the borrower/homeowner moves or dies.

So essentially what you’re doing with this product is drawing down your own equity.

If you die, then you’re simply leaving that much less to your estate, which is why I think of “reverse mortgages” as “screw-your-kids mortgages.”

Now many of you will argue that your children are grown and have their own jobs, and don’t need any more of an inheritance.

But what if you move?

Then, with this product, you’ve basically drained away your own equity. Let’s take the scenario, for example, that you planned to finish out your golden years in your current home, but instead you break a hip and need assisted living. When you sell your place, you won’t get a big chunk of cash to help you make the move because of the reverse mortgage.

If you can live with that scenario, then a “reverse mortgage” might not be a bad thing. You can get money out as regular payments (like passing “Go” in Monopoly”), or as a line of credit (like you would with a conventional Home Equity Line of Credit) or some combination of the two.

Other important reverse mortgage facts:

  • A reverse mortgage is not a free pass — to continue our Monopoly analogy, it’s not free parking. You still have to pay your heating bills and property taxes. Don’t keep up with the latter, and your loan comes due.
  • You can’t outlive your loan. You borrow an amount based on your home’s equity and your life expectancy — but if you live longer than that and you’re still in the house, you keep getting payments from the bank. (So the product essentially becomes a screw-the-lender mortgage).
  • Don’t reverse mortgage Tara. As you can see from the bullet point above, if your heirs sell the house when you die, they will have to pay back the value of your home, but not the value of the extra payments. However, if your heirs want to keep the beloved family homestead, then they must pay back the value of the home plus the extra payments.
  • Just like other loans there are still closing costs involved, such as origination, document prep, flood certification. In “Out of Cash; Six Ways to Know if a Reverse Mortgage Will Help,” Moneywatch’s Kathy Kristof notes that as much of 2 percent of the loan value can go towards insurance fees — that’s a hefty $12,510 on a $625,500 loan. A long list of possible fees is here, courtesy of NRMLA, the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders’ Association, the industry’s trade association.

Finally, for those who live in the West, Northeast, or Florida, there’s a product that functions like a reverse mortgage but isn’t: Equity Key. With Equity Key, the company takes out a life insurance policy on you, and that’s their security instead of your house. They also get some rights to the equity in your home, but not all of it. To be eligible for this, you have to be between 65 and 85 — and, since the company is taking out insurance on you, in pretty good health as well.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    mgruley

    09/26/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Should I Take a Reverse Mortgage?

    You do a great disservice to seniors by penning an article with so much misinformation. You clearly do not understand reverse mortgages enough to comment, yet you do at the risk of harming thousands of seniors including the one that asked for your advice. To say that RM's are a "screw-your-kids" mortgage is irresponsible. Here's why.

    The only way to never use your equity is to never borrow money, period. It is quite simple. However, if someone is in a financial situation where they NEED money, then it has to come from somehwhere.

    A traditional mortgage will not eat up any equity in the home, but the monthly payments will certainly eat up the savings account leaving less to the heirs. That would be a "screw-your-kids" traditional loan.

    A senior could sell the home and pay 10% of the price in selling costs and then pay monthly rent eating up the proceeds from the sale. That would be the "screw-your-kids" home sale.

    The insurance policy strategy you mention at the end of the article appears to be lacking information as well. By the way, who makes the premium payments? Somebody does, and my guess would be that it's the estate eventually. Perhaps it is the "screw-your-kids" insurance plan.

    You get my point...I hope. Instead of scraping other misinformed news articles about RM's off the web and being part of the problem, actually sit down with seniors, talk with them and be part of the solution. These are serious times for seniors and all of us. Your lack of journalistic integrity and professionalism is harmful to all of us.

  •  
    2

    mralvarez

    09/27/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Should I Take a Reverse Mortgage?

    Ms. Rogers, your bias is showing and you obviously do not know reverse mortgages. While a lot of what you said is not "untrue," it is what you left out or implied that does a disservice and makes it false.

    FHA is not a provider - they regulate and insure the loans.

    "gives you the money in dribs and drabs" - you sound as if you inherited a lot of money. For some seniors, $200 a month can make a huge difference to them; or just getting their existing mortgage paid off is a huge burden and stress off their shoulders. Whatever is available to the senior is for them to use how they please - whether it is $200 monthly, $5000 monthly or lump sum up front. A senior should not do a RM, and a loan officer should not offer it to them, if all it did to improve their lives or solve their needs was in "dribs and drabs." It needs to solve their problems and meet their needs. Who are you decide what is a drib and what is a drab?

    For many, "draining the equity" in the home they purchased and maintained for themselves, is the only way to remain in that same home - what most seniors prefer over a nursing home. So what would you recommend, that they sell their homes 5 years sooner in order to move into a nursing home today? The nursing home gets the money then, and what happens when that money runs out as it may eventually do for any product? It's a government run facility at that point, regardless.

    "s___ your kids mortgages" - very unprofessional. An inheritance is a gift, not an entitlement. My parents gave me a roof over my head when I was growing up and the best education they could afford. They don't owe me anything. They deserve to spend on themselves every penny they earned. Sounds like you are worried about yours.

    "You still have to pay your heating bills and property taxes" - this goes for any mortgage. If the senior owns the home, why would anyone expect the bank to pay their bills?

    "s___-the-lender mortgage" - again, you are wrong. That is why there is Mortgage Insurance. This is a non-recourse loan and unlike some other debt, the bank cannot go after the heirs or even the senior, if they choose to sell and the home is upside down. But the bank will get paid.

    "Don?t reverse mortgage Tara" - no different from any other loan. Were you expecting free money? If a legacy is the main priority of the senior, then, yes, they should not do a reverse mortgage. But if they need help on a monthly basis, where do you expect the seniors to get "free" money - from their kids? Most prefer to keep their independence. If that home is where they want to live out their lives, and were they have invested all their time, sweat, and hard earned money - why shouldn't they use the equity to improve the quality of their lives today - they can't take it with them. So it is either the parents pay for it now out of pocket with a regular loan so that the kids get free money when they die, or they let the home they have already invested in pay off the RM when they move out permanently.

    "Just like other loans there are still closing costs involved" - that is true. But what you should have mentioned was that none of it needs to be out of pocket. And if the intent of a RM is for the senior to stay at home as long as possible, then over time the closing costs are spread out and not all that exorbitant. A RM is not meant for someone who plans to move in a couple of years - it does not make sense to pay closing costs twice, on top of a 5-6% sales commission (talk about expensive!).

    If you look at it from another perspective, can you imagine someone loaning you money up front (an advance on your home equity so you don't have to sell the house and move) without any idea of when they are going to be repaid. A RM is open-ended and the loan is not payable until you move, die or choose to pre-pay without penalty. I've seen seniors take out millions, and the bank may not get paid back for maybe 20 years (assuming life expectancy tables). Yes, the bank will make money eventualy either through a sale or through the FHA insurance; they are not a non-profit. This is all spelled out up front.

    MGruley, you make good analogies!

  •  
    3

    aliroger@...

    09/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Should I Take a Reverse Mortgage?

    @mgruley,

    I agree with you that my bias is showing -- that seniors should try to leave a legacy to the generation that follows them, which should do the same to the generation that follows it -- but I don't think that it follows that I don't understand reverse mortgages.

    And I do understand the idea of making a loan without understanding when I'm going to be repaid -- to provoke you further, I could argue that's what my social security payroll taxes (I'm a freelancer so I pay both haves) could be construed as.

    @mralvarez,

    Where do you expect seniors to get "free" money -- from their kids?

    That's exactly where it comes from; that's why the term "sandwich generation" was invented. You have a cohort of working people who are trying to raise their children and soften the retirement of their parent(s) at the same time.

  •  
    4

    mgruley

    09/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Should I Take a Reverse Mortgage?

    Alison,

    Excuse me for saying so, but your response seems to have addressed points mralvarez made in his post. I didn't mention bias or legacies or even that you don't understand the concept of making a loan without knowing you would be repaid. Mralvarez made those cogent points - not me.

    The only reason I point this out is to show how journalist who don't take the time to read, listen or understand often cause more confusion in areas where understanding is critical.

    I am certain it is not intentional, but at the very least, I am sorry to say, it is careless.

  •  
    5

    bzzybee

    09/29/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Should I Take a Reverse Mortgage?

    There's an expression about the pot and the kettle that comes to mind when reading the comments above.

    Ms. Rogers, as a human, has a bias to be sure, though it seems more one of wanting the person who wrote in to understand the pros and cons of a reverse mortgage than of thinking that parents owe their chiildren an inheritance.

    Mgruley and Mralverez seem to think that anyone who suggests that something that depletes the equity in a home might be a mixed blessing must have an anti-senior bias.

    If you believe that, I have a death panel to sell you.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here

Alison Rogers

Since graduating from Harvard summa cum laude, Alison Rogers has been a reporter, an editor, a real-estate agent, a Wall Street desk jockey, a columnist, a failed flipper, and a landlady. A member of the National Association of Realtors, she currently sells and rents luxury co-ops in Manhattan for the Chelsea-based firm DG Neary. (If you've got $27,500 a month, the firm has an apartment for you!) Her book, Diary of a Real Estate Rookie, was called "a valuable guide for rookie buyers" by AOL/Walletpop, "beach-read fun" by the New York Observer, and "witty" by Newsweek.

Alison Rogers

Click Here
track your portfolio