1. Home
  2. Financial Planning
  3. The Reverse Mortgage Debate: Pros, Cons, and When to Consider It (2023 Update)

The Reverse Mortgage Debate: Pros, Cons, and When to Consider It (2023 Update)

Marketwatch has an article about new rules making reverse mortgages more attractive: "The new math on reverse mortgages"

formatting link
. If so, I wonder at what age and conditions it almost becomes a must? They have some boring coverage of how abuse (of the nature no reader of this newsgroup would attempt) is being reduced by new rules. But they say using it as a line of credit seems almost a must, even if you don't seem to need it at the time.

The value of it rises and the feds may insure against drops in value of your house. You can use it's tax free proceeds to avoid tapping into taxable IRA withdrawals, with all it's side effects of raising medicare premiums, etc. You can avoid locking in capital losses on stocks, and have income to wait for return of a bull market.

So I am curious whether someone who has no specific need for such a line of credit should get one, and when. It now almost sounds like a gov't giveaway program that leaves you behind if you don't join, but maybe there are some pitfalls for even the most modest involvement?

Reply to
dumbstruck
Loading thread data ...

A reverse mortgage can be a powerful financial tool for retirees, but it's not the right choice for everyone.

A reverse mortgage is a loan that allows homeowners 62 or older to access the equity in their home. The loan is repaid when the borrower dies, sells the home, or moves out permanently.

Before considering a reverse mortgage, it's important to weigh the pros and cons of the loan. The main benefit of a reverse mortgage is that it can provide a source of tax-free income that can help retirees stay in their homes. Additionally, by using the proceeds of a reverse mortgage to pay off credit card debt or other high-interest loans, retirees can reduce their monthly expenses.

However, there are also some downsides to consider. One of the most significant downsides is that a reverse mortgage can be costly. The fees associated with a reverse mortgage can include an origination fee, an appraisal fee, and mortgage insurance. Additionally, if a borrower does not maintain the property or pay their property taxes, they can lose the property.

here are some additional pros and cons of reverse mortgages:

Pros:

  • Flexibility: Reverse mortgages offer a variety of ways to receive the loan proceeds, including as a lump sum, as a line of credit, or as monthly payments. This can give homeowners the flexibility to choose the option that best fits their needs.

  • No income or credit requirements: Unlike traditional mortgages, reverse mortgages do not require borrowers to have a certain income or credit score. This makes them accessible to retirees who may have limited income or a poor credit history.
  • Tax-free income: The proceeds from a reverse mortgage are typically tax-free, which can help retirees maintain their standard of living without increasing their tax bill.
  • Stay in your home: Reverse mortgages can be used to help retirees stay in their home longer by providing them with additional income to pay for home repairs, property taxes, and other expenses.

Cons:

  • Reduced inheritance: Reverse mortgages can reduce the inheritance left to the borrower's heirs. The loan balance increases over time, which can eat into the value of the home that would have been passed on to the borrower's family.

  • Upfront costs: Reverse mortgages can be expensive, with upfront costs that include origination fees, appraisal fees, and mortgage insurance.
  • Foreclosure: If the borrower does not maintain the property, pay property taxes, or comply with the loan terms, they can lose the property to foreclosure.
  • Reduced retirement savings: If borrowers use the proceeds from a reverse mortgage to pay off credit card debt or other high-interest loans, they may have less money available to save for retirement. 
Example 1: John and Mary are both retired and living on a fixed income. They have a large amount of equity in their home but are struggling to pay for home repairs and property taxes. They decide to take out a reverse mortgage to access the equity in their home and use the proceeds to pay for the repairs and taxes. This allows them to stay in their home longer, without having to tap into their retirement savings.     

Example 2: Bob is a retiree who is in good health and wants to pass on his home to his children. He decides not to take out a reverse mortgage because he is concerned that it will reduce the value of his home and the inheritance he can leave to his children. Instead, he makes other financial arrangements to pay for home repairs and property taxes.

In terms of when to consider a reverse mortgage, it's best to consult a financial planner or tax advisor to determine if a reverse mortgage is right for you based on your individual financial situation. It's also important to consider your overall financial goals and the potential impact a reverse mortgage may have on your estate.

As you can see, reverse mortgages have different benefits and drawbacks, and it's important to carefully consider all factors before making a decision. It's always best to consult with a financial advisor and have a good understanding of the terms and conditions before making a decision.

Reply to
Smart Bean

The article was thin on details. But, it linked to an interesting paper by Wade Pfau "Incorporating Home Equity into a Retirement Income Strategy"

formatting link
The paper has a lot of math and simulations. But, as I often find with such papers, the author makes the oddest of assumptions - a flat 25% rate on retirement withdrawals. He suggests that one needs to withdraw $53,333 to net $40,000. Really? A quick check at
formatting link
and a couple taking $40,000/yr has a tax bill of $1991. Not even 5%. Add $20,000 in SS, and the tax bill goes up to $3656, still, not even 10%. I like this author's work, in general. My issue is starting with a premise which, in effect takes the 4% rule, and in illustrating it, bumps right to 5.33%, and projects from there. 30 years of that bad math, and the results skew the wrong way. ( I realize, I didn't actually address your question. But I did look at the paper I cited, and suggest you analyze the process yourself, never just relying on someone else's math, including my own)

Reply to
JoeTaxpayer

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.