Laurie MacNaughton © 2019
I am not much into rebutting the demonstrably incorrect things I read or hear about reverse mortgage. Unless, that is, the source is a mainstream newspaper that really should know better.
I get it: times are hard at the large papers, and what with staff cutbacks, summer vacations, and the ever-popular topic of “reverse-mortgages-are-of-the-devil,” it’s hard to resist a slam piece about reverse mortgages. Even if you have to skew the facts. Even if you ignore widely-available federal code that governs the FHA reverse mortgage program. And even if you’re USA Today and have a reputation to uphold.
I am, of course, referring to this week’s piece entitled, “Seniors were sold a risk-free retirement with reverse mortgages. Now they face foreclosure.”
So extensive are the outright errors in the piece, and so slanted is the coverage, that it’s hard to know where to start. So let me just point out the following: foreclosure for failure to pay property taxes may occur whether a homeowner has a “forward” mortgage, a reverse mortgage, or NO mortgage at all. Taxes are simply a cost of homeownership.
Furthermore, any home with a mortgage also must have homeowner’s insurance. This is not unique to a reverse mortgage; rather, insurance, too, is simply a cost of homeownership. Failure to afford taxes and insurance is not a “failed” reverse mortgage – it’s a failure to afford the costs of homeownership. Don’t get me wrong here: this is not “failure” in some guilt-slinging moral sense; it’s simply a financial assessment.
The article also fails to address what would have become of the low-income homeowners highlighted if they had not received funds from their reverse mortgage. Where were the adult children of these aging parents when the parents were in financial need? It may be the children were financially unable to help – but assuming that to be the case, the children benefitted greatly from having parents remain financially self-sufficient for as long as possible.
But by far the biggest disservice of this piece is its failure to point out that many jurisdictions across the nation have property tax waiver programs for the elderly and disabled. How is it this critically important information was not communicated during the discussion?
I will be the first to say a reverse mortgage is not right for everyone. If you simply cannot afford the costs associated with homeownership, it may indeed be time to sell and look at other housing options. Maybe it’s time to move in with an adult child, to houseshare with a friend, or to move to a less expensive part of the country. But waiting until the taxman is at the door is not…ideal.
As a complete aside here, not long ago I read a Monmouth University poll that stated three out of four Americans believe the press routinely reports fake news. If this is true, I squarely fall in the minority. I generally trust the mainstream news.
Consequently, I will say this: in an era of misinformation and widespread yellow journalism, and amid frequent allegations of “fake news,” never has it been more important for the press to get it right. Shoddy reporting by mainstream media just fuels allegations of a “Lügenpresse,” a lying press. So please, do your homework and just get it right. Make it easier for those of us who still believe.
But back to the topic at hand. No amount of financing – or refinancing – is singlehandedly going to meet the costs associated with aging. In fact, very few will survive on just a bank account, a 401(k), a pension – or on a reverse mortgage. But when added together, all these can contribute to financial health in retirement, particularly when used as part of a sound, long-term retirement plan.
If you have questions about reverse mortgage, give me a call. I always love hearing from you.