Reverse Mortgages

I am in no way trying to drum up business. I am just shocked at how much this program helps people, and how much mis-information there is out there.

People 62 and older who own their own home, qualify for a certain amount of money from the Federal Housing Administration.

Many times, this amount is enough to pay off the person's mortgage and get them extra cash.

There is no payment due on the loan until the home owners pass away, or move out of the home permanently.

Interest does grow on the loan, but the rates are currently at 3.36%. Pretty damn low.

There are closing costs, and the heirs inherit less money from the home, but especially for elderly people on hard times, this is a miraculous god send. Most people think they have won the damn lottery. Pretty amazing.

My ex-Brother in law owns his own financial firm and is making a killing off reverse mortgages right now. I dont know enough about them to make a good judgement about them.

It is not for everyone, but for elderly people on hard times it is truely miraculous.

The last one I closed: This poor old guy has bad knees, and was still carrying a 5 gallon paint bucket up stairs to make ends meet.

The reverse mortgage gave them $60,000 in cash and eliminated their $514.00 mortgage payment. He quit painting and now they are in Jamaica. Their old idea of a fun get away was going to the local steak house once a week.

There may be $150,000 owed on their $250,000 house instead of $40,000 when they pass away, but their kids have houses and lives, and were just thrilled that mom and dad would be happier.

cheezydemon said:

It is not for everyone, but for elderly people on hard times it is truely miraculous.

The last one I closed: This poor old guy has bad knees, and was still carrying a 5 gallon paint bucket up stairs to make ends meet.

The reverse mortgage gave them $60,000 in cash and eliminated their $514.00 mortgage payment. He quit painting and now they are in Jamaica. Their old idea of a fun get away was going to the local steak house once a week.

There may be $150,000 owed on their $250,000 house instead of $40,000 when they pass away, but their kids have houses and lives, and were just thrilled that mom and dad would be happier.

Click to expand...

Thats really cool that it does that for them. The last thing I want to see is Elderly working them selves to death just to pay for a house they have lived in there whole life's.

Right on Brother.

That isn't the worst though. We saved one woman's house who was on fixed income and was 12 payments behind on her mortgage!!!

Can you imagine going from 1 YEAR behind to no payment ever again?

It saved her life I have no doubt. She was about to have a heart attack.

wow- I was totally uneducated on this.

Very very interesting.

cheezydemon said:

Interest does grow on the loan, but the rates are currently at 3.36%. Pretty damn low

Click to expand...

What's it indexed to and what's the reset interval?

Kind of reinforces the importance of home ownership for young people. It is probably the most important investment young people can make, right along with 401k. My FIL rented his whole life. He didn't want the work and responsibility that goes along with it. Then, after he retired, he suddenly decides to buy a condo. Now that he's got a mortgage payment, his "retirement" consists of driving a forklift for 30 hours a week.
If he had just bought years ago, he could be doing that reverse mortgage and be able to enjoy his retirement.

Old people are getting the shaft end when it comes to real estate. There was a woman in our state recently whose property had been valued at 41K for several years. The county caught their mistake and revalued her home at over 800K this year making her property tax go up to over $8000 a year.

In my opinion these are a terrible option for elderly people. Why would you want to borrow money on the biggest asset you probably own? Why put something you've worked your entire life to get at risk? And whats worse; you end up leaving all of that extra debt to one of your children... who wants to leave such a terrible mess for someone you love to clean up? Not something I would ever suggest to my friends or family.

daveramsey.com said:

The truth about reverse mortgages
Many elderly people in need of money look at getting a reverse mortgage. Reverse mortgages are very dangerous, especially for elderly homeowners. Reverse mortgages are very expensive and promise an uncertain amount of benefits.
For example, a typical reverse mortgage may provide a home owner $300 per month with a monthly compound interest rate of 1%. Over 10 years, the home owner receives $36,000 but will owe close to $70,000 – almost twice as much received! Also be aware that these loans have complex contracts and can even include “additional interest” clauses. These clauses can allow the lender to keep all future property gains should the property appreciate before the loan is paid in full.

Do yourself a favor and stay away from reverse mortgages. If you have a family member considering a reverse mortgage, convince them otherwise.

Click to expand...

pldoolittle said:

What's it indexed to and what's the reset interval?

Click to expand...

There are a number indices, but the 1 year t-bill on a monthly adjustment with daily calculated interest is the lowest.

Another thing, the reverse mortgage is guaranteed for life. It is also guaranteed that no matter how long the people live, no matter how high the balance gets, no matter if values stagnate or decline, no debt would ever be transferre beyond the home (like to heirs) and the home owners would never pay a dime(unless they move out permanently)

SO what happens to the remaining home equity when the homeowners die and the kids (if they have any) can't pick up the mortgage bill? The bank forecloses on the home and gets to keep it all?

It doesn't look like a very good deal to me, I would have to be in dire straights for me to give anything BACK to the bank.

atarlecky said:

It doesn't look like a very good deal to me, I would have to be in dire straights for me to give anything BACK to the bank.

Click to expand...

+1

And the last thing I would give back is the place where I sleep at night...

nealf said:

And whats worse; you end up leaving all of that extra debt to one of your children...

Click to expand...

Debt doesn't work that way. You do not inherit debt or pass it on from your estate. If there is not equity in your estate to cover your debts when you die, your heirs may inherit nothing, but your creditors are the ones who take the hit.

At least, that is what I understand for the U.S., but I never have confirmed it for every state, and some have some strange laws. I really do not know how it works in other nations.


TL

TexLaw said:

Debt doesn't work that way. You do not inherit debt or pass it on from your estate. If there is not equity in your estate to cover your debts when you die, your heirs may inherit nothing, but your creditors are the ones who take the hit.

At least, that is what I understand for the U.S., but I never have confirmed it for every state, and some have some strange laws. I really do not know how it works in other nations.


TL

Click to expand...

Ah I think you're right... They didn't actually sign the papers accepting the debt so thats probably the case... But i'm no lawyer

nealf said:

In my opinion these are a terrible option for elderly people. Why would you want to borrow money on the biggest asset you probably own? Why put something you've worked your entire life to get at risk? And whats worse; you end up leaving all of that extra debt to one of your children... who wants to leave such a terrible mess for someone you love to clean up? Not something I would ever suggest to my friends or family.

Click to expand...

+1... I don't know much about these, but it just doesn't seem right. Also, if people are 'making a killing off them', then obviously there is something up.

I don't see how going into more debt (exactly what this is) for your home that is nearly paid off is the best option. I guess if it was a last resort (e.g. foreclosure is the only other option) maybe, but... just doesn't seem right.

If they have that much equity in their house (e.g. worth $250 and they only owe $40k), why the heck not sell it, bank the money, and rent something cheaper with their now fatter bank account, etc?

Also, I don't understand how (in the example given above) a retired person cannot afford to pay a $500 mortgage. Of course there will be some real-estate taxes too, but come'on. What did this person (actually people) do with their money for their whole life? Do they not have a pension? Retirement plan? When do you start to get SS? I mean, between two of them they have to have some income coming in... what's he doing with it and what's he doing with any savings that they can't afford the mortgage and taxes on a home? Seems like low amounts too...

I'm speaking generally, so this doesn't have much to do with the person who had a 41k valuation of their house increase to 800k... Even in her case, why not sell the damned house if its worth that much and sit on a fat bank account while renting or buying something cheaper?!

In any case, it seems kind of self-centered to take on additional debt when you are within 10 or so years of death b/c you didn't know how to financially plan throughout your life, then leave it to your children to clean up? Maybe some people have noone, so they don't feel guilty leaving "the estate" to clean-up, but...

Well, I just don't know so I'll stop... just doesn't "feel" right from the little I know.

atarlecky said:

SO what happens to the remaining home equity when the homeowners die and the kids (if they have any) can't pick up the mortgage bill? The bank forecloses on the home and gets to keep it all?

It doesn't look like a very good deal to me, I would have to be in dire straights for me to give anything BACK to the bank.

Click to expand...

The home is sold the loan is repaid and the heirs receive what is left over. You can never own more then your house is worth.

It is like selling your home and being allowed to live in it....now you are guaranteed a place to live and you have some money to enjoy. I think it is a great thing for some people who otherwise wouldn't be able to enjoy their later years in life and do the things they always wanted to do....hell you can't take it with you. For some the only other option would be to sell the house they lived in for many years and buy a more affordable home, which for many elderly people is simply out of the question.

The only people I could see having a problem with it are greedy heirs....


My half sister's was looking into a reverse mortgage for her father who had emphysema because he was going to lose his home but she ended up buying the house so he could remain there. We ended up fixing it up and selling it after he passed but in this case he didn't need the extra income just to keep his home and he felt better with that solution.

One thing I would be concerned with (and reverse mortgages are not my area of expertise) is how taking a reverse mortgage may interplay with the potential need for long-term care. If you've done a reverse mortgage (you've received money, the kids likely won't get the house), how do those proceeds/that income stream impact Medicaid eligibility/the need to spend-down assets? That's a question that will vary state-to-state, but you shouldn't be committing to a RM without a clear understanding of how that might interplay with the potential need for long-term care.

cheezydemon said:

There may be $150,000 owed on their $250,000 house instead of $40,000 when they pass away, but their kids have houses and lives, and were just thrilled that mom and dad would be happier.

Click to expand...

So, is it possible to take out more than the value of the home? like if you borrowed 200,000 on a 175,000 house?

My mother had one for quite a few years. Helped her a lot, but as you pointed out, there was very little left in the estate when she died.

I think some people have a real misconception about these mortgages.
Think about it this way, you home is an asset you have built up value in over your working life just like a 401K or an IRA. When it comes time to retire why not take advantage of that asset?
You get to keep the house until you die and have some additional money to live off of. When you pass away, your heirs sell the house and pay off the mortgage. If the mortgage value exceeds home value then the bank has effectively purchased the house.

The banks make money because they earn a reliable interest on their investment and the house is probably increasing in value ensuring they do not lose money. Even if the bank ends up owning the house the person living in it is more likely to take care of the house than someone in foreclosure.

You are not giving anything back to the bank. It seems like a win win situation to me. The only people who may "lose" something is the heirs who will have less inheritance. However these people are usually adult children living on their own who should not be depending on the inheritance for their use. Would you deny your parents a comfortable retirement so you could inherit more?

What is sad it to see elderly people lose their homes to foreclosure due to an inability to pay taxes or a mortgage. If they have some equity in the home they could avoid that problem by borrowing on that asset. Unfortunately many people are not aware of whats available.

Craig

wihophead said:

The home is sold the loan is repaid and the heirs receive what is left over. You can never own more then your house is worth.

Click to expand...

Totally understand that and that is fine, but is the house guaranteed to sell?! Not in todays market. What happens if it does not? Family is on the hook? Bank takes it back and leaves nothing?

wihophead said:

For some the only other option would be to sell the house they lived in for many years and buy a more affordable home, which for many elderly people is simply out of the question.

Click to expand...

I don't see why this is not an option, other than out of stubborness. The lady who had a house appraised at $800k should be selling that $hit, sitting on a fat bank account, while renting. No property tax to worry about, someone mows your lawn, someone shovels your drive, etc. And you can get a damned nice apartment with that kind of money (as well as being supplimented by pensions, SS, etc.)... I think this is the better option in almost all cases, than taking a reverse mortgage.

wihophead said:

The only people I could see having a problem with it are greedy heirs....

Click to expand...

Trust me, I'm not a "greedy" heir and that's why I disagree... At 26 I am better off than my mom and dad already. By the time I reach retirement age, I will be living well and do not need any inheritance to help me along the way. It's simply I have an opposing viewpoint b/c there are other options that, to me, seem better than taking an additional $75k of debt (with interest) to figuratively 'pay-off' the last $40k you own on a house. Thus leaving your family with $100k of debt to deal with when you are gone and the house won't sell.

EDIT: I guess it would have to sell at a "public sale" type deal, but what happens if it sells less than the debt amount? The bank just eats it? I'm truthfully asking here b/c I'm not sure I fully understand.

wihophead said:

My half sister's was looking into a reverse mortgage for her father who had emphysema because he was going to lose his home but she ended up buying the house so he could remain there. We ended up fixing it up and selling it after he passed but in this case he didn't need the extra income just to keep his home and he felt better with that solution.

Click to expand...

I can understand it in some scenarios, but I just think there are better options. Can this guy not sell his house, take his equity, and move somewhere else? Just b/c he has emphysema? He should be happy that in a rental community the property would be taken care of b/c he definitely isn't mowing grass with lung-disease.

EDIT: Cliff - in any case, I don't understand why selling and taking your equity (usually 100s of thousands by the time you are in your 60s) is not an option.

RoaringBrewer said:

Also, I don't understand how (in the example given above) a retired person cannot afford to pay a $500 mortgage. Of course there will be some real-estate taxes too, but come'on. What did this person (actually people) do with their money for their whole life? Do they not have a pension? Retirement plan? When do you start to get SS? I mean, between two of them they have to have some income coming in... what's he doing with it and what's he doing with any savings that they can't afford the mortgage and taxes on a home? Seems like low amounts too...

Click to expand...

Commonly what you are looking at in responsible reverse mortgage use is a situation where they did plan for retirement but unexpected costs cropped up or they are looking to delay entry into an assisted care facility. Reverse mortgages don't count as income form medicare's standpoint either, since the home equity is already counted and all you are doing is cashing it out.

Or, frankly, they never figured they'd live to be 80 and still ambulatory.

Or their company's pension collapsed and they are getting only a fraction of the promised amount (if any).

Or those property taxes they budgeted for didn't include a huge increase in property value that has made their property so valuable that they can't manage it any more.

There are lots of reasons that someone might not be able to cover their bills even though they did appropriate retirement planning.

However, there is reason to be suspicious if companies are falling all over themselves to make these kinds of deals.

Way wrong Roaring, way right wiho.

So roaring, if your parents were paying a mortgage that ate up most of their soc sec check, but could do a reverse mortgage that would improve their quality of life immeasureably, but leave a little less to you, you would want them to suffer?

I doubt it, but if you said yes, you are what wiho alluded to. A greedy bastard of an heir.

My parents will do a reverse mortgage. Why? My sister and I aren't rich, but we have our own homes and are OK. We would rather see mom and dad have a better quality of life. Maybe they love the home and don't want to live in a farging apartment or a small home!

The title stays with the homeowners and whoever they leave the home to. JUST LIKE A REGULAR MORTGAGE.

We assume too many times that " OH! that is cheating the heirs out of some of their inheritance". But unless the heirs: are disabled, have had really bad luck in life, or are heartless greedy pieces of ****. They will be happy that their parents will have a better quality of life for their remaining years.

We assume too many times that " OH! that is cheating the heirs out of some of their inheritance". But unless the heirs: are disabled, have had really bad luck in life, or are heartless greedy pieces of ****. They will be happy that their parents will have a better quality of life for their remaining years.

Click to expand...

I agree with this- Far too many Americans say **** you to the people who raised us.

RoaringBrewer said:

Thus leaving your family with $100k of debt to deal with when you are gone and the house won't sell.

Click to expand...

I think you are missing something here: the family isn't left with anything they don't want to deal with. If someone's dad racks up a 100k in debt and kicks off with no assets except a house mortaged to the hilt, the family pays exactly zero and it's up to the mortgage holder to try and recoup the debt from the deceased's estate.

Not defending reverse mortgages or anything but ...

RoaringBrewer said:

If they have that much equity in their house (e.g. worth $250 and they only owe $40k), why the heck not sell it, bank the money, and rent something cheaper with their now fatter bank account, etc?

Click to expand...

They would take a huge capital gains hit on a move like this and loose a lot of money to taxes.

RoaringBrewer said:

Also, I don't understand how (in the example given above) a retired person cannot afford to pay a $500 mortgage. Of course there will be some real-estate taxes too, but come'on. What did this person (actually people) do with their money for their whole life? Do they not have a pension? Retirement plan? When do you start to get SS? I mean, between two of them they have to have some income coming in... what's he doing with it and what's he doing with any savings that they can't afford the mortgage and taxes on a home? Seems like low amounts too...

Click to expand...

I think this is far more common than you know or think. It's simple ... A) not everyone saves like you would think (i.e. miscalculate how much they'll need and inflation outpaces market gains on investments/savings) B) Things like medical bills/prescriptions costs greatly increase with age. Older people are finding their medical bills and prescriptions are often exceeding their income alone. C) Things like Enron, Worldcom, and the current problems with Ford make a huge impact to money people were banking on but all of a sudden dries up.

RoaringBrewer said:

Well, I just don't know so I'll stop... just doesn't "feel" right from the little I know.

Click to expand...

I agree with you ... overall, there is just a certain "something doesn't feel right" about these.

kornkob said:

Commonly what you are looking at in responsible reverse mortgage use is a situation where they did plan for retirement but unexpected costs cropped up or they are looking to delay entry into an assisted care facility. Reverse mortgages don't count as income form medicare's standpoint either, since the home equity is already counted and all you are doing is cashing it out.

Or, frankly, they never figured they'd live to be 80 and still ambulatory.

Or their company's pension collapsed and they are getting only a fraction of the promised amount (if any).

Or those property taxes they budgeted for didn't include a huge increase in property value that has made their property so valuable that they can't manage it any more.

There are lots of reasons that someone might not be able to cover their bills even though they did appropriate retirement planning.

However, there is reason to be suspicious if companies are falling all over themselves to make these kinds of deals.

Click to expand...

Sure, I understand things come up, and maybe I just misunderstand these RM's, but if you have so much equity in a house. If the house is too valuable to upkeep, why upkeep it? Get out, take your equity... ?

I know its easier said than done to leave a place you've lived 25 years or more, but I'm just saying isn't this an option?

the_bird said:

One thing I would be concerned with (and reverse mortgages are not my area of expertise) is how taking a reverse mortgage may interplay with the potential need for long-term care. If you've done a reverse mortgage (you've received money, the kids likely won't get the house), how do those proceeds/that income stream impact Medicaid eligibility/the need to spend-down assets? That's a question that will vary state-to-state, but you shouldn't be committing to a RM without a clear understanding of how that might interplay with the potential need for long-term care.

Click to expand...

A good point about assisted living, but many people are actually able to stay at the home and have in home care at the end thanks to the reverse mortgage.

No, the amount you qualify is less than the value of the home.

If the balance of the loan with interest ever exceeds that value of the home. FHA eats the difference. So it is in their interest that the heirs get something as well.

RoaringBrewer said:

Sure, I understand things come up, and maybe I just misunderstand these RM's, but if you have so much equity in a house. If the house is too valuable to upkeep, why upkeep it? Get out, take your equity... ?

I know its easier said than done to leave a place you've lived 25 years or more, but I'm just saying isn't this an option?

Click to expand...

It is an option, but why make them suffer or regret moving?

I respect your opinion, but I don't think that you understand this.

Where else can you borrow money at 3.36%??????

Some people do it as a refinance and keep making their now considerably lower payment. Or an interest only payment so that the balance doesn't grow.

Or they don't make any payment because that would make them the happiest, and if their kids are greedy or too stupid to understand, f()ck 'em.

RoaringBrewer said:

Trust me, I'm not a "greedy" heir and that's why I disagree... At 26 I am better off than my mom and dad already. By the time I reach retirement age, I will be living well and do not need any inheritance to help me along the way.

Click to expand...

I am sure many young people thought/think this way but the road between 26 years old and retirement can be a long and rocky one and there are many things that can happen to change the outlook. I hope it all goes according to plan for you but a lot of times that is not the case. I have been laid off a couple times because they closed the doors were I worked so I know all to well....

RoaringBrewer said:

Sure, I understand things come up, and maybe I just misunderstand these RM's, but if you have so much equity in a house. If the house is too valuable to upkeep, why upkeep it? Get out, take your equity... ?

I know its easier said than done to leave a place you've lived 25 years or more, but I'm just saying isn't this an option?

Click to expand...

As mentioned before: capital gains taxes kick in. Additionally, in most areas I've heard of: rent is typically more than a mortgage payment

For instance: $500 gets you a shoebox or a place in a crappy neighborhood in Madison. If you ahve a $500 mortgage in a good senior neighborhood, selling means trading down.



It's an option, yeah, but not as clear cut as you make it sound.

cheezydemon said:

Way wrong Roaring, way right wiho.

So roaring, if your parents were paying a mortgage that ate up most of their soc sec check, but could do a reverse mortgage that would improve their quality of life immeasureably, but leave a little less to you, you would want them to suffer?

I doubt it, but if you said yes, you are what wiho alluded to. A greedy bastard of an heir.

My parents will do a reverse mortgage. Why? My sister and I aren't rich, but we have our own homes and are OK. We would rather see mom and dad have a better quality of life. Maybe they love the home and don't want to live in a farging apartment or a small home!

The title stays with the homeowners and whoever they leave the home to. JUST LIKE A REGULAR MORTGAGE.

We assume too many times that " OH! that is cheating the heirs out of some of their inheritance". But unless the heirs: are disabled, have had really bad luck in life, or are heartless greedy pieces of ****. They will be happy that their parents will have a better quality of life for their remaining years.

Click to expand...

I don't think we need to resort to name calling here, even if it is implied, just because I may not fully understand how this works...

However, if my parents were struggling to pay for their home and I was more well off, I would probably attempt to help them out with their monthly expenses, before I suggested they get a RM and take on more debt. If it was that bad that maybe it was even beyond my help, then yes, I might consider it an option...

But, as I've stated many times, I would also suggest they consider taking their $200k or more in equity and moving someplace smaller; you can pay off - 100% free and clear a smaller house/townhouse with $200k. A lot of older people like a smaller place with less upkeep. Some like renting due to nooo yard to mow, etc.

I guess it all depends on the situation, but I'm normally just an "anti-debt" guy when possible. So maybe thats where my PoV is derived.

As stated, at 26 I am already making more per year than my mother/father combined and my earnings potential is easily in the millions and millions if I stay where I am. So, no, greedy over inheritance is not where my PoV is derived from...

I only said that you were greedy if you answered "yes" to a question that I am sure you would not say yes to. Therefore no implication.

It is hard to understand. It either sounds too good to be true, or like a scam.

No bad feelings roaring brewer, you make good points, but they are not all correct or based on empathy for your parents.

WHAT IF: You would inherit very little as far as your parents home, but they NEVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT MONEY AGAIN.

Definitely a little simplified, but that is about the sum of it.

If you want the house, or you don't want them to owe more than they do...

DO THE REVERSE MORTGAGE AND MAKE THE INTEREST PAYMENT FOR THEM IF YOU ARE SO KEEN ON GETTING WHAT IS THEIRS!!

As stated, at 26 I am already making more per year than my mother/father combined and my earnings potential is easily in the millions and millions if I stay where I am. So, no, greedy over inheritance is not where my PoV is derived from...

Click to expand...

You selling Columbian Marching Powder?

wihophead said:

I am sure many young people thought/think this way but the road between 26 years old and retirement can be a long and rocky one and there are many things that can happen to change the outlook. I hope it all goes according to plan for you but a lot of times that is not the case. I have been laid off a couple times because they closed the doors were I worked so I know all to well....

Click to expand...

Like I said, I understand things can come up. I'm hoping they do not for me and knowing that they can I am doing my best at planning for it, by maxing out my 401k at a young age. Staying in the line of work in which I am in even though it's not the most exciting, it's well rooted, I work for a huge firm, where the sky is the limit, etc.

But, like I said, I understand things come up, layoffs, injuries, disease, etc. so thats why I'm not totally writing off the idea...

cheezydemon said:

It is hard to understand. It either sounds too good to be true, or like a scam.

No bad feelings roaring brewer, you make good points, but they are not all correct or based on empathy for your parents.

WHAT IF: You would inherit very little as far as your parents home, but they NEVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT MONEY AGAIN.

Definitely a little simplified, but that is about the sum of it.

If you want the house, or you don't want them to owe more than they do...

DO THE REVERSE MORTGAGE AND MAKE THE INTEREST PAYMENT FOR THEM IF YOU ARE SO KEEN ON GETTING WHAT IS THEIRS!!

Click to expand...

No hard feelings. Seems like a decent thing in some situations... I probably won't be set to make a ton off my parents home, so I'll keep it in mind in case something unfortunate happens...

kornkob said:

As mentioned before: capital gains taxes kick in.

Click to expand...

No, they really don't. For an individual's primary residence, the first $250,000.00 of gains is exempt from taxes, and that goes double for a married couple. If the couple has more than half a million in capital gains on the home sale, I'm not terribly worried about the tax hit they feel.


TL

RoaringBrewer said:

But, as I've stated many times, I would also suggest they consider taking their $200k or more in equity and moving someplace smaller; you can pay off - 100% free and clear a smaller house/townhouse with $200k. A lot of older people like a smaller place with less upkeep. Some like renting due to nooo yard to mow, etc.

Click to expand...

See- you miss the point-

By doing a reverse mortgage, you are- in essence- doing just that.

You are selling the home- to the bank.

The bank gives you the money now, but the great thing is that you get to keep living in the house until you die or sell it it.

It is the best of both worlds- you get to sell the house and get the money from it, but you still get to live there until you are finished with it. You don't have to move out of the house that you have spent 20, 30 or more years in and is full of memories.

All it costs you to live there is the 3.whatever% interest- but you don't even have to pay that until you vacate the house.

cheezydemon said:

Where else can you borrow money at 3.36%??????

Click to expand...

How long does the interest rate stay at 3.36% though? I thought you said in the original post that the interest rate increases; unless I misread.