Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (467582)	1/26/2012 1:59:37 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793938

I admit I know little to nothing about reverse mortgages, but I always thought for retirees who own their homes outright, and wish to stay in them but find coming up with the money to pay their yearly taxes and insurance burdensome, a reverse mortgage loan might be the best way to cover those expenses. Say upon retirement a couple figures they'll stay in their home for 20 more yrs and the property taxes and insurance combined will cost them $5000.00 per yr on average. Over 20 yrs they will need to come up with $100,000.00 to cover those expenses. If they took out a reverse mortgage, placed the money in a vehicle with a 5% return, they would have the peace of mind in knowing they wouldn't lose their home and earn interest that could be used by their heirs to pay off the loan. In the mean time they could use the money they saved during their working years to enjoy their retirement. Does this make sense to you?