• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Damn You, Tom Selleck!

like i said, stealing from the poor and elderly is an alternate reality public service to some people.

you call it stealing...other people call it working

i bet you work for the government in some way, or used to

i guess none of those services could exist....and no one could buy houses, or cars

we could go back to an all cash society....i am good with it....but may hurt a few other people....people you claim to "care" about
 
Certainly an alternate reality to the topic. There is no stealing now matter how many times you post it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks for weighing in. i enjoy filling file 13 with new opinions.
 
you call it stealing...other people call it working

i bet you work for the government in some way, or used to

i guess none of those services could exist....and no one could buy houses, or cars

we could go back to an all cash society....i am good with it....but may hurt a few other people....people you claim to "care" about

you forgot to add that Magnum will have to trade his Ferrari for a Chevette if we don't allow banksters to scam the elderly. :lol:
 
Seniors were sold a risk-free retirement with reverse mortgages. Now they face foreclosure.

Tom is just an actor with a trustworthy image, and an irrelevant tool for purposes of discussion.

I've been opposed to the marketing of reverse mortgages since their inception. The idea of tapping hidden equity developed over long periods of time with no safety mechanisms for people (often people of less sophisticated financial understanding) during their years as their intellectual power fade further always seemed to me as a disaster waiting to happen. Outside of marketing ploys, there is no such animal as a risk free mortgage. Every bank institution mortgage demands payment of homeowner's insurance with the lending institution listed as a mortgagee to protect their interests, and a method for protecting the mortgagee from tax liens (usually in the form of a tax escrow account to managed by the mortgagee, money garnered through the periodic payments known as mortgage payments). Since reverse mortgage tap equity rather than build equity, there are no such mechanisms in place to protect the lender, and subsequently the borrower (the mortgagor).

Often over the years as friends and family mentioned the possibility of assuming a reverse mortgage as they paid off their primary mortgages on their homes. Lured by the ability to cash out and not deal with payments, to enhance their living income is appealing. I have always advised them they first had to consider and calculate their liquidity needs to cover the insurance and tax payments that had been relatively invisible to them as they amortized their mortgages and the money for those expenses were collected during the maturation of those mortgages. For many it was often as shock, especially as real property values rose as did insurance premiums and real estate taxes. Shock was often the reaction. And most of those who were lured into accepting reverse mortgages did not receive similar advice. Mortgage bankers and brokers who marketed these reverse mortgages were far more interested in the commissions they received than the welfare of the mortgage lenders or borrowers.

Relatively very few retiring Americans have the cash reserves to manage the costs of homeowners insurance premiums and RE taxes, as well as maintenance when failing health demands increased outside hiring, as well as their daily living and health expenses. Americans do not plan well for their latter years. Often, tho at the decision making times, the emotional loss of giving up a home where they raised their families and lived significant portions of their lives, as well as improved their own visions of the self status and worth as successful adults, causes some pain, yet the best solutions have been to sell the empty nest, relocate to smaller easier manageable houses or condominiums, even rentals, utilizing the skills of professionals to minimize the gains taxes shocks they will also face, for happier finances during retirement years.

For reasons I will not pretend to understand why, minority communities were the last to seek out professional advice from disinterested third parties, those with no stake in the process. I've seen the results repeatedly, and not only for the issue of reverse mortgages. And unfortunately, social service personal which service those same communities do not have the financial training to offer quality advice. This is where relatively inexpensive consultations with lawyers, CPA's, qualified estate planners can make a high quality difference. Depending on the words of self serving mortgage bankers and brokers is not a solution.

Without legislatively created protective controls, reverse mortgages should be redacted from portfolio offers. And that alone is not a solution. Professionals need to step up with their consultive services for all who are approaching their latter years for assisting with better planning and avoiding the pitfalls of poor financial understanding. It isn't that people are stupid, they are uninformed having been too busy living their lives raising their families to think about themselves. And even so, finding the right professional to meet their needs is also not a simple task. Doing a small bit of research to check credentials and levels of satisfaction by other clients of the professional is also important.
 
see the link.

Consumer reports did not analyze conventional home equity conventional mortgage foreclosure ratios as a comparison.

If one is suffering from macular degeneration, don't buy a Maserati. It will be the car's fault when you have a collision with a brick building. Prove me wrong. Silliness, but Consumer Reports all too often functions like those who do food studies, studies without context.
 
i don't like ripping off old people even if it's my employer that is doing it. i'm sorry that you feel a need to justify it.

Therefore, do you find it acceptable to "rip off" young people?

All mortgages are financial vehicles and it behooves the borrower to gain an understanding of all the nuances and perils of using any vehicle. With all the bells and whistle in the dashboard of my car, I keep forgetting how to turn on the hazard lights, and learning how the windshield wiper controls functioned was a nightmare come to life.
 
Got one of those victims right here in. Man, that was a long and seemingly endless mess until it got straightened out. It didn't just affect the old folks who fell for the reverse mortgage, but when they left, they didn't bother with outside maintenance. Neighbors had to see to it that the weeds and the assorted wildlife didn't take over the hood.

What was wrong with the neighbors that they didn't volunteer to help before those people left?
 
"Rip off" may be the wrong term, but they are very questionable loans with unique terms and questionable consequences.

I would not recommend a reverse mortgage 99.9% of the time, which makes it equal to about how often I would recommend annuities.

Annuities are the opposite of life insurance. The annuity buyer is betting on longevity as opposed to death. What stinks is selling annuities to geriatrics. The odds are worse than the lottery for winning. Very predatory. My grandfather was getting approached for buying annuities when he was in his 90's. Both he and his dog urinated on one salesman's leg as a response. My grandmother made him clean up the mess. Grandpa had no inhibitions during his latter years, or his earlier years, and that's why I am alive. :)
 
Consumer reports did not analyze conventional home equity conventional mortgage foreclosure ratios as a comparison.

If one is suffering from macular degeneration, don't buy a Maserati. It will be the car's fault when you have a collision with a brick building. Prove me wrong. Silliness, but Consumer Reports all too often functions like those who do food studies, studies without context.

Not responding to this post specifically, it’s just shorter.

I have had a poor opinion of the reverse mortgage since early on. I have done some research, but not to great lengths. We are comfortable and do not need a lump of cash. I pick on Tom because he is the most well known of the spokespeople, and pay attention to the place he is pitching this service from! I was taken aback at the initial reply, as I usually find my self agreeing with the poster. After lurking in the thread, I agree with the poster that likens this practice to the Pay Day Lending racket. They both seems to prey on those least able to understand what they are being offered. Being legal doesn’t make anything correct. Just means there is a lobby on “K” street.

The was a large settlement in Baltimore, a few years ago. It dealt with lead paint in rental housing units and there were large payments made to individuals, paid out over time. These were low income folks. Along come a few financiers that offer the recipients a lump sum settlement up front, for a fraction of the total payout.

Another example is, I wont name the company, but they market to veterans, they offer you a large chunk of what you have built up in home equity and one of the things they tell you you can do with this lump sum is put it in the bank or pay off other bills. Who borrows money and then puts that money in the bank that pays much less interest than you are paying for the loan?
 
Consumer reports did not analyze conventional home equity conventional mortgage foreclosure ratios as a comparison.

If one is suffering from macular degeneration, don't buy a Maserati. It will be the car's fault when you have a collision with a brick building. Prove me wrong. Silliness, but Consumer Reports all too often functions like those who do food studies, studies without context.

FFS, another one. ok, ripping off old people and robbing the poor is a right wing tenet. i accept this. for the rest of the hive, i'm too bored to swat, and am heading back to my couch. peace.
 
The was a large settlement in Baltimore, a few years ago. It dealt with lead paint in rental housing units and there were large payments made to individuals, paid out over time. These were low income folks. Along come a few financiers that offer the recipients a lump sum settlement up front, for a fraction of the total payout.

Another example is, I wont name the company, but they market to veterans, they offer you a large chunk of what you have built up in home equity and one of the things they tell you you can do with this lump sum is put it in the bank or pay off other bills. Who borrows money and then puts that money in the bank that pays much less interest than you are paying for the loan?

These type of predatory schemes should be outlawed.

The second is typical of other predatory practices that need to be curbed. The lack of logic by borrowers indicates the lack of financial sophistication. People don't realize a mortgage is a contract, and no contract should be signed without consulting an attorney. A consultation to prevent a mess is far less expensive than cleaning up a mess using the services of the same attorney.

Bubba made an interesting point when he said the expectations of heirs is a factor toward the negative response in return to reverse mortgages. A mortgage is still a mortgage, and a reverse mortgage can be of value when conventional mortgages can not be available to the retired for lack of income. But again, reserves must be available for carrying expenses and taxes if the desire is strong enough to remain in the same housing unit.
 
FFS, another one. ok, ripping off old people and robbing the poor is a right wing tenet. i accept this. for the rest of the hive, i'm too bored to swat, and am heading back to my couch. peace.

Robin Hood was still a thief. There are thieves on both sides of political aisle. Sheldon Silverstein is still appealing his sentence, and still not in prison.
 
Like ANY type of loan, reverse mortgages have their place. And like ANY type of loan, proper management of the money you receive is important. It doesn't look like the lenders hid any of the requirements for these loans. Pay the taxes, keep it insured, get the title changed over in a timely manner. Not that difficult even for seniors.

And it looks like the lenders don't always come out ahead. Many of those houses are boarded up, some obviously haven't been maintained, and will end up as write-offs by the lender. I suspect how they primarily make any money is filing a claim on the government insurance once it's shown that the home is no longer worth what they loaned out on it. The government can then, if they want to follow through, require the title be turned over to them. Then the government (taxpayer) is responsible for insurance, taxes, possibly refurbishing the home and getting it sold. Good luck on that. Probably shouldn't cost more than $1,000,000 per home.

Many of these loans didn't even require a credit check. Think they would have been made if the government wasn't backing them?

The REAL victim here is the American taxpayer.
 
I don't care about the racial aspect of the linked blog and that is just the nonstop race-baiting Democrats do. It is just as tragic if a white, Latino, Asian or any other elderly loses their home on this trickery.

What I don't really understand, however, is that even without the reverse mortgage the homeowners STILL would have to pay their property taxes or lose their home, so it is ONLY about homeowner's insurance. It is a FACT that if you let your homeowner's insurance lapse, renewing it can be extremely more costly.

While a person who has NO mortgage isn't required to have homeowner's insurance, they should. Anyone with any kind of mortgage knows they must maintain homeowner's insurance. What is SOMEWHAT burning these people is the absurd markup on the insurance - plus interest on the debt of the mortgage company paying it. This is similar to the extreme markup on a financed car where the person stops buying required insurance - leading to the care being repossessed. However, there are reasons for the much higher premiums as risk factors.

Congress could cure this by a law limiting the markup and interest on the substitute insurance company the mortgage company provides. That said, ANYONE with a loan suffers the penalties (and foreclosure or repossession) if they don't pay what is required.

If they just paid their insurance there would be no problem. So, candidly, I'm not really that sympathetic. Too many blacks have been TRICKED by the Democratic Party into believing the government will cover their asses for every screw up they make in life because they are black. Notice the article ONLY cares about blacks whose homes are being foreclosed for lack of paying their property taxes and maintaining insurance - as if somehow holding blacks to the same contract terms everyone else is held to is racist - when there is NO racism in this story whatsoever.

We know people who STUPIDLY refinanced their homes to get the money (buying cars, the latest cell phones and other non-essentials) - and now are crying about having to pay on their house forever - all their own doing.

BOTTOMLINE: The financially irresponsible person is who should pay the price, not the rest of us. I don't think $1 of tax dollars should cover those people. It was their stupidity. Everyone knows they have to pay property taxes every year and they thought they could just get away with letting their homeowner's insurance lapse - now expecting others to pay for their stupidity.
 
FFS, another one. ok, ripping off old people and robbing the poor is a right wing tenet. i accept this. for the rest of the hive, i'm too bored to swat, and am heading back to my couch. peace.

It is the "leftwing" that has tricked many blacks into thinking the government will cover their ass for their mistakes. Mortgage companies are neither leftwing nor rightwing. They are just a business.

NOTHING new here. If you opt not to have your insurance as part of your mortgage payment you have to maintain insurance - period - whether or not a regular or reverse mortgage. Same for property taxes. Don't pay? The result will ultimately be a foreclosure - including for mounting interest and penalties.

There is NO racism in any of this. This is how it has ALWAYS been. The only change is many people, particularly minorities now - believe if they don't buy insurance then the risk is the government's/taxpayers - not themselves.

I'm sick and tired of hearing people who opted not to have flood or other insurance sobbing the government owes them a house when it is destroyed - meaning demanding I buy THEM a house because they gambled on having no insurance. This is the same thing - demanding I (taxpayer) pay THEIR interest, penalties, back taxes and insurance because they didn't.

I want the government (you) to pay me my gambling loses at the casinos too. Not buying insurance is the gamble of the person who doesn't, not my risk if their gambling is a huge lose to them.
 
Like ANY type of loan, reverse mortgages have their place. And like ANY type of loan, proper management of the money you receive is important. It doesn't look like the lenders hid any of the requirements for these loans. Pay the taxes, keep it insured, get the title changed over in a timely manner. Not that difficult even for seniors.

And it looks like the lenders don't always come out ahead. Many of those houses are boarded up, some obviously haven't been maintained, and will end up as write-offs by the lender. I suspect how they primarily make any money is filing a claim on the government insurance once it's shown that the home is no longer worth what they loaned out on it. The government can then, if they want to follow through, require the title be turned over to them. Then the government (taxpayer) is responsible for insurance, taxes, possibly refurbishing the home and getting it sold. Good luck on that. Probably shouldn't cost more than $1,000,000 per home.

Many of these loans didn't even require a credit check. Think they would have been made if the government wasn't backing them?

The REAL victim here is the American taxpayer.

The REAL victim here is - and should be - the person who didn't pay their property taxes and maintain their homeowner's insurance. There should be no risk to taxpayers in any of this - only to the lender and mortgage company. These should NOT be government backed loans - ever. Other than VA loans (one-time), there should be NO government backed mortgages - ever.
 
The REAL victim here is - and should be - the person who didn't pay their property taxes and maintain their homeowner's insurance. There should be no risk to taxpayers in any of this - only to the lender and mortgage company. These should NOT be government backed loans - ever. Other than VA loans (one-time), there should be NO government backed mortgages - ever.

Government backing takes all the risk away for lenders; that's why we get these bubbles. BTW; A VA loan can be used over and over. The previous loan just has to be cleared and the VA borrower not exceed their cap limit. My oldest son is an Army vet and on his third VA backed loan.
 
Government backing takes all the risk away for lenders; that's why we get these bubbles. BTW; A VA loan can be used over and over. The previous loan just has to be cleared and the VA borrower not exceed their cap limit. My oldest son is an Army vet and on his third VA backed loan.

Didn't know that about VA loans. Thanks.

Anytime the government gets into capitalism at the consumer level it screws it all up as people then figure it's free money on both sides of the equation.

Pay your loans per the terms or lose what the loan bought - it's that simple and always has been (or at least still should be). No one was "tricked."
 
When I am a wealthy oligarch, I shall make Tom Selleck shave that mustache off using only his tears for shaving cream.
 
Annuities are the opposite of life insurance. The annuity buyer is betting on longevity as opposed to death. What stinks is selling annuities to geriatrics. The odds are worse than the lottery for winning. Very predatory. My grandfather was getting approached for buying annuities when he was in his 90's. Both he and his dog urinated on one salesman's leg as a response. My grandmother made him clean up the mess. Grandpa had no inhibitions during his latter years, or his earlier years, and that's why I am alive. :)

My elderly neighbor got sold an annuity when he was 89, by his bank. His daughter got it undone, with help from an elder protection group. I think predatory practices are well known and tolerated and will continue as long as politicians profit by it.
 
My elderly neighbor got sold an annuity when he was 89, by his bank. His daughter got it undone, with help from an elder protection group. I think predatory practices are well known and tolerated and will continue as long as politicians profit by it.

A sad story. Even tho politicians need to write legislation banning predatory practices, the blame falls on those who commit those practices. Laws can govern, but aren't a requirement for decent non predatory business behavior.

My younger brother was a retail equities broker, and during his latter years was often approached by long time clients for investment advice, eventually establishing a geriatric following. He made it a point to steer them away from investments that could bring about substantial long term gains, unless the intent was to improve the finances for their heirs, instead suggesting short term less rewarding investments that could easily be cashed out if the need arose. He made it part of his practice to discourage investments that the investor could not afford to lose. Explaining that no matter what they learned from the media, reminding them every investment is a risk and a gamble. He made a bit less money as a result, but slept well. He, as part of his brokerage offerings, sold annuities, never to his geriatric customers, instead moving them into short term insured cds and similar vehicles, like discounted maturing muni bonds that were tax free. Traders would let them go because they made their money on fractions of conveyance charges, not interest, and would discount them for more immediate cash when they were no longer marketable as anchors for portfolios in the secondary markets. Often his clients would be thrilled with 7-8% short term (a year or two) returns in this market. He somehow managed to find muni bonds that paid interest in balloons at maturation instead of annual accruements. A 3-5% discount on face value discount plus compounded accrued interest made for nice tax free returns.

There are always better investment strategies appropriate for every generation of investors. Finding the best strategist to assist you takes some sneaker wear. Unfortunately the most vulnerable don't wear sneakers, just slippers.
 
Reverse Mortgages are designed to rip off old people. I put the process in the same class as Nigerian Scammer telephone calls. The big difference being, it's actually legally.

You could argue that if people are stupid enough to fall for it, they deserve. But, if that argument is true, why trust any bank any time? Elderly people may not only need assisted living, but assisted financial management; and things just don't work that way.
 
Reverse Mortgages are designed to rip off old people. I put the process in the same class as Nigerian Scammer telephone calls. The big difference being, it's actually legally. You could argue that if people are stupid enough to fall for it, they deserve. But, if that argument is true, why trust any bank any time? Elderly people may not only need assisted living, but assisted financial management; and things just don't work that way.

Reverse mortgages are designed for seniors to rip off their kids. The senior gets to use the equity in the home instead of the kids getting the money. It's like any other loan- it doesn't end the property tax obligation, or maintaining the home. It does allow the couple to continue to live in their home rather with the ability to afford decent home healthcare.

If the couple (or their kids) make no payments on the loan when the note comes due, at the death or leaving of the home by the owners, the kids have the right to take over the loan, pay off the loan or let the bank sell the home and anything over repayment of the loan goes to the kids.

It's pretty simple, but I can see where some folks don't like this arrangement, it cuts into the kid's profit at the death of their parents.... :peace
 
Back
Top Bottom