Damn You, Tom Selleck!

justabubba said:

nope

one of the wonderful things about our justice system is that it leans strongly toward the truth

it's as simple as that

Click to expand...

Sorry, justice leans to money; it’s as simple as that!

Helix said:

i've already heard the commercial.

honestly, if forced to choose between the banksters and petty criminals who stick up old people outside of the senior citizens' center, i'd almost have to go with the latter. at least in that case, Grandpa only loses a wallet.

Click to expand...

....and if grandpa has a cc permit, who knows.....

Rexedgar said:

....and if grandpa has a cc permit, who knows.....

Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose that he could lose a toe as well as his wallet. I admit that I didn't factor that in.

UtahBill said:

Poor planning.....the home owners should have planned on being debt free by age 50 or sooner.
I several friends over the years to scale back their high living and to prepare for retirement, but they didn't listen.
What can you do?

Click to expand...

That was good advise you gave them UtahBill too bad for the ones that didn't take it. It takes a lot of money to maintain a home. When you were younger you could do much of the maintenance yourself. But as we age you just can't do certain things anymore that requires climbing up on a ladder higher than 8 ft.. As homes age just like us, they need TLC. Roof replacements, window replacements, exterior door replacements, air conditioning, furnace replacements, hot water heaters, driveway replacements, appliance replacements, garage door replacements, gutter replacements are all big ticket items not to mention replacing flooring and anything else that is worn out on the inside.. We had estimates over a simple thing as replacing an outside water spigot. The cheapest quote was over $700. Not too long ago had to call a plumber over for one of the Moen shower gizmos that had been there for 30 years. They were here less than 20 minutes and replaced a "stem". Total cost over $200. Maintaining a home is expensive and if you didn't prepare for it in your retirement years you will not be able to hold onto it even if the property has been paid off. If the property was not well maintained chances are you will lose out resale value when you are forced to sale.

Helix said:

i've already heard the commercial.

Click to expand...

Did you hear the part where the borrower forgets to pay his homeowners insurance?

Helix said:

honestly, if forced to choose between the banksters and petty criminals who stick up old people outside of the senior citizens' center, i'd almost have to go with the latter. at least in that case, Grandpa only loses a wallet.

Click to expand...

He loses his wallet, and that isn't much of a loss because about 2/3rds of his net worth is tied up in his house. How do you propose he fund his retirement, or does he just keep working until he turns up his toes?

Rexedgar said:

Not sure I have caught the new ad, what’s Selleck’s “involvement?”

I can’t imagine he is a customer......

Click to expand...

I don't think they picked him because he's a customer. Most commercials are the way, like Capital One.

Helix said:

it is understood that you support reverse mortgage scams and robbing people outside of senior citizens' center fish fries. man, that must be a fun position to defend. is it personally profitable?

Click to expand...

I did a little research yesterday. The foreclosure ratio for reverse mortgages is about 3% higher than for other mortgage loans. 74% of those foreclosures commence after the demise of the mortgagor(s). 96% of the post demise foreclosures are rescued by either conveyance or refinancing by the heirs, compared to the 91% rescue of other foreclosures. Of the 26% of foreclosures, all resulted from failure of terms, non-payment of re taxes, lapse of insurance, failure of maintenance to a point where local authorities deemed by violations the property uninhabitable. Less than 3% of those foreclosures proceeded to eviction, less than the 3.7% mean eviction ratio for other mortgage vehicle foreclosures. The courts have generally burdened the mortgagees with an obligation to find alternate housing for reverse mortgage mortgagors before allowing eviction of foreclosed parties. Something not done for other evicted foreclosed, and at times keeping the parties as tenants in a rental conversion, granting life estates when conveying to a third party.

The numbers take the wind out of your sails when you claim senior citizens are losing their homes to reverse mortgages.

The real mitigating predatory factors are reverse mortgages usually face fees for brokerage, origination and so forth more than 30% higher than other mortgage loans, and close with interest rates 1-2% higher than other mortgage loans. Not unusual for equity loans of all kinds, as opposed to income based loans. Equity loans are considered higher risk by lending institutions. In other words, the danger is on the front end, not the back.

The most popular reverse mortgages are credit line loans, where the money is drawn down on a monthly basis when needed or at other times of need (i.e. I need a new roof). Credit line mortgages rarely meet the maximum loan amount, meaning the balances are lower, easier to satisfy or rescue. Under recent changes, 2018, per Federal legislation, fees now have a ceiling not greater than 1.5% the market mean for all mortgages in a given market region. This applies to all Federally insured mortgages.

American said:

I don't think they picked him because he's a customer. Most commercials are the way, like Capital One.

Click to expand...

C’mon, you don’t think there is one in Jennifer Garner’s wallet? :lol:

The truth is the Reverse Mortgage problem is secondary. The real problem is most people are not financially capable of retirement. People who don't invest or save for retirement soon find out that they can't survive on Social Security alone. Their choices are go back to work, reduce their lifestyle to the level of their income or borrow against the equity in their homes via a Reverse Mortgage. But alas, there is no such thing as free money. Sooner or later the piper needs to be paid. All these people knew what they were getting into and all of them got the money they were promised. These loans just delayed the inevitable. It allowed them to live better for a few more years or do things they wanted to do, but then they ended up in the same place they started except they have no more assets to fall back on. Welcome to the world. Life is tough, it is even tougher if you are stupid.

Tom Selleck is not responsible for that, he is doing nothing but hawking a legal service. He is no more responsible for your financial ignorance than Matthew McConaughey is responsible for your broken down car that he hawked.

The real question is why do liberals always want to blame others for their failures. That is all this thread is about.

More news:

Reverse mortgages leave families battling for property after death

Reverse mortgages make sense for seniors who want to still live in their homes but can't afford the mortgage. But they should definitely discuss it with their families before they get one...especially if their families expect to inherit the house.

I would never get one...but if anything happened it's nice to know that's an option.

My mom was going to get one but I think I talked her out of it. As far as inheritance, or house value, it won’t be much at all after being split three ways, but I just hate the idea of those jackals getting their hands on the house my father built with his bare hands.

Drawdown said:

The secret is to take out the mortgage, not tell anybody, and then convince your laziest grand child that all this will be theirs one day if they just take you the doctor and pick up your prescriptions until you die. :shock:

Click to expand...

A friend of mine has an aunt who did that. Had a modest home in what has grown to be a very expensive part of town. She is 85, and the kids are talking about selling the property and becoming millionaires when she dies. They weren’t very happy when they were told that she had two mortgages on the house that not many people knew about. Needless to say, the vultures stopped circling.

Superfly said:

My mom was going to get one but I think I talked her out of it. As far as inheritance, or house value, it won’t be much at all after being split three ways, but I just hate the idea of those jackals getting their hands on the house my father built with his bare hands.

Click to expand...

You planning on moving into it?

Superfly said:

My mom was going to get one but I think I talked her out of it. As far as inheritance, or house value, it won’t be much at all after being split three ways, but I just hate the idea of those jackals getting their hands on the house my father built with his bare hands.

Click to expand...

could your Mom use the money? if yes, i would hate that she was going without

Helix said:

it's sad when actors that i used to like make commercials to help the banksters rob old people.

Click to expand...

Anybody who involves themselves in transactions involving tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars needs to familiarize themselves with the terms and conditions of the transactions. That goes for mortgages, student loans, or health insurance. It's not the responsibility of anybody to bail them out if they don't.

Banksters don't rob people. Banksters provide a service. Feel free to use it or not. But for every foreclosure that happens, thousands more are better off with the loan.

Banks don't like foreclosures. Almost never does the bank come out ahead. I own a building I bought from a bank for $75,000. The bank exposure was over double that before the expense of foreclosing, holding, and selling. That's typical of most REO properties. It doesn't matter whether the former owner was a Fortune 500 company or a retired person.

jimbo said:

Anybody who involves themselves in transactions involving tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars needs to familiarize themselves with the terms and conditions of the transactions. That goes for mortgages, student loans, or health insurance. It's not the responsibility of anybody to bail them out if they don't.

Banksters don't rob people. Banksters provide a service. Feel free to use it or not. But for every foreclosure that happens, thousands more are better off with the loan.

Banks don't like foreclosures. Almost never does the bank come out ahead. I own a building I bought from a bank for $75,000. The bank exposure was over double that before the expense of foreclosing, holding, and selling. That's typical of most REO properties. It doesn't matter whether the former owner was a Fortune 500 company or a retired person.

Click to expand...

banksters do rob people, and when they gamble too hard, they get to rob taxpayers. i suppose that it's a pretty good racket, assuming that one doesn't feel guilty about jacking old people's houses.

Helix said:

banksters do rob people, and when they gamble too hard, they get to rob taxpayers. i suppose that it's a pretty good racket, assuming that one doesn't feel guilty about jacking old people's houses.

Click to expand...

Can you name an instance where a bank robbed anybody?

Again, banks do not want foreclosures. They never come out ahead. That includes old people's houses. Banks want their money back under the terms and conditions under which they let you use it and you agreed.

Banks don't rob taxpayers either. In some, but not all, mortgages, the government funds mortgage insurance. But again the bank gets compensated per the terms and conditions of the insurance.

FHA, the largest insuror, for instance, collects fees from the borrower to fund itself. In doing so it has enabled millions to experience home ownership. The insurance portion of FHA has shown a profit since day 1.

Helix said:

banksters do rob people,

Click to expand...

have never heard of any person being taken to a bank to process a loan with a gun to their head
the customer CHOOSES to take the loan and the repayment terms and pledge of collateral that goes with it. they will have signed contracts acknowledging the terms and that they agree to the loan terms. there are no surprises for the customer ... unless they failed to read and understand what they were signing. the public funds education so that people will not be in the plight of being unable to read contracts

... and when they gamble too hard, they get to rob taxpayers.

Click to expand...

only the ones that are "too big to fail" are in that category, where their adverse impact on the nation's economy should they fail gives them leverage to do the things that well managed banks cannot

i suppose that it's a pretty good racket, assuming that one doesn't feel guilty about jacking old people's houses.

Click to expand...

it is a good business model. the banks have federal backing for those reverse mortgages, provided they originate and service the accounts properly, according to the federal regulations. seniors who are house rich and cash poor are now able to cash out the equity in their homes so that they can continue to live in their own house and have money to buy the things they need but would otherwise not have the means to purchase. that is because they do not have to repay the reverse mortgage in their lifetime so long as they reside in the home - and continue to pay the costs of hazard insurance and taxes, like any other responsible homeowner

if you will notice the theme of stories in this thread, they are almost exclusively from the perspective of the heirs, whose inheritance was diminished because their elderly family members chose to spend their home equity on themselves rather than leave it to the heirs. and what is so wrong about that? they are the ones who accumulated the equity in their homes that the reverse mortgage enables them to spend on themselves

jimbo said:

Can you name an instance where a bank robbed anybody?

Again, banks do not want foreclosures. They never come out ahead. That includes old people's houses. Banks want their money back under the terms and conditions under which they let you use it and you agreed.

Banks don't rob taxpayers either. In some, but not all, mortgages, the government funds mortgage insurance. But again the bank gets compensated per the terms and conditions of the insurance.

FHA, the largest insuror, for instance, collects fees from the borrower to fund itself. In doing so it has enabled millions to experience home ownership. The insurance portion of FHA has shown a profit since day 1.

Click to expand...

sure, risky gambling that requires taxpayer bailouts, and reverse mortgages. it could be argued that the bailouts were more extortion than robbery, though. "hey, you remember when we said that we should be allowed to consolidate into superbanks that are too big to fail? well, yeah. we sorta went ahead and snorted too much coke for years and gambled ourselves into oblivion. how about a bailout, or we'll give you a depression that could last a generation! hey, thanks! now could you go ahead and deregulate us again? that would be great. fork over grandma's house for a pittance, and we'll call it a deal. come on, are you going to tell Magnum no?"

justabubba said:

have never heard of any person being taken to a bank to process a loan with a gun to their head
the customer CHOOSES to take the loan and the repayment terms and pledge of collateral that goes with it. they will have signed contracts acknowledging the terms and that they agree to the loan terms. there are no surprises for the customer ... unless they failed to read and understand what they were signing. the public funds education so that people will not be in the plight of being unable to read contracts


only the ones that are "too big to fail" are in that category, where their adverse impact on the nation's economy should they fail gives them leverage to do the things that well managed banks cannot


it is a good business model. the banks have federal backing for those reverse mortgages, provided they originate and service the accounts properly, according to the federal regulations. seniors who are house rich and cash poor are now able to cash out the equity in their homes so that they can continue to live in their own house and have money to buy the things they need but would otherwise not have the means to purchase. that is because they do not have to repay the reverse mortgage in their lifetime so long as they reside in the home - and continue to pay the costs of hazard insurance and taxes, like any other responsible homeowner

if you will notice the theme of stories in this thread, they are almost exclusively from the perspective of the heirs, whose inheritance was diminished because their elderly family members chose to spend their home equity on themselves rather than leave it to the heirs. and what is so wrong about that? they are the ones who accumulated the equity in their homes that the reverse mortgage enables them to spend on themselves

Click to expand...

i doubt that you and i are going to cover any new ground when it comes to stealing desperate old people's houses. i recommend that you re-read our "best of" discussions in multiple threads if you're feeling nostalgic.

Helix said:

sure, risky gambling that requires taxpayer bailouts, and reverse mortgages. it could be argued that the bailouts were more extortion than robbery, though. "hey, you remember when we said that we should be allowed to consolidate into superbanks that are too big to fail? well, yeah. we sorta went ahead and snorted too much coke for years and gambled ourselves into oblivion. how about a bailout, or we'll give you a depression that could last a generation! hey, thanks! now could you go ahead and deregulate us again? that would be great. fork over grandma's house for a pittance, and we'll call it a deal. come on, are you going to tell Magnum no?"

Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how banks and banking work? Or it's relationship to the government? At the time of the great bank failure there were approximately 16,000 banks in the country. Less than 20 were failing. I for one advocated letting those fail. Along with the losers in the automotive industry. Nothing should be too big to fail. Especially if there are thousands that stand ready to pick up the slack.

If you buy into a product or service based solely on an endorsement of a celebrity, then I can't help you.

jimbo said:

Do you have any idea how banks and banking work? Or it's relationship to the government? At the time of the great bank failure there were approximately 16,000 banks in the country. Less than 20 were failing. I for one advocated letting those fail. Along with the losers in the automotive industry. Nothing should be too big to fail. Especially if there are thousands that stand ready to pick up the slack.

If you buy into a product or service based solely on an endorsement of a celebrity, then I can't help you.

Click to expand...

sure, i know how they work. they consolidate to become too big to fail, purchase politicians, purchase deregulation, and then gamble the economy into the toilet. then we bail them out, and it's rinse and repeat. i can't really fault Magnum for cashing in, but i will anyway.

Helix said:

i doubt that you and i are going to cover any new ground when it comes to stealing desperate old people's houses. i recommend that you re-read our "best of" discussions in multiple threads if you're feeling nostalgic.

Click to expand...

it's your choice to run away from this debate
i can see you have learned nothing thus far when you term collateral foreclosure to be the banks' stealing. were there any theft going on, law enforcement would be involved

Helix said:

sure, i know how they work. they consolidate to become too big to fail, purchase politicians, purchase deregulation, and then gamble the economy into the toilet. then we bail them out, and it's rinse and repeat. i can't really fault Magnum for cashing in, but i will anyway.

Click to expand...

That's what I thought.