• Reverse mortgages now almost a must?

    From dumbstruck@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 10 15:08:37 2016
    Marketwatch has an article about new rules making reverse mortgages more attractive: "The new math on reverse mortgages" http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-math-on-reverse-mortgages-2016-04-10 . If so, I wonder at what age and conditions it almost
    becomes a must?

    They have some boring coverage of how abuse (of the nature no reader of this newsgroup would attempt) is being reduced by new rules. But they say using it as a line of credit seems almost a must, even if you don't seem to need it at the time.

    The value of it rises and the feds may insure against drops in value of your house. You can use it's tax free proceeds to avoid tapping into taxable IRA withdrawals, with all it's side effects of raising medicare premiums, etc. You can avoid locking in
    capital losses on stocks, and have income to wait for return of a bull market.

    So I am curious whether someone who has no specific need for such a line of credit should get one, and when. It now almost sounds like a gov't giveaway program that leaves you behind if you don't join, but maybe there are some pitfalls for even the most
    modest involvement?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JoeTaxpayer@21:1/5 to dumbstruck on Tue Apr 12 08:45:07 2016
    On 4/10/16 5:08 PM, dumbstruck wrote:
    Marketwatch has an article about new rules making reverse mortgages more attractive: "The new math on reverse mortgages" http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-math-on-reverse-mortgages-2016-04-10 . If so, I wonder at what age and conditions it
    almost becomes a must?

    They have some boring coverage of how abuse (of the nature no reader of this newsgroup would attempt) is being reduced by new rules. But they say using it as a line of credit seems almost a must, even if you don't seem to need it at the time.

    The value of it rises and the feds may insure against drops in value of your house. You can use it's tax free proceeds to avoid tapping into taxable IRA withdrawals, with all it's side effects of raising medicare premiums, etc. You can avoid locking in
    capital losses on stocks, and have income to wait for return of a bull market.

    So I am curious whether someone who has no specific need for such a line of credit should get one, and when. It now almost sounds like a gov't giveaway program that leaves you behind if you don't join, but maybe there are some pitfalls for even the
    most modest involvement?

    The article was thin on details. But, it linked to an interesting paper
    by Wade Pfau "Incorporating Home Equity into a Retirement Income
    Strategy" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2685816

    The paper has a lot of math and simulations. But, as I often find with
    such papers, the author makes the oddest of assumptions - a flat 25%
    rate on retirement withdrawals. He suggests that one needs to withdraw
    $53,333 to net $40,000. Really? A quick check at https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/calculators/taxcaster/
    and a couple taking $40,000/yr has a tax bill of $1991. Not even 5%. Add $20,000 in SS, and the tax bill goes up to $3656, still, not even 10%. I
    like this author's work, in general. My issue is starting with a premise
    which, in effect takes the 4% rule, and in illustrating it, bumps right
    to 5.33%, and projects from there. 30 years of that bad math, and the
    results skew the wrong way.

    ( I realize, I didn't actually address your question. But I did look at
    the paper I cited, and suggest you analyze the process yourself, never
    just relying on someone else's math, including my own)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)