On 9/26/2019 9:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/26/2019 7:57 AM, dpb wrote:
On 9/26/2019 4:41 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:58:13 -0500, dpb
wrote:
...

Otherwise, almost certainly
a bad idea and as noted, virtually always one could come out better by
simply selling the property straight out.

Again, then you have no place to live.

You buy within your means or rent--with the advantage that if in the
future you need assisted living or your plans change you have complete
flexibility to make those decisions later.

I'm sure some will try to sell annuities and reverse mortgages to people
who shouldnt' buy them.

Indeed, they're both high expense, high commission products just as
whole life policies like those the Hartford peddles thru AARP that are
generally very poor comparatively as far as net return to the
purchaser as compared to alternatives.

Even if you have no heirs, why not still try to optimize your return
strategy while still living and then, instead of giving what you've
worked for your entire life to some insurance or mortgage company or
the government, why not find a charitable institution or other purpose
that you have a passion for to make use of those funds going forward?

--

That depends on your situation.Â* If you are living comfortably, fine,
charity is good.Â* OTOH, if you don't have enough to meet normal living
expenses or for an expensive home repair, a reverse mortgage makes a lot
more sense than surviving on cat food because that is all you can afford.

Perhaps but probably still not the best overall financial alternative.
The discounted rate one gets isn't great return from ROI perspective and
if the house is not in good repair it'll be discounted even further.
Plus, it's a forever decision.

Philanthropy here is in terms of the estate, not current.

--