'Reverse mortgages cannot be forced on retirees'

By Larry Schlesinger | 17 Mar 2009

Representative body, The National Information Centre on Retirement Investments (NICRI), has slammed suggestions that retirees, whose principal residence is valued at over $1m, should not receive the aged pension, but rather fund their own retirement using a reverse mortgage.

The suggestion was put forward by Christian charity group, Brotherhood of St Laurence, who said the government should: "include owner-occupied housing as part of the means test for the age pension for homes of high value, say above $1m.  This could include arrangements for reverse mortgages so people can remain in their family home while drawing down on its equity to create an income."

But Wendy Schilg, director of NICRI, said it was concerned about the principle of "Australians being forced to fund their own retirement using equity in their primary residence".

"We should not expect Mr. and Mrs. Smith to lose their pension and be forced to sell part of their house to put food on the table. They have contributed to the taxation system all their lives and their house is so valuable not because they are rich, but because they have owned it for 30 years and property prices have increased.

"While I understand the intention behind the suggestion, I believe that the recommendation is misguided and will result in detriment to Australia's cash-poor, asset rich retires."

Following the launch of its reverse mortgage information service for consumers last month, NICRI, which represents retiree and consumer groups, said calls to date have shown that reverse mortgages can be a poor choice for some retirees.

"We have found that you have to be a certain type of person to take on a reverse mortgage," Schilg said.

"Some people dislike the compounding interest that eats into the equity of their home over time; others have wanted to sell their home and have encountered break fees in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Retirees are a vulnerable part of our community, and to assume that a reverse mortgage would be suited to everyone is just wrong."

According to 2008 The Deloitte SEQUAL Reverse Mortgage Study, mortgage brokers and other intermediaries are responsible for distributing nearly half of all new reverse mortgages, in a market worth $2.3bn.
 

 

Bookmark and Share ALB


Latest comments
Start a new discussion


Commented by: Paul - Carnegie at 17 Mar 2009 12:40 PM Report this comment
The Brotherhood of St Lawrence report to the Pension Review, which included the possibility of non-exemption of the family home in the assets test, came from a Research Report from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling. The report included eight options "to address inequities to those where need is not as great". The non-exemption was one of the eight options.We need to go back to the original basis of the Aged Pension - To look after retirees who could not look after themselves.As this country has prospered, Governments have increased funding to look after more Seniors in retirement. 13% of the population is over 65. In 25-20 years, this will increase to 25% and will not be able to be funded by a smaller number in the work force.In today's world economic environment, Government can only provide a certain amount of funds to the Aged Pension, in addition to aged care facilities (there are only 172,00 beds currently available) and the HACC program which helps fund Seniors to stay in their homes. Some 30% of Seniors do not own their own homes and about 20% rely on rental accommodation. Try paying the cost of living plus rental on the single pension and a rental subsidy - it needs far more funding.

The Brotherhood understands the cost pressures on the Federal Government and is looking after those who cannot look after themselves.The Government cannot force Seniors to sell their one million dollar house and downsize to a $600k townhouse, just to keep the pension - (anyway, they would not as $400k at the bank would exempt them).

Paul  
Commented by: Dr W at 17 Mar 2009 01:02 PM Report this comment
It's not fair for tax payers to pay pensions for people sitting on large assets. I think we need a system similar to student loans, where the government lends money in the form of an ongoing payment. The loan would then be repaid upon sale of the property.
Commented by: Loki at 18 Mar 2009 10:43 AM Report this comment
The value of one's home, which has taken a lifetime of hard work and fortune, should be irrelevant in determining the right to expect a retun on those many years of paying tax.

As a Reverse Mortgage Consultant, i personally would love the windfall this would present - but it is still wrong.

A house is worth nothing until it is sold, so who determines who misses out? Where's the incentive to work hard and invest well only to find the equity erroded on retirement.?

A house worth $1m would represent a different lifestyle to a house worth $1m in Adelaide - so is this equitable?

Leave your comment
Start a new discussion

Broker news forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

You must login with your Broker news username and password to leave a comment. If you are not already a member, sign up now!



Post a comment
Broker news welcomes your contribution. Your IP address is recorded in the event of a complaint.
Name *
Comment *
You are about to submit your comment. Is it:
  • Professional
  • In your own name or pseudonym, not impersonating someone else
  • Free from rude language
  • Free from advertising
  • If you prefer not to post but are still keen to get your viewpoint across, you can always e-mail the editor.
  • Site search: Go