[vimeo id=”92888996″ width=”625″ height=”352″]
How to position yourself for success in a changing market
A Chinese proverb admonishes “When the winds of change blow, some people build walls and others build windmills.” More than ever before we should ask ourselves if we are building walls to protect against the evolution of our industry or are we preparing to harness the momentum of change? Two changes come to mind that we can seek to prepare for and harness the potential opportunities created.
First is HUD’s soon to be announced solve for the non-borrowing spouse issue. It is widely anticipated that the agency will ban younger borrower’s releasing their interest in the property and rather include those under the age of 62 with lower principal limits or lending ratios. The primary borrower must be at least 62 but we can now approach those with younger spouses seeking to create a long term retirement solution. For example a 64 year old man with a 55 year old wife may benefit by setting up a deferred…
Download the video transcript here.
Looking for more reverse mortgage news, technology & training? Visit Reverse Focus here today.
3 Comments
I am still concerned about those who are on the edge, as regards financial assessment, that may well lose their home because of marginal retirement income even if they are able to get a reverse mortgage.
With Mortgagee Letter 2014-07 only addressing spouses who were married at the time of closing and also at the death of the borrowing spouse, the result is a sham since the law does not state that the spouse was married to the borrower at closing. HUD still appears to be living in the fantasy that they do not have to address the real issue, all non-borrowing spouses who are married to a borrowing spouse as of the date of death of the borrowing spouse.
It is time for AARP to once again lead the charge to litigate HUD as to its hubris in making such a draconian and ridiculous determination. To say the Mortgagee Letter is dreadful is too, too kind.
HUD is trying to split the baby but without the wisdom of Solomon. In mortgage letter 2014 -07, HUD is saying that there are two legitimate interpretations of the protection from displacement clause for the non borrowing spouse. One is their original interpretation. The other is the court’s interpretation, which declares HUD’s interpretation unlawful.
How absurd! A private business could never get away with this. To say that two opposite interpretations of a law are both equally correct is Orwellian.
Eville’S