Reverse Mortgage vs. Home-Equity Agreement at 70: Which Wins?
A 70-year-old single homeowner weighs two ways to tap home equity amid health and longevity concerns.
A 70-year-old single homeowner is facing a financial crossroads, telling MarketWatch they don't expect to live past 80 and must decide between a reverse mortgage and a home-equity agreement to unlock the value tied up in their property. The stakes are high: choosing the wrong product could cost tens of thousands of dollars or leave heirs in a difficult position.
A reverse mortgage allows homeowners 62 and older to borrow against their home's value without monthly payments, with the loan balance coming due when the borrower moves out, sells, or dies. For someone with a shorter planning horizon, the absence of required monthly repayments can provide immediate cash-flow relief — but interest compounds over time, steadily eroding the remaining equity.
Read more How Trump Accounts May Indirectly Affect Women's Retirement Gap →
A home-equity agreement, by contrast, is not a loan at all. Instead, an investor provides a lump sum today in exchange for a share of the home's future value when it is eventually sold. There are no interest charges, but the homeowner surrenders a slice of any appreciation — a trade-off that can look expensive if the property rises sharply in value before the term ends.
For a single person in their 70s with limited life expectancy, the calculus hinges on several factors: how long they plan to stay in the home, whether they want to preserve an inheritance, and how much they need upfront versus over time. Reverse mortgages are federally regulated and come with consumer protections; home-equity agreements are newer products with less regulatory oversight, making due diligence essential.
Financial advisers generally caution that neither product is universally superior — context, health, and estate goals must all factor into the decision. Continue reading at MarketWatch.com
