vphSeveral consumer groups are calling for better protection for aged homeowners being sold reverse mortgages to fund their retirement.
Australia's ageing population are mostly asset rich but cash poor. And most have one asset that has doubled or trebled in value in the last few years, and that’s the family home.
Reverse mortgages have been available in the US for decades, and some banks tried to market them in Australia in the nineties with limited success.
Their time and need has now come, as the cash strapped baby boomers head to retirement with little superannuation or other assets to support them in retirement.
In 2004, about $250 million was lent through reverse mortgages. Last year, it was $650 million. According to Kieran Dell, executive director of the industry body Senior Australians Equity Release Association of Lenders (SEQUAL), that's just the beginning.
"It wouldn't surprise me if it exceeded a billion dollars in this calendar year," he says, adding that it could reach up to $5 billion in the next few years.
"You won't see the rump of those baby boomers hitting retirement and then spending their superannuation for another 10 years. So it's going from a small base but it is growing very fast."
But the Australian Consumers Association has called for regulation of the sector, concerned that pushy selling practices could put them in an unfair position.
Launched during the boom when house values were screaming up, many property markets are now falling while interest rates are rising.
"Reverse mortgages are an emotive issue," says Denis Orrock, the general manager of InfoChoice.
"Slogans such as 'nothing to pay till you die' hardly aid the industry's quest for recognition as a legitimate financial tool for senior citizens."
Horror stories from Britain of aged pensioners being evicted from their homes as their reverse mortgage debt exceeded the homes' value stalled the market here in the 1980s. Yet new demographics and lifestyle considerations are pushing more people to consider going back into debt.
Life expectancy is longer, lifestyle expectations are higher and Australia's ageing population needs more money to live on. There are a lot of retirees who own their own homes and many who are under-funded for retirement. People leaving the workforce now have an average of only $125,000 in super, so borrowing against the family home can look like an attractive option.
But in doing so, borrowers take on a major risk. In an environment of sluggish property growth and higher interest rates, the debt compounds rapidly and may leave once-secure home owners with little to call their own or pass on to their beneficiaries.
Depending on how the funds are accessed, Centrelink may assess the money under the income test and reduce the age pension.
Any mortgage broker can sell a reverse mortgage, whether or not they submit to an Australian Securities and Investments Commission-approved dispute resolution system such as the Banking and Financial Services Ombudsman. Sales are commission-based, which means the bigger the loan, the greater the broker fee. Commission figures are closely guarded, but those the ACA knows about average from 1.2 to 2.3 per cent. If there is a combination of an upfront commission and a trail fee, the inital fee may be 0.7 to 1 per cent and the ongoing trail 0.2 to 0.4 per cent.
"You don't want a situation where inappropriate advice is given by a broker or a planner because of the size of the commission they're earning," says Nick Coates, an ACA senior policy officer.
In the absence of regulation, best practice in the area is guided by a voluntary industry code developed by SEQUAL, which represents about 95 per cent of providers. It requires members to include a no-negative equity guarantee in their contracts. This is meant to ensure that no one will lose their home over a reverse mortgage.
Because it's a voluntary code, a proven breach doesn't carry the force of law. The penalty is expulsion from SEQUAL or, as Dell puts it "a public relations disaster".
But the equity guarantee is not iron-clad. It is conditional on a borrower meeting all the terms and conditions of the loan, which may include, for example, maintenance and regular home valuations at the borrower's cost.
"We still have concerns that there are ways in which the contracts can avoid a no-negative-equity guarantee if the customer was found to be in default," Coates says.
"If you hadn't done some simple administrative tasks like paid your council rates or reported on the state of your property each year you could technically be in default, which means they could reserve the right to say the [guarantee] doesn't apply.
"Most financial institutions when questioned about that say, we're reasonable and won't apply it. Sure, they may well be reasonable but it still provides a gap for those that aren't reasonable. There's no guarantee."
The products are complicated, and many borrowers have trouble understanding all their ramifications. Dianne Carmody, general manager, Banking and Financial Services Ombudsman, says it has received only a small handful of complaints relating to reverse mortgages from SEQUAL members but all related to borrowers misunderstanding the terms and conditions.
Paul Gillett, a solicitor with the Consumer Legal Service in Victoria, has had many calls from clients who don't understand the products. "They're a relatively new product and people are prone to misunderstanding their nature," he says. "The negative side is that providers may be taking advantage of people in this regard."
SEQUAL's code requires people to consult a lawyer, and strongly encourages them to seek licensed financial advice and to talk to their beneficiaries as well. The association argues that making financial advice mandatory could actually disadvantage certain people. Some consumer groups agree, concerned that unscrupulous planners may push higher loan amounts or products people don't need. In addition, the financial advice would be yet another cost borne by the borrower.
With reverse mortgages, it's a case of borrower beware. "The borrower needs to understand the structure of the loan, the impact it may have on future equity and the impact it will have on their estate,'" Orrock says. "They also need to ensure that they only draw down the amount they require and not be coerced into taking a large lump sum.
"The lenders should at all times provide the borrower with an accurate picture as to how the loan will perform under conservative conditions moderate property growth and a higher interest rate environment. This will ensure the borrower can understand the concept of capitalisation of interest.
"Finally, the borrower needs to seek independent legal and financial advice."
Impact on Centrelink benefitsThe first $40,000 is not counted as an asset for 90 days. If the money is placed into a bank account, it is subject to the deeming provisions of the income test. Where more than $40,000 is borrowed, the amount in excess is counted as an asset with the $40,000 being counted after 90 days. If the whole amount is immediately spent, the rule will not apply unless the funds are spent on assets or an income stream. Where the loan is drawn down on a regular basis there is no effect on the income. Some reverse mortgage providers offer regular payments by holding the proceeds of the loan in an offset account. The balance of the account is classed as an asset and subject to the deeming provisions but the interest charged on the loan may be reduced.
Source: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia
