reverse

10 Alternatives to a Reverse Mortgage

Reverse mortgages can be a good option for many homeowners. They let you borrow based on the equity in your home. Instead of paying the bank, the bank pays you — tax-free — with a series of payments via a partial lump sum of money or a line of credit.



jean-georges Brunet standing in front of a window posing for the camera


© goodluz / Shutterstock.com


Under the right circumstances, a reverse mortgage loan might help an elderly person stay at home when retirement money is running out.

Money Talks News founder Stacy Johnson says reverse mortgages can make sense for certain types of people. But they also come with some big disadvantages. For more on the pros and cons of reverse mortgages, check out “Should I Get a Reverse Mortgage?”

If you read that story and decide a reverse mortgage is not for you, it’s probably time to look at other options. If you prefer taking another route, check these alternatives.

It’s not the usual blah, blah, blah. Click here to sign up for our free newsletter.

1. Sell and downsize

It’s hard to let go of your home, but selling may give you more freedom.

Plus:

  • If you have equity in the home, you’ll probably get more of it from selling than from taking out a reverse mortgage.
  • You can use the proceeds from the sale to buy or rent a more affordable home, or to move in with relatives.

Minus:

  • The home is no longer yours.
  • You can’t bequeath it to heirs.

2. Refinance

Mortgage rates have climbed recently, but are still low by historical standards. If your rate is high now, look into refinancing, which might drop your monthly payment to a more manageable number.

Plus:

  • Fees are typically lower than with a reverse mortgage.
  • Your heirs still may be able to inherit the property.

Minus:

  • You must
Continue Reading

HFSA: Neprilysin Post-MI Fails to Reverse LV Remodeling

Sample size and study duration may be a factor in null outcome

Neprilysin inhibitors have vasodilatory, anti-hypertrophy, anti-fibrotic, and sympatholytic effects, all of which suggest that they could slow or prevent the left ventricular remodeling that may occur following myocardial infarction — remodeling that leads to heart failure.

That was the hypothesis that British Heart Fund researchers tested in a randomized trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan alone in patients at high risk for heart failure following MI.

But Kieran Docherty, MD, of the British Heart Fund Research Centre at the University of Glasgow and Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow, and colleagues found that “patients with asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (and low NT-proBNP levels) following MI did not achieve a significant reverse remodeling effect with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan.”

Docherty said he and his colleagues enrolled patients who were at least 3 months post-MI, had an LVEF of 40% or less, were taking a beta-blocker unless contraindicated, and could tolerate an ACEi or ARB. The trial excluded patients with atrial fibrillation, SBP less than 100 mmHg, and reduced kidney function. It was a trial of asymptomatic patients; thus, patients in NYHA class II or higher were excluded.

In his presentation during a late-breaking clinical trials session at the 2020 Heart Failure Society of America virtual meeting, Docherty noted that most of the 93 patients randomized were about 4 years out from MI.

That extended post-MI time might explain the failure to observe a benefit, said James E. Udelson, MD, of the Cardiovascular Center at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, who served as the study discussant.

Udelson pointed out that the trial design stipulated 3 months or longer post-MI, but the actual participants included in the study sample were closer to 48 months post-MI. “It’s really important to understand that

Continue Reading

OSG asks SC to reverse decision allowing foreign contractors to work in private, gov’t projects

MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court to reverse its decision which allows foreign contractors to obtain licenses and participate in government or private projects in the country.

In a statement on Sunday, the OSG said that it filed a 29-page motion for reconsideration, where it argued that the limitations on the participation of foreigners in the contracting industry must be retained “to protect the interests of Filipino contractors and workers.”

The motion was signed by Solicitor General Jose Calida, Assistant Solicitor General Ma. Antonia Edita Dizon and State Solicitor II Perfecto Adelfo Chua Chen.

“Allowing the issuance of regular license to foreign contractors would result to unbridled influx of foreign contractors to the detriment of local contractors in micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), including the concerned professionals and Filipino workers, among others,” the OSG said in the motion, which was filed on behalf of the Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board (PCAB).

The motion comes after the High Court, in a decision promulgated March 10 but released only on Aug. 26, upheld a lower court resolution that declared void a provision of Republic Act 4566 or the  Contractors Licensing Law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), which classifies the licenses that may be issued by the PCAB  to contractors into regular and special license.

Under Section 3.1 of the IRR, companies with at least 60 percent Filipino equity participation can be granted a regular license, which gives them continuing authority to engage in many contracting activities throughout a one-year period. Foreign firms can only be granted a special license, and they need to have a separate license for each contracting activity.

This regulation, according to the SC, is “a deterrent to the foreign players in the construction industry.”

According to the OSG, the

Continue Reading

SolGen asks SC to reverse decision favoring foreign contractors



logo: Office of the Solicitor General


© OSG
Office of the Solicitor General

The Office of the Solicitor General is asking the Supreme Court to reverse its decision that allows foreign construction firms to secure regular Philippine licenses.

In a 29-page motion for reconsideration, the OSG argued that limitations on foreign participation in the contracting industry should be upheld to protect the interests of Filipino contractors and workers.

“Allowing the issuance of regular license to foreign contractors would result [in] unbridled influx of foreign contractors to the detriment of local contractors in micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), including the concerned professionals and Filipino workers, among others,” the OSG said in its motion.

OSG’s motion was signed by Solicitor General Jose Calida, Assistant Solicitor General Ma. Antonia Edita Dizon, and State Solicitor II Perfecto Adelfo Chua Cheng. It was filed on behalf of the Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board (PCAB).

The motion comes as the Supreme Court, in a decision promulgated March 10, upheld a lower court resolution that voided the Section 3, Rule 3 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act. 4566.

Under this, companies with at least 60% Filipino can be granted a regular license, while foreign firms can only be granted a special license which is needed for each contracting activity.

According to the OSG, the IRR already allows foreign firms to have “regular license with annotation,” provided they have a capitalization of at least P1 billion.

“Should the assailed provision in the IRR be nullified, the easier entry of foreign contractors will allow foreign contractors to compete with local MSME contractors in relatively similar projects,” said the OSG.

Citing data from the PCAB, the OSG said a total of 12,931 special licenses were issued from July 2015 to December 2019.

Out of the total, 12,448 were issued for joint ventures

Continue Reading