A Lack of Demand For Reverse Mortgages? Some Think So

Familiar with the doubt and misunderstanding about reverse mortgages that emanates from outside, industry insiders may be surprised at the discord fomenting within their own ranks toward the product. One major trade association executive dismisses them almost entirely. “There is not a demand for it,” asserts Kevin Cuff, executive director, Massachusetts Mortgage Bankers Association. “[Any] demand is being created by a ‘sales subculture’ – there is no suitable demand based on seniors’ need for the product,” Cuff insists.

Going up the ladder, even a HUD official tells RMD: “The industry is pressuring [everyone] to expand the product but we’re getting the opposite message from regulators.” The official points to “the FBI, FTC, state entities and other federal banking regulators [who] are all watching this program like a hawk. The industry,” this official complains, “pushed for higher loan limits, but HUD is suffering [as a result]. There needs to be some recognition by the industry to focus on getting all its ducks in a row and then expanding,” the official declares.

On the other hand, some industry leaders believe conditions are better than ever for seniors to consider the reverse product. One is Jeff Lewis, senior managing director, Generation Mortgage Co., New York, N.Y. (Guggenheim is the majority owner of Generation and Lewis oversees their investment in that firm.) He says: “We all have a great challenge to convey to people with some urgency that our product is so good for them and the opportunity [to get a reverse mortgage] is not going to get better.” Fresh evidence of growth is the number of reverse mortgages insured by FHA in March this year, which rose to 11,261, up 17 percent from a year earlier.

Advertisement

The last word goes to attorney Neil Garfinkel of Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson in New York, who says “anyone who has any respect for [our] business knows reverse mortgages are not for everyone. The most compelling reason [to get one] is having a lot of equity and a lack of cash availability by a senior who wants to stay in their home for the long haul. Absent those,” Garfinkel says candidly, “I would not encourage someone to do it.”

Neil J. Morse has been a communications professional working in the mortgage finance industry for more than a decade, currently specializing in the reverse mortgage sector. He can be reached at nmorse@morsecommunications.com

Join the Conversation (0)

see all

This is a professional community. Please use discretion when posting a comment.

  • Reverse mortgages are not economically or morally sustainable. We are privatizing a social responsibility; reverse mortgages are a regrettable patch for a failure of our social safety nets and a lack of regard for the welfare of our retired workers. Whatever happened to the dependable, defined benefit plan?
    They are also a give-away to the lenders and investors. It’s a “no lose” situation for them: any deficiency is made up by the FHA insurance, which, in turn, is made up by either the borrowers or the taxpayer.

  • Mr. Reichard, the lady you met the other evening has other options than to “leave everything to the government.” If she can afford her mortgage, she can pay it off and, instead of dissipating the equity, leave it to a charity rather then the government.

  • Mr. Curtiss- The weakness of your position is that it exposes the individuality of your “moral sustaniability” litmus. “Social safety nets and defined benefit plans for all” would make a good bumper sticker..but the last time I completed a budget analysis with a widow who was always a stay-at-home mother…your theory goes up in smoke. Another good point you could make, but do not: “adult children should always financially support their parents”. That one is conveniently left absent from your position. In point of fact, when you presuppose that accumulated home equity is better designated for a source other than the pocket of the homeowner who created that accumulated equity…you are passing judgement. Judge not, Mr. Curtiss. Just work harder and make your own way in the world. That is a morally sustainable plan, for sure. Are you, and others who think like you, wiling to do the hard work it takes to achieve and sustain that position?

    As far as Kevin Cuff of the MMBA: spoken like a true non-producer, of anything.

  • Interesting comments coming from folks in different sides of the “industry”.
    The argument that reverse mortgages are not in demand today is a little questionable. The argument would make sense if we had a normal recession without the credit freeze, the subprime mess that resulted in signicant players in the secondary market going out of bussines. However, what we have today is a significant loss in our equity markets which in turned significantly reduced 401(k) liquidity and to some extent retirement plans. In addition due to the subprime mess and resulting foreclosure risks, we see more seniors asked for help by their children who have lost their jobs and are having difficult time paying their mortgages, ie. seniors tapping into reverse mortgages to help their kids now, and not tranferring their wealth when they pass away. The worst the economic conditions and the more of a lack of additional financial resources to tap into, the more attractive and really viable option the reverse mortgage becomes. So the argument about equity rich and cash poor senior being the only type of borrower may no longer apply (this was ok when we had no such financial problems).
    The other point I would like to make is that the HECM program was a clever way for politicians to offer an alternative to seniors rather than dealing with balancing the entitlement programs, which to this day they have not done. If you look at the HECM program, it is way to realize liquidity today, in exchange for debt to the next generation. Keep in mind that Medicare was designed at a time when folks didnt last that long and contribution premiums for folks working today are projected to not cover the benefits received by our retirees by 2017 or something like that. We dont ask our seniors to contribute to the Medicare program once they retire and receive the benefits (unless they keep working). With reverses, we dont have that issue, everyone receiving the benefits of the reverse mortgage is still paying for it thru the periodic MIP premium (which actually is acruing so more likely their estate or the heirs will actually pay for this). So the HECM program is balanced in that sense. For those who argue the reverse mortgage was not necessary, I would point out that even in France with a more comprehensive government social safety net, reverse mortages exists (although with a slightly different model) so even countries with high government social programs do find the need to have such type of reverse mortgage program.

  • Well Mr. Curtis, what is not morally or financially sustainable were the years of efforts by lender’s to put senior homeowners into more profitable refi’s instead of reverse mortgages. The result now is a group of 70+ year olds who can no longer make the monthly payments on 30 year mortgages and are headed for foreclosure, a figure that includes 4,600 seniors in California alone.
    Your naivety in terms of the financial machinations of our government would be refreshing if it wasn’t so misguided. It was apparent decades ago that SSI would not be a sufficient ‘social safety net’ for anyone, especially as the huge baby boom segment entered retirement age. To avoid wreaking havoc on an already over burdened set of entitlement programs, the governnment was supremely motivated to find a way for people to finance their own retirements without government handouts. Since this included many people who didn’t have pensions etc or weren’t financially prepared, they knew that $4 trillion in senior home equity was a good place to focus. Whether you like it or not, it is the only solution for an increasing number of those nearing the end to their earning years. To lament how we got here is pointless as is criticizing reverse mortgages for being many older American’s best hope for having enough money to last the rest of their lives.

  • There are lots of comments and positions taken in these remarks. A serious problem I see is the rapidly raising margins are making this a lackluster deal for the seniors. I wonder if anyone has thought about in a few years when FHa has to pony up lots of insurance becasue the properties are upside down will we be the next subprime nightmare of toxic assets? Just a thought.

    The program is designed to help the elderly and it is not for everyone. Salesmanship needs to take a back seat to wisdom and a long term look at the problems that got the Senior in the mess in the place. No amount of regulation will replace education and ethics.
    The program needs to continue to help seniors who have no other alternative but Fannie Mae and FHA need to take their greed hats off and be careful what they wish for.

  • I agree that reverse mortgages are not for everyone. But I do believe that every senior should be educated to know what a reverse mortgage is, what it can and cannot do. Sometimes, that extends beyond the final loan doc signing. We get periodic calls from people we did loans with when we first started in the business, because we educated them and because we told them that if they ever had questions, to call us and if we knew the answer we would tell them and if we did not know the answer we would find out the answer and let them know.

    Sometimes we end up educating someone else’s client. We get calls from people who already have reverse mortgages but have no idea what happened to their salesperson. (Maybe they decided there “is no suitable demand” and got out of the business.) We answer their questions the best we can.

    Some of us do try to “focus on having all our ducks in a row” but when the rows and even the ducks keep getting pushed around or taken off the board by regulators and financial entities, it is hard to play catch-up.

    Does Mr. Garfinkel work half as hard to discover what reverse mortgages can do for senior homeowners as he does to discourage possible candidates for an RM? It seems to me he is taking the lazy way out. I can’t blame him. At an attorney’s going rate, it seems that to him, it is a waste of his precious time. His time, however, may not be beneficial to the seniors he serves if he does not spend some it exploring what his clients need and whether or not a reverse mortgage fits those needs.

  • Just a point of clarity in Mr. Morse’s column : regulators from HUD to state bank commissioners are apprehensive of an overly aggressive sales production shifting from what was once alternative “exotic” loan products to FHA, loan modification for hire and reverse mortgages. Massachusetts requires Division of Banks’ approved R/M programs before a lender can enter into the market. The DOB is criticized for either a slow approval process or non-consideration of the R/M application which, is more a reflection of their apprehension of a fairly new program with significant risks attached. I sense directly from all regulators that caution toward the risks and the lesser developed sophistication of the product far outweighs the current demand.

    But, what do I know … the only thing I have ever produced is the industry insight and professionalism to keep my lender members out regulator trouble.

    kmc ~

  • Mr. Torres,
    Although I do not always agree with your conclusions, normally your statements can be understood. This time I found a lot of misinformation.

    For example what does this statement mean: “The argument would make sense if we had a normal recession without the credit freeze, the subprime mess that resulted in signicant players in the secondary market going out of bussines?” — If you remove the demand that is arising due to this recession and the credit freeze, it seems demand would be down.

    “However, what we have today is a significant loss in our equity markets which in turned significantly reduced 401(k) liquidity and to some extent retirement plans.” — How was the liquidity of 401(k) plans reduced? I believe the values of 401(k) plans were reduced but not their liquidity.

    “If you look at the HECM program, it is way to realize liquidity today, in exchange for debt to the next generation.” — One of the principal benefits of a nonrecourse mortgage is that debt in excess of the value of a home (that is not to be retained) cannot be passed to heirs. I do not understand your statement. Yes, seniors with HECMs will have less to pass to their heirs but that is not in the least like the passing of debt.

    “We dont ask our seniors to contribute to the Medicare program once they retire and receive the benefits (unless they keep working).” — That is utter nonsense. Seniors do contribute to Medicare. It is usually withheld from their Social Security benefit payments.

    “With reverses, we dont have that issue, everyone receiving the benefits of the reverse mortgage is still paying for it thru the periodic MIP premium (which actually is acruing so more likely their estate or the heirs will actually pay for this).” — How is it any different if the senior or the estate pays for these costs? If you take it from the senior, aren’t you ultimately taking it from the heirs?

    “…even in France with … reverse mortages exists” — Are you referring to viagers? They are not reverse mortgages.

  • “There is not a demand for it,” asserts Kevin Cuff, executive director, Massachusetts Mortgage Bankers Association. “

    Between April 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009 there were 2672 originations in Massachusetts, that’s possibly 2672 homes saved from foreclosure or 2672 folks off the public dole or 2672 folks glad they can keep their taxes up to date. You get the picture (I hope). If the state didn’t make it such a hurdle to schedule and participate in the required HUD counseling and ask for the same things the national process does (which is so much overkill), that number would be even higher and since 2003 Mass has been a top 10 state for reverse mortgages. You can say there’s no demand but you’d be lying and is that a position an executive director should take? The facts are something you should have before commenting so boldly.

  • Mr. Veale,

    Let me bring down the discussion a little notch to make it a little more clear for you and also to correct a couple of things.
    In your first point, I was referring to the demand of reverse mortgage by borrowers (not by secondary market investors). I was trying to address the statement by Neil Garfinkel of Abrams Garfinkel Margolis Bergson about the compelling reasons for seniors to do a reverse mortgage. The paradigm for a while has been that the main candidates for the program are cash poor and equity rich folks who would tap into the equity of their homes for THEIR OWN BENEFIT. The recent financial crisis has changed this a little bit, because some seniors are tapping their equity to help someone OTHER than themselves (ie kids etc who due to unemployment may be loosing their homes to foreclosures, see the link????). Thus, a litle paradigm shift has to occur. This type of financial crisis situation increases the demand for reverse mortgages from borrowers point of view.

    “However, what we have today is a significant loss in our equity markets which in turned significantly reduced 401(k) liquidity and to some extent retirement plans.” — How was the liquidity of 401(k) plans reduced? I believe the values of 401(k) plans were reduced but not their liquidity. Here what I meant that some of our younger seniors who were relying on using their 401(k) savings program, must now wait until their accounts balances go back up, if they want to recoup their unrealized losses. Therefore if they were to cash out those funds today they would have lost a significant percentage out of what they would have cash out if the markets would not have gone down. Your are probably referring to the more technical term of liquidity as the ability to convert any investement to cash (that ability is still the same). The main point of the argument is that due to the financial crisis senior are now looking at reverse mortgages as a financial instrument to supplement some of these losses.
    As for the remarks about Medicare, please note that I made a correction; I was referring to Social Security pension plan. My mistake there and I did put a correction thereafter, folks that use Medicare must still pay a premium after they start using it as you indicate. Social security fund is fed only by contributing members and once they retire they dont contribute anymore. I would politely request that if you make a critique, to please do it a more gentle way, without using words like nonsense, especially if you dont read the correction that I posted afterward.

    As for “If you look at the HECM program, it is way to realize liquidity today, in exchange for debt to the next generation.” — One of the principal benefits of a nonrecourse mortgage is that debt in excess of the value of a home (that is not to be retained) cannot be passed to heirs. I do not understand your statement. Yes, seniors with HECMs will have less to pass to their heirs but that is not in the least like the passing of debt.— Here perhaps the term wealth transfer should have been a better term. The wealth tranferred to the next generation is indeed reduced by the balance of the reverse mortgage that has to be paid. The nonrecourse clause limits the amount of the reduction in the wealth tranferred but there is still a reduction. You seem to be very obsessed with the terms rather than the overall message here that was that politicians decided to allowed seniors to tap into their home equity and thus reducing the wealth that they could tranfer to the next generation, so that the politician would not have to deal with fixing the problem of unsustainable entitlement programs and provide additional cost of living adjustments to our seniors. That was the main point.

    Oh yes and France is not the only country, Canada, England, Australia and Korea, just to name some, do a search for documented journal papers on the subject and you will see their studies.

    I hope I have made it a little clearer for you.

  • Mr. Torres,

    We are stuck with what we write. No one can read your mind.

    To call a false assertion “nonsense” is not a personal attack against you, but it is a clear description of my feelings toward a false statement about Medicare. I have no idea how the following statement corrects the misstatement that seniors are not required to contribute to Medicare: “Correction: Medicare should replaced by Social Security and Medicare.” —- When I read it the first time and I read it again now, it is my opinion and sincere conclusion it does not correct the misstatement; it is at best confusing.

    Your statement about my not reading your correction is a personal attack. You have no idea whether I read your correction or not.

    I am aware that several countries have variants of US RMs. I was not aware France did. The viager referenced in the WSJ article admin cited today is not the equivalent of a US RM. If you have not read my comment on that article, please let me know your thoughts. Can you cite a US study on the French RM? Thanks.

  • Mr Veale,

    I agree that we cant make corrections to posts already submitted. The correction post should have been corrected to say just “social security”. My point rather than saying it is false statement, would it rather be better to correct or suggest a correction? After all, you didnt dispute the corrected fact about social security. That is my point.Please take it as a gentle suggestion, especially dealing with an industry forum like this.

    As for France, the plans were announced in 2004, but the law was passed in 2006: see the following article:

    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2006/12/08/afx3239498.html

    The viager or pension Home Equity Deals (as the WSJ describes them) had been around for a long time. I know because I had to do some research a couple of years ago and came upon the story of Jeanne Calment who basically outlived her viager deal by living until she was 120 yrs (my borrower at the time was 108yrs and we did complete the reverse mortgage (proprietary), which is probably the record for the oldest borrower in the US who took a reverse mortage and she is still alive!!!). Technically speaking, the term “reverse” in a reverse mortgage is defined because the trust or whatever secondary market instrument is used by the investor, must account for the direction of cash flow from the bank to the borrower during the life of the loan, as opposed to a “forward” mortgage where the direction of cash flow is from borrower to lender in the form of monthly mortgage payments. Of course the time period we are talking about is after origination and before final repayment.Believe or not this is big difference because some type of account must be setup to keep the money that must be paid to the borrowers as cash advances (scheduled such as tenure or term payments or unscheduled from the line of credit) during the life of the loan which is not needed in the forward mortgage case. Of course it is still a loan and the collateral is always the house. There are some authors who described the viager as the first form of private reverse mortgages that existed in the world. Yes we know there is no mortgage insurance, there is I guess, no nonrecourse clause, but the french version is kind of similar to the tenure option on a proprietary type of reverse mortgage in which the investors are private citizens and of course no secondary market investors or securitization is needed. As a side point, I wonder how the french government treats these type of deals from a tax perpective. If the transaction is not considered a loan, then should the viager payments be considered “income” and therefore should they be taxable? My point is that there seems to be no technical description that the viager payment is received by the senior subject to some repayment condition. All we know is that when the senior passes the collateral becomes the property of the person who issued the viager.

  • Mr. Torres,

    As to the French viager, please read yesterday’s RMD article on the WSJ article and the comments there under. dduck already cited the same information. This is the second time I have politely and gently requested you to look at it. Either you read it and disagreed or you did not read it but still want to speculate about viagers.

    How a viager is a forerunner of a reverse mortgage is a stretch of credibility. It is first and foremost a transfer in specific interests in real estate. It is not a mortgage; there is no collateral. There is no debt and no interest accrues. In US real estate law terms, the seller simply becomes a life tenant. As to other aspects of viagers, I do not know French real estate law or customs and will not waste people’s time by further speculation.

    A reverse mortgage is first and foremost a mortgage. I find too many originators so wound up trying to explain the alleged “reverse” nature of a reverse mortgage, they lose sight of the mortgage aspect. As a mortgage, this product is nothing more than a negatively amortizing, non-recourse mortgage with no minimum monthly payments; it only becomes due and payable when specific triggering events occur.

    As to proceeds payout, I have difficulty trying to perceive how a forward mortgage that offers cash proceeds (commonly referred to as “cash outs”) to borrowers is that much different from a closed end fixed rate HECM. A correct analysis of the payout differentiation would be valuable.

    Last month, I had two borrowers who would have no idea why you just spent so much effort trying to define “reverse.” Both came to their closings with substantial five figure checks so that with the proceeds from their HECMs they could pay off their current mortgages and as a result their monthly mortgage obligations would go away. How does “reverse” work in these cases?

    Let’s simplify some of your presentation. The only real investors in HECMs today are 1) MetLife (if my information is correct) and 2) Fannie Mae. I am sure (the remaining) investment bankers are fully capable of taking care of setting up suitable vehicles and other means to provide proceeds to borrowers as the number of investors increase. How that (is and) will be done is beyond the subject in the article above. You should suggest this topic to Mr. Bell as a subject for a NRMLA conference or convention.

    I read the very short blurb you cited on the new French law. I appreciate the reference but it provided only minimal insight into the subject.

  • Mr Veale,

    By your the comment you made
    “A reverse mortgage is first and foremost a mortgage. I find too many originators so wound up trying to explain the alleged “reverse” nature of a reverse mortgage, they lose sight of the mortgage aspect. As a mortgage, this product is nothing more than a negatively amortizing, non-recourse mortgage with no minimum monthly payments; it only becomes due and payable when specific triggering events occur.”
    It is obvious that you are not familiar with the mechanics and inner workings of the secondary market. I would refer you to read a little on the fundamentals of mortgage back securities and real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC) structures. I am not going to go into details here. The term reverse is more associated as to how the secondary market structures packages these type of investments and the responsibilites of the servicer and investor. Reverses have very different requirements than forwards when it comes to the secondary market. Explaining this to a borrower is difficult at times and most likely not relevant.

    As for your comment “The only real investors in HECMs today are 1) MetLife (if my information is correct) and 2) Fannie Mae”— I would say check your facts a little: Fannie Mae is the indeed the main purchaser in the secondary market.The other investor is Ginnie Mae (look around for their guide). That is as much as I would say about that.

    As for the article, the French law was passed recently so it would take sometime before anyone publishes some results. From WSJ it looks like French lender Crédit Foncier is indeed offering a more conventional type of reverse mortgage deal.

  • I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Veale and Mr.Torres exchange email addresses to better indulge their penchant for the subtleties of ‘viagers’ and the word ‘reverse’ as it applies to secondary markets which Mr. Torres finally concedes is ‘most likely difficult to explain and not relevant’ to the borrower. Gee, you think?

    As for Mr. Cuff’s remarks. A friend who works with him on the MMBA board said:
    “I spoke with Kevin today and he was miss quoted, he was speaking from a regulatory point of view that the MA division of banks believes that there is not a demand and that it is being driven by a sales culture…

    Kevin is merely addressing the concerns of the division of banks here in MA where they have seen some unscrupulous actors take up reverse mortgage practices where they are combining financial advisory services with the reverse mortgage getting a double hit on income… the DOB is evaluating the licensing procedure for reverse mortgage lenders…”

    Mr. Cuff said he would agree that there is a legitimate need for reverese but that extensive sales and marketing efforts distort the true measure of that need as it pertains to investor support. It is clear that they will not support any product in current conditions that is not FHA insured at this point.

  • Questions to any insurance company out there issuing Immediate Annuities (IAs): Is Snoopy the only one investing in RMs? Are RMs good current investments, were they better in the past, will they be better in the future? Do they match the liability of payments under a IA if the mortality rates are similar (are they?) for seniors?
    Interestingly, I cited the 1995 NY Times article on Ms. Calment in a newsletter I wrote to clients trying to promote IAs. I still say they are great (IAs) and that is why I am so attracted to perhaps a better mouse trap, the Tenure option of RMs.
    By the way, my personal opinion is that things like: peace of mind, financial independence and resources, the ability to make present gifting and insure against certain future events (like a poor health or death), etc, can also be considered “wealth transfer”, but not in the technical sense
    It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
    Of course, we can also shoot our selves in the foot with a well meaning plan. (It’ an art, not a science.)

  • There isn’t a decrease in demand for Reverse Mortgages. Homeowners want them but aren’t able to get them due to Fannie Mae continually increasing the margins and not honoring the rate locks.

    I realize it’s risky for Fannie Mae being the only Investor buying HECM’s right now, but the margin increases don’t make sense because the “insurance” gravely reduces the risk, and there’s a hugh surplus in the insurance fund. It’s just not fair for Senior homeowners – they’re the ones who experience the pain of the situation.

  • It is unfortunate that the only view of Reverse Mortgages the DOB of Mass has is from Len Raymond of the H.O.M.E. program over the years. This is a ‘non-profit’ agency in massachusetts. Mr. Raymond advocates reverse mortgages are the last thing someone should do. Thier agency is also a HUD approved counseling agency for the HECM’s. The conflict of interest arises from the fact that they steer individuals who want to be counseled on Reverse Mortgages and the HECM program to thier ‘network’ of local banks who put them into deferred balloon payment selocs. At the end of the term(anywhere from 5-15 years) the homeowner is forced to sell thier home or pay off the loan. The reason we know this is because we helped a borrower they were trying to foreclose on by placing them with a HECM. It amazed me the member bank never mentioned to the homeowner the option of a HECM, but rather tried to foreclose on them. Another instance was a call from a son to find out what he could do to keep his parents at home, but unfortately they owed too much with the seloc to qualify for the HECM. If they chose the HECM originally they would not have had the situation they were in. H.O.M.E qualifies people based on income, age, and net worth. You need to be destitute to qualify and if you do not qualify for thier program you rarely get an appropriate overview of the federal program. The member banks then give his ‘non-profit’ organization charitable contributions at year end. He is politically connected within the state and anyone calling state offices typically gets steered to him for reverse mortgage information. You should try to get information over the phone. They won’t give it to you. They send out a packet 10 pages long asking for names, age, social security numbers, income, your life history, before they will condisider talking to you about your options and give you information. This doesn’t seem right??? His organization tells people the federal programs are too expensive. Of course this is the response when he steers people to his network of banks where he can continue to recieve charitable contributions.

    At the end of the day more education is needed. I hope Mr. Cuff was mis-quoted as I am sure there are many of his members who support him financially and could take offense to how he was quoted. The joys of the media. People in this industry need to be accountable for what they do. Not every mortgage is appropriate for everyone(forward or reverse), but no one will know until they are properly educated on all thier options. Does it make sense to put someone at 68 into a 30 year amortized loan to lower thier payments by $200 and start the amortization all over again? Well…if the person can live to 85 when those payments actually go to principal and still have the cashflow to actually start paying principal. Why not consider a reverse mortgage, keep the cashflow in your pocket, defer the interest, and keep yourself liquid. Also, a growing line of credit on top of this only prepares people for the future. We all know the cost of living is going up and liquidity and cashflow are the 2 most important aspects of retirement no matter how much money you have in the bank. It is more detrimental to someone’s situation to tell them to stay away from reverse mortgages than to encourage people to be accountable and educate themselves on the options available. That’s enough for now.

string(97) "https://reversemortgagedaily.com/2009/05/11/a-lack-of-demand-for-reverse-mortgages-some-think-so/"

Share your opinion