Consumer Groups Want Increased Oversight of Reverse Mortgage Market

A new report from consumer advocate groups calls for increased oversight of the reverse mortgage market and new protections for borrowers.

Published by the Consumers Union along with California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform and the Council on Aging Silicon Valley, the report asks federal regulators to establish a suitability standard that promotes long-range solutions and strong consumer remedies for violating that standard.

“Reverse mortgages are a very risky deal for borrowers who don’t understand the complicated terms of the loan and how quickly fees and interest charges can add up,” said Norma Garcia, senior staff attorney for Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports.

Advertisement

The group wants regulators to require lenders and brokers establish a fiduciary responsibility to the potential borrower, outlaw deceptive marketing, and adopt stronger prohibitions on cross selling.

“Lenders are aggressively marketing reverse mortgages while assuming almost no responsibility for whether the loans are suitable for borrowers,” said Prescott Cole, senior attorney for California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform.  “Now that reverse mortgages are becoming more widespread, it’s time for some common sense oversight to protect consumers and taxpayers.”

Additionally, as a matter of public policy, reverse mortgage should be considered suitable only when a senior has no other viable option says the report.

“Reverse mortgages should be considered the loan of last resort due to their high cost, potential for exposing senior borrowers to fraud, misrepresentation and financial abuse, and the risk of displacement of non-borrowers who may share the dwelling.”

The groups hope the Consumer Financial Protection Agency will consider the report’s findings and use the recommendations to develop strong and comprehensive policies to protect the public against abuses in the reverse mortgage marketplace.

“Seniors who take out reverse mortgages are at risk of using up all of their equity to cover unexpected costs later in life or even losing their home,” said Shawna Reeves, program coordinator for the Council on Aging Silicon Valley.  “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should act to rein in reverse mortgage abuses and make sure that seniors get the protections they need.”

To view a copy of the report, see here.

Join the Conversation (16)

see all

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

  • To be clear here is what Mr. Prescott Cole personally tried to get into law in the first version of California Assembly Bill 329 introduced on February 18, 2009, dealing with the subject of a fiduciary standard for reverse mortgage originators and only reverse mortgage originators:

    “(b) In determining whether a person has breached the fiduciary duty described in subdivision (a), the court shall evaluate whether the person considered, and discussed with the borrower, the following:
    (1) The age and life expectancy of the prospective borrower and how this would impact the total annual loan cost.
    (2) The extent to which the prospective borrower’s financial needs would be better met by options other than a reverse mortgage, including, but not limited to, less costly home equity lines of
    credit, property tax deferral programs, or governmental aid programs.
    (3) Whether the borrower intends to use the proceeds of the reverse mortgage to purchase annuities or other financial products and the suitability of using reverse mortgage proceeds to purchase the annuity or other financial products.
    (4) Whether a person or entity other than the lender recommended the reverse mortgage for the purpose of purchasing an annuity or other financial product.
    (5) Whether the lender complied with all requirements of existing state and federal law and industry standards.
    (6) Any other factor that the court determines relevant in light of the totality of the circumstances.”

    I could go on and on about several of the first five points, especially industry standards, BUT it is the last point which is the most troubling. The term “relevant” would vary from case to case and more importantly from judge to judge. Here there is no standard. A litigant could dream up some new “relevant” factor and by judge shopping could through litigation get it applied. Reading it again just gives one indigestion.

    I do not have the time to cover “suitability.” It sounds noble but prior proposed California legislation clarifies that issue as well.

    This is what NRMLA fought against in 2009 here in California. I for one appreciate the considerable efforts of NRMLA and the NRMLA volunteers on behalf of us all.

  • When it came to suitability, here is what was proposed in Senate Bill 660 introduced into the California State Senate on February 27, 2009:

    “The suitability of a recommended purchase of a reverse mortgage shall be determined, with reference to the totality of the particular borrower’s circumstances, goals, and needs, including, but not limited to, the following:

    (1) Whether the homeowner intends to reside in the property on a long-term basis.
    (2) Alternatives to the reverse mortgage that would serve a substantially similar purpose. These alternatives may include, but are not limited to, low-cost housing rehabilitation grants and public
    loans, tax postponement, or government aid programs.
    (3) Whether the homeowner is planning to use the proceeds of the reverse mortgage loan to purchase a product, including, but not limited to, annuities or investments, that is not appropriate for the homeowner.
    (4) If the borrower intends to use funds obtained from a reverse mortgage to purchase investments, a determination of whether the cost of obtaining the reverse mortgage outweighs the anticipated earning from the investment.
    (5) If the homeowner will use the proceeds of the reverse mortgage loan to purchase a long-term care insurance product, an evaluation if that product is appropriate for the homeowner.
    (6) The borrower’s apparent physical health and probability for living independently into the foreseeable future.
    (7) The borrower’s marital status and the impact of the reverse mortgage on the future economic security of a spouse or dependent.
    (8) The borrower’s ability to pay for long-term care services, whether institutional or community-based, once the borrower exhausts his or her equity in the home.
    (9) How a reverse mortgage will affect the borrower’s eligibility for receiving government benefits, including, but not limited to, Medi-Cal benefits.
    (10) The borrower’s intent to pass the residence to an heir and the impact of any reverse mortgage on his or her ability to accomplish this.
    (11) Whether a resident of the property who is not the homeowner would be displaced at the maturity of the loan, against the homeowner’s wishes, because he or she will not be able to pay off the reverse mortgage loan.
    (12) With regard to name removals:
    (A) Was another homeowner removed from title prior to or during underwriting?
    (B) Was the removed homeowner under the age of 62?
    (C) Was the removed homeowner significantly younger than the remaining homeowner?
    (D) Is there any reason to believe that the removed homeowner will outlive the remaining homeowner?
    (E) Was the removed homeowner fully appraised of the legal ramifications of being removed from title, including, but not limited to, the consequences upon the death of the remaining homeowner or upon a divorce settlement.
    (13) Whether the homeowner is fully aware of all loan costs and the method by which costs will be paid.”

    As a CPA, I would not undertake some of the items listed above. One calls for in depth knowledge of investments while another about Medi-Cal and yet another, LTC insurance.

    Expect these issues to arise. We have been warned.

  • I just finished reading all 37 pages of that “report”. If you make a living in the reverse mortgage industry, I suggest you do the same. I don’t know how much of an influence this group will have on future law, but if it is any, we will need to watch them closely (and counter at every opportunity). They just rehashed every negative article they could find from the past couple of years and cited it as their reasoning for greater oversight, and most importantly, a suitability standard.

    I could spend countless hours making an argument against this proposal, but it boils down to one’s view on government and how much of a role it should play in our lives (and our seniors’ lives). An oversight committee would draft up a suitability standard for our seniors and it would have to be strictly followed, so if they don’t meet the terms, tough luck. How’s that for personal freedom and the ability to use one’s equity as one sees fit? They even have the gall to bring up inheritance as a reason why more oversight should be added.

    Their main argument is that reverse mortgages must be kept a loan of last resort. They will be successful in destroying the entire HECM program if they are able to add suitability clauses like this “Whether the borrower’s need for money can be met by other viable alternatives to taking out the reverse mortgage. Alternatives can be other sources of assets that the senior may have access to, less costly loans (such a forward mortgage equity line), inter-family loans, local government loan or grant programs (otherwise known as “single purpose” loans), and public benefits programs”

    So now as a commission only salesperson, you are required to do everything within your power to sell against the reverse mortgage. You have to ask how many children the potential customer has and call them to see if they’ll make an inter-family loan? Seriously? As I’m typing this out, I realize that NRMLA shouldn’t have too much difficulty handling this threat.

    • Matt,

      I do not agree. I am not sure what type of reception the report (I hate elevating it to that level) will have from Ms. Elizabeth Warren. It is certain she will NOT see it in the same light as Peter Bell and Jeff Lewis.

      Without Senator Dodd and with Representative Frank ousted as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee starting in January, NRMLA has its work cut out for it. This missile could not come at a worse time for NRMLA. It will take months before the new Congress is geared up properly to effectively lobby on this kind of issue.

      Remember who this missile is aimed at. It is not a committee of bankers or even legislators. It is a governmental consumer protection group who will need the strength and reputation of the Consumer Union and its publication to gain public acceptance which it so vitally needs to stay in place. We are talking about a group which will be created in the image Ms. Warren gives it. She does not need NRMLA to sign off or support her on anything. The Consumer Union is a very, very powerful organization simply based on its Consumer Reports magazine alone. Ms. Warren will need its support to give credibility to the CFPB.

      It seems from your comment that you know the leanings of Ms. Warren better than I. But I wonder if you have fully considered where this missile is headed and understand what it is Ms. Warren could do with it as she oversees the report that the CFPB will be producing on reverse mortgages in its first year of operation. Then the question is what effect will that report have on the 113th Congress which will be voted into office in less than 2 years.

      No, I do not believe many will see this report as do you and I.

  • Why don’t these consumer advocates sit with us Reverse Mortgage Consultants and listen to the stories of 80 year olds with ninety thousand dollars debt, sleepless nights and a six hundred dollars a month social security check. Maybe they would not be so concerned about the majority of us whose only concern is making sure our seniors have some peace of mind and a decent quality of life. Annuities? Cross sells? We don’t want our names in lights, we just want to help seniors.

    • seniormyself,

      If those were our only clients, I do not believe they would be quite as agressive. They are focused on a slightly different group of seniors who are a little more affluent.

  • When does this nonsense end? How much more disclosure and education could possibly be tied to a mortgage program? We as lenders must provide equal access to this mortgage product just like any other. I cannot speak for every borrower, but my clients are not feeble-minded, they understand perfectly the contract they are entering into and feel great about it. These groups seem to forget it is their home, their equity, their investment,and their money. Are we going to have to pass a bill through Congress to get our borrowers approved????

    • jstults,

      You just might be “the luckiest guy in the room” but not every customer STAYS as happy about their reverse mortgage at termination as they are about it at funding. Remember you are on the lending side of things, not the servicing. It is not funding which is at issue; it is generally long after funding where most complaints arise.

      Show me one complaint in the press which arose at the time of funding. At or near termination servicers get complaints from the non-borrowing surviving spouse who is “surprised” that the loss of the beloved spouse is going to mean the termination of the loan, children furious over so little equity in the home after their parents pass away, the last borrower who is looking at an indefinite stay in a nursing home and is being told the loan will terminate as a result if the stay is for more than one year, the borrower in this day and age who is looking at remaining equity when wanting to sell the home and is in her mid nineties and forgot that she had been receiving tenure payments for years, etc.

      A few arise during the loan such as when the line of credit is shrinking or when the borrower finally realizes home values are collapsing and their balance due is growing and now exceeds the value of the home — an event they never anticipated. Then there are those who are seeing their income eaten away by rising fuel costs, more medical bills, and other causes, no longer have the cash needed to pay property taxes or insurance and cannot believe that they do not have five years to pay property taxes “as permitted by law.” Or they just lost their property tax deferral because the state government can no longer afford them and somehow blame the originator for not making it clear to them that if the state removed the deferral they would be responsible for paying property taxes.

      I am glad to hear that none of your customers have run into any of these situations and would never say that you or the originators affiliated with you led them down the primrose lane. I have seen and heard my share of complaints from customers of other originators calling and in a few cases from my own. One of mine was a woman who was way too slow in getting her repairs completed because she did not want to incur the costs of repairs despite seeing bids and thoroughly discussing and agreeing to those repairs and costs. The bank all but foreclosed on her loan and rightfully so; she complained and complained and complained when she had more than enough money in the set aside to get the work done but did not want to incur the costs which were so clear and agreeable to her before and even at closing. Another one of mine was the dear woman mentioned above in her mid nineties who forgot about receiving tenure payments and told the real estate broker that “she never received any loan proceeds from the lender”; she was a former bank officer and we went over her mortgage statement more than once over the years.

      People get “borrower’s remorse,” children do not agree with parents’ actions particularly retroactively (or just plain change their minds), minds go feeble, and borrowers do not like paying the piper when termination takes place; these are the facts of life. (Some even complain without merit.) How pleasant to hear that like others in the industry, you do not have customers (or clients) who would ever make such comments or complaints. I want to learn the secret.

  • My colleagues,

    Good day. Well, more oversight and more government intervention! This is what the advocate groups think are going to save the senior from the big bad wolf, the reverse mortgage specialist.

    This goes over the top for being ridicules. These people do not have a clue and are doing more harm to our senior citizens than any loan originator can.

    First off, what you have here are people that don’t understand the reverse mortgage industry or the product, yet, they want to put all their trust and faith into the “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”. This is a committee that is a spin off from a bill (The Financial Regulatory Bill) that needs to be repealed/revoked because of the damage it id doing and will do to the American people and this country.

    The CFPB will destroy the mortgage industry and surely dissolve the reverse mortgage industry through its over implementation of regulations. This committee will portray the reverse mortgage industry as being out to deceive and rip off the senior. Unless of course, they come in and put into effect, regulations and watch dog programs to protect seniors from the likes of us.

    What they do not realize, along with these advocating groups is that a majority of us in the industry have a great deal more passion for the senior than they do. The reverse mortgage is NOT a last resort program for our seniors to go to, on the contrary. We are NOT a welfare department. Yes, we help seniors that are in debt and may be close to foreclosure, even in foreclosure but that is only one part of the benefits there are to a reverse mortgage.

    Seniors resort to reverse mortgages for many reasons. They look to the program to increase their monthly income, to take vacations, to give their children part of their estate to enjoy now and much more. What about the senior that has plenty of equity in their home and want to use that tax free equity to buy a Boat, buy a Motor home or buy a second home, even for investment. By using a reverse mortgage the way I have described, the senior has no mortgage payment, they have bought a valuable asset, free and clear, as well as not having to pay taxes on the money took out of their home equity to buy that asset. A reverse mortgage is a way to improve a seniors quality of life.

    The same benefits of a reverse mortgage I just pointed out was what I would use 3 and 4 years ago. In fact, I was pointing these benefits out to seniors 10 years ago. Have we forgotten this, have the so called advocator groups not realized this.

    I am discussed how little minded people actually are. The way this article is written it sounds like the reverse mortgage product is a government entitlement program. Just look at what I pointed out as to how a reverse mortgage can and is being used. It is far from an government entitlement program. A quick story; as bad as the economy is about 6 months ago a client came to me, took out a reverse mortgage on a home valued at $542,000. They had no lien on the property. The purpose for taking out the reverse mortgage was to buy a $230,000 boat! They were 69 and 71 years of age. They put their home to work for them, were they ripped off? Heck no, these were smart people, a lot smarter than out government. They knew what they wanted and they got it!

    In closing, I want to say that we just can’t sit by and allow these lies and ignorant policies pushed down our throats. We must fight back, either through NRMLA or form a task force that can look into how we as an independent group can stand up to these people and make our voices heard in Washington. I will step forth and make a commitment to be part of this task force, who else will?

    Thank you,

    John A. Smaldone

  • My colleagues,

    Good day. Well, more oversight and more government intervention! This is what the advocate groups think are going to save the senior from the big bad wolf, the reverse mortgage specialist.

    This goes over the top for being ridicules. These people do not have a clue and are doing more harm to our senior citizens than any loan originator can.

    First off, what you have here are people that don’t understand the reverse mortgage industry or the product, yet, they want to put all their trust and faith into the “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”. This is a committee that is a spin off from a bill (The Financial Regulatory Bill) that needs to be repealed/revoked because of the damage it id doing and will do to the American people and this country.

    The CFPB will destroy the mortgage industry and surely dissolve the reverse mortgage industry through its over implementation of regulations. This committee will portray the reverse mortgage industry as being out to deceive and rip off the senior. Unless of course, they come in and put into effect, regulations and watch dog programs to protect seniors from the likes of us.

    What they do not realize, along with these advocating groups is that a majority of us in the industry have a great deal more passion for the senior than they do. The reverse mortgage is NOT a last resort program for our seniors to go to, on the contrary. We are NOT a welfare department. Yes, we help seniors that are in debt and may be close to foreclosure, even in foreclosure but that is only one part of the benefits there are to a reverse mortgage.

    Seniors resort to reverse mortgages for many reasons. They look to the program to increase their monthly income, to take vacations, to give their children part of their estate to enjoy now and much more. What about the senior that has plenty of equity in their home and want to use that tax free equity to buy a Boat, buy a Motor home or buy a second home, even for investment. By using a reverse mortgage the way I have described, the senior has no mortgage payment, they have bought a valuable asset, free and clear, as well as not having to pay taxes on the money took out of their home equity to buy that asset. A reverse mortgage is a way to improve a seniors quality of life.

    The same benefits of a reverse mortgage I just pointed out was what I would use 3 and 4 years ago. In fact, I was pointing these benefits out to seniors 10 years ago. Have we forgotten this, have the so called advocator groups not realized this.

    I am discussed how little minded people actually are. The way this article is written it sounds like the reverse mortgage product is a government entitlement program. Just look at what I pointed out as to how a reverse mortgage can and is being used. It is far from an government entitlement program. A quick story; as bad as the economy is about 6 months ago a client came to me, took out a reverse mortgage on a home valued at $542,000. They had no lien on the property. The purpose for taking out the reverse mortgage was to buy a $230,000 boat! They were 69 and 71 years of age. They put their home to work for them, were they ripped off? Heck no, these were smart people, a lot smarter than out government. They knew what they wanted and they got it!

    In closing, I want to say that we just can’t sit by and allow these lies and ignorant policies pushed down our throats. We must fight back, either through NRMLA or form a task force that can look into how we as an independent group can stand up to these people and make our voices heard in Washington. I will step forth and make a commitment to be part of this task force, who else will?

    Thank you,

    John A. Smaldone

    • John,

      I can tell you were mad when you wrote your comment. Not only is it full of typos but you also posted it twice like I do when I am passionate on a subject. Even geezers like us are passionate on some subjects.

      I am not so sure I would proclaim a boat a great investment but what is so wrong with it if the senior has the other assets to carry on his current lifestyle? If we did not have counseling, I might understand some of this concern but counseling is addressing many of these issues. Ultimately the decision is that of the senior, not you or me. Even if we found the decision less than suitable, should we be preventing the senior from getting the reverse mortgage?

      I had a nice elderly woman call me today from her home near the Getty Museum here in LA. Her home is worth well over $1 million. She owes less than one quarter of a million on it. She is income poor and has a nice but not large savings account.

      The last budget from Governor Schwarzenegger eliminated any further deferrals under the state property tax deferral system. She counted on that deferral to help her with her home. She is now facing a tax bill of $6,000 per year she simply does not have. She wants to stay in her home.

      So far her bank and others have turned her down. When she called, she made it plain that I will have to go through her personal professional “gatekeeper” as some in the industry are referring to financial advisors who are fee based only. She is arranging that meeting.

      Many will tell this woman that she should just get the inevitable over with now and sell her house. She told me she wants to die in it. If you know the area in LA you can begin appreciating why. This should be her choice, not based on my suitability standard or anyone else’s. She will be in her mid eighties soon so why shouldn’t she live at home as long as possible? She just wants a Saver to do a few repairs and help her get by for a few more years.

      How much equity will she lose? The repairs might even increase the value of her home by more than the costs of the repairs — the way her realtor tells it. She may not be financially destitute or desperate but she is a great candidate for an adjustable rate Saver.

      • Critic,

        Sorry about the typos, I usually do not do that. Yes I was and am upset over the contents of the Financial Regulatory Reform Bill and the CFPB committee.

        Now as far as a boat being a great investment, that can only be determined in the eyes of the beholder. I meant it to be interpreted as a quality of life kicker but I can see how it could be interpreted differently.

        Your story about the woman in LA is a very good example of your passion for our seniors. Does she have enough equity in her home where the Saver can work?

        Your case is one where the senior needs help. I was trying to point out that the reverse mortgage was not only for those in financial need on a desperate journey but for many other purposes as well.

        What I like about you Critic, is that you are to the point and you will give constructive criticism when needed. I appreciate people like you. This is how we learn, from those that care enough. You have a great day and thank you again.

        John A. Smaldone

        PS: I DON’T KNOW HOW IT GOT IN THERE TWICE?

      • Critic,

        Sorry about the typos, I usually do not do that. Yes I was and am upset over the contents of the Financial Regulatory Reform Bill and the CFPB committee.

        Now as far as a boat being a great investment, that can only be determined in the eyes of the beholder. I meant it to be interpreted as a quality of life kicker but I can see how it could be interpreted differently.

        Your story about the woman in LA is a very good example of your passion for our seniors. Does she have enough equity in her home where the Saver can work?

        Your case is one where the senior needs help. I was trying to point out that the reverse mortgage was not only for those in financial need on a desperate journey but for many other purposes as well.

        What I like about you Critic, is that you are to the point and you will give constructive criticism when needed. I appreciate people like you. This is how we learn, from those that care enough. You have a great day and thank you again.

        John A. Smaldone

        PS: I DON’T KNOW HOW IT GOT IN THERE TWICE?

      • John,

        Thank you for your kind remarks.

        The woman I was referencing has more than enough equity for a Saver and will still have close to $80,000 left in a line of credit after paying for repairs and home improvements she would like to do around her house. With a loss of her current required monthly mortgage payment, she believes she can easily pay her ongoing expenses and her property taxes even if she cannot participate in a future deferral program, if any.

        This woman tells me she has the car she wants and it is in good shape. While some would argue over suitability for a woman this age, unless she is shown to be incompetent, what right do we have to question her decision as long as she is working with all of the facts? Her equity immediately after funding will be approximately four times the balance due and the value of the house five times the balance due. Her current extreme financial stress will be quieted and her potential longevity should improve. Yes, health problems can change all of that but life is full of health risks, whether she owns her present property or not.

        I had a similar situation earlier this year with a woman who had a small house on some very expensive real estate. The panoramic view from her living room and kitchen was magnificent. A counselor tried to convince her to sell the house and move to a desert community. But for this woman, her friends, church, family, local medical community, and, yes, view meant far more than being on a limited but very practical budget. When she really needed something beyond her budget, she was taken care of. She did not think the counselor was trying to be malicious but lacked clear understanding of her living situation and her long-standing connections in and to her community. While eating out with her at closing, her friends and neighbors treated her like royalty. Who could blame her for wanting to live right where she was?

        We all have similar stories. Sorry to bother you with mine.

      • John,

        Thank you for your kind remarks.

        The woman I was referencing has more than enough equity for a Saver and will still have close to $80,000 left in a line of credit after paying for repairs and home improvements she would like to do around her house. With a loss of her current required monthly mortgage payment, she believes she can easily pay her ongoing expenses and her property taxes even if she cannot participate in a future deferral program, if any.

        This woman tells me she has the car she wants and it is in good shape. While some would argue over suitability for a woman this age, unless she is shown to be incompetent, what right do we have to question her decision as long as she is working with all of the facts? Her equity immediately after funding will be approximately four times the balance due and the value of the house five times the balance due. Her current extreme financial stress will be quieted and her potential longevity should improve. Yes, health problems can change all of that but life is full of health risks, whether she owns her present property or not.

        I had a similar situation earlier this year with a woman who had a small house on some very expensive real estate. The panoramic view from her living room and kitchen was magnificent. A counselor tried to convince her to sell the house and move to a desert community. But for this woman, her friends, church, family, local medical community, and, yes, view meant far more than being on a limited but very practical budget. When she really needed something beyond her budget, she was taken care of. She did not think the counselor was trying to be malicious but lacked clear understanding of her living situation and her long-standing connections in and to her community. While eating out with her at closing, her friends and neighbors treated her like royalty. Who could blame her for wanting to live right where she was?

        We all have similar stories. Sorry to bother you with mine.

  • It is not enough that we have pass the testing required by NMLS (well, some of us, anyway). It is not enough that counseling has become an increasingly invasive and time consuming ordeal for the senior borrower who, in most cases, knows what a loan is.

    As has been pointed out in the past in this forum, many of the government programs we and counselors are supposed to point the seniors to are not even available to them in this time of increasing pressure on state and local budgets. Seniors are increasingly being pressured by the government to pay their own way. Now these “helpful” consumer unions want to throw the onus of talking the seniors out of the reverse mortgage on the mortgage lender sales staff? That does not make a lick of sense!
    I mean, I see where the Nursing Home Advocates are coming from. A full paying resident is a lot easier to deal with than one who is dependent on government money. And maybe, eventually, a senior has to go into a nursing home. But isn’t it better to live as long as possible in your own home and out of warehousing facilities for our senior population? My borrowers feel that way. That’s WHY many of them consider a RM in the first place. So yeah, John, Matt and Jim, I’m with you. Is it just DC we need to tackle? It sounds like these guys are going for the state legislatures.

string(112) "https://reversemortgagedaily.com/2010/12/07/consumer-groups-want-increased-oversight-of-reverse-mortgage-market/"

Share your opinion