Living in landed property - and poor

[Salty]

Congrats on your first correct step.
Joining the correct forum!
Not CNa!

[Jared Seah]

specuvestor,

I hear you.

Some see "private property owner" and forget we are talking about real fellow citizens with feelings and emotions too. Each case is different.

It's no different from helping the able bodied unemployed man - that stays in a HDB rental flat - but prefers govt handouts just because he feels "entitled" to it. And the reason he is unemployed is because he feels most jobs are "beneath" him.

So does it mean this man is more deserving of help because of his abode?

Some see "private property owner" in bold reading the article. Some see it's about our elders, a widow, an invalid wife, a dependent daughter.

I am not a statistic; nor a label.

[Musicwhiz]

Well said, Jared! I think as "younger" folk and living in a different (globalized) generation, it would be hard for us to imagine what it is like to be "uprooted" from one's abode of 30+ years and transplanted elsewhere, albeit with a hoard of cash. Some things money just cannot buy.....

That said, my main concern in reading this is to wonder whether our current generation is using up too much of their CPF to service their long (and expensive) mortgages. It would seem that this problem may rear its ugly head again 20-25 years down the road, if a housing crash doesn't come first!

[CityFarmer]

Reverse mortgage still new in Singapore. By google, it seems only NTUC and OCBC offer the plans, and not well received.

Reverse mortgage seems like asking for a bailout from bank, negotiation power of owner is weak IMO. It should remains as last choice. That probably the reason it is not well received in Singapore.

Does the reverse mortgage popular in other countries?

Probably next research topic should on this...

[Temperament]

Yes! Help should be extended to these old folks. But not in the way of helping the poor. • 生 在 富 中 不 知 富. Many of us are like that. Me & family are guillty at times too.
Shalom.

[specuvestor]

specuvestor,

I hear you.

Some see "private property owner" and forget we are talking about real fellow citizens with feelings and emotions too. Each case is different.

It's no different from helping the able bodied unemployed man - that stays in a HDB rental flat - but prefers govt handouts just because he feels "entitled" to it. And the reason he is unemployed is because he feels most jobs are "beneath" him.

So does it mean this man is more deserving of help because of his abode?

Some see "private property owner" in bold reading the article. Some see it's about our elders, a widow, an invalid wife, a dependent daughter.

I am not a statistic; nor a label.

Hi jared

I understand where you are coming from because one of my most admired person is a humble little woman called Mother Teresa, who died a few days after princess Di. It was a lesson on media hype and public perceptions vs the raw reality.

The raw reality is that there are asset rich old people that doesn't want to change their lifestyles. But there are many poor people including old ones, who HAD to change their lifestyles, including working in McD and as cleaners. How do we make it equitable for these folks? It's equivalent to bankers complaining to greeks that they get no bonus.

Public policies has always been abused. That doesn't mean it is not effective. It is not effective only when <90% of the people abide by it because the policies have no teeth or moral anchor behind it. Most of the time enforcement is to catch those 1% who wilfully spend time and effort resources to break the rules. Then rules have to be tweaked to better refine it. The key is hence how to implement an effective feedback loop to close the gaps. For eg bribery is big news in Singapore but of little concern to some other countries. Does it mean our system is worse? It just means what makes headlines. Just as princess Di captures more headlines than hearts.

Nonetheless the PRINCIPLE of the rules on equitable social safety net, or help to the less privileged should be very clear: if you are able to help yourself, then do so. The safety net is to help those helpless that falls through the cracks. When the wealthy in US gets social security cheques you know the system is flawed and in trouble.

[Muck]

I would never be able to put it across as eloquently as specuvestor. I agree with the principle behind his point. If one has the capacity to help oneself financially then one should do it. Don't deprive someone else who has no such capacity. If one needs but short-term help to tide them over while they regain their footing, I would not begrudge them that help.

[CityFarmer]

I had done preliminary study on reverse mortgage. Let me share few key points

- In Singapore, reverse mortgage policies are offered by NTUC and OCBC only. OCBC policy is for private property only, while NTUC policies are for both private and HDB properties
- OCBC policy offers both term-based and annuity linked, while NTUC policy offer only term-based.
- Both OCBC and NTUC policies offer payout for 25 years max or 90 years old, starts with 65 years old.
- Interest rate is about 4-5% as of now
- OCBC policy allows loan up to 70% of property value, while NTUC policy allows loan up to 80% of property value.
- There is no protection, once the property value drop below the threshold, the insurer has right to force-sell and recover the loan

I will try to answer few of the queries in this thread.

Your property should have minimum 45 years of lease by the end of the loan tenure, before qualify for reverse mortgage policy

The monthly payment depends on the property value, issuer (70% or 80% loan), loan tenure and interest rate. As general guideline, for 20 year loan tenure, NTUC (80% loan), 5% interest rate and $1 million property value, the monthly payment is 0.2% of property value i.e. S$2000

If any mistake, please highlight, i will amend it. Hope it serves as basic reference for forummers

Disclaimer: I have listed down key points with my best understanding, please approach the issuer for detail before sign-on.