Insuring Your Home: A Focus on Mortgage Insurance for Boomers

On a recent episode of Financial Impact Factor Radio, we discussed the topic of insurance. If you have never tuned into this show, I think you will find it interesting and topical. We have a wide range of guests and often discuss the very questions that concern Baby Boomers, their children and their parents. Because being a Boomer is more than just being a certain age. All of our shows on Financial Impact Factor Radio can be found here.

As a Boomer, I am always intrigued by the offers that begin showing up in my inbox/mailbox. Although they don't on the surface seem to be age related, one can't help but read between the lines. Are they talking to me? Are they worried about whether I will make it to the end? That "end" involves satisfying the largest debt any of us will ever own: our mortgage.

Last week I received a letter in the mail from the bank that holds my mortgage that would make most mortgage holders think twice. It was the offer of life insurance. My bank might think there are good reasons for offering this product that is different that many of the other types of insurance offered with these types of loans. For instance, PMI is private mortgage insurance the bank makes you buy if you are putting less than 20% down on a mortgage. The sole beneficiary in this instance is the lender, who knows that if you are going to default, this riskier loan covers their interest in the transaction. Known as PMI, its cost has begun to weigh on borrowers who find their loans underwater. Once you pass 78% mark because the value of your house compared to the amount of your initial downpayment, you can cancel the policy.

There is also mortgage insurance which for some borrowers seems like a good option as well. Essentially the lure of this product is to pay-off the mortgage in the event of your death. The insurer doesn’t pay you directly instead writing a check directly to the mortgage company or lender.

The letter I received offered a term policy that would last until I turned 80 years old, which is about 26 years from now. Like all insurance policies it plays on your fears and comes at a time when the typical term policy is about to expire if you bought insurance in your thirties, which is typically the time when most folks consider coverage. But it isn’t cheap. In fact, this sort of policy has a seven year flat rate, just a few medical questions without an exam and of course the tug-on-your-heart-strings assurance that your loved ones will be taken care of.

So today I thought we’d talk about late in life insurance coverage and whether we should consider it.

Listen to Financial Impact Factor Radio with your hosts:
Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng of FinancialFootprint.com

A Boomer POV: Retirement

This is the point where two facts collide. You hear a lot of white noise about the so-called delayed retirement, the I'll-have-to-work-longer-because-my-plan-was-undone tales. Those headlines create anxiousness amongst even those who are prepared to retire as planned. This group second-guesses the plan they have in place even if it is viable. And then you also hear the unbelievable number of retiring Boomers that do take the leap, a number that doesn't seem real: 10,000 Boomers are reaching retirement age each day.

Who are these people? The unprepared and the prepared hurtling headlong into older adulthood. They both had expectations of retiring based on what can only be considered now as unrealistic math. They set goals and they weren't met as planned. A few got it right. Remember, there's no shame in that miscalculation. Folks have been doing it for decades. But your plan is all you really care about and if it hasn't met your expectations, which in many instances were a bit lofty, you resign to work longer. This is where the facts collide.

You know all too well that simply working longer will add to the amount of retirement income you will have but only if you significantly increase your contributions. Few resign themselves to do both.

But the other half of the equation, the Boomers who do retire, are often caught in the same anxiety ridden place. They question whether they made the right choice and more importantly, whether the money they have amassed will serve their purpose, remains hanging over every plan as an unknown.

That purpose is often clouded with not only the unpredictable cost of longevity but whether they might have enough to take care of their heirs - a serious consideration among a wide swath of retired adults and those about to retire. This last consideration is entertained by women more so than men, statistics have uncovered, which is often surprising. Why? This same group of women approaching retirement has often saved less, another unfortunate statistic concerning women and retirement.

Those that do retire should consider where they retire. And while there are many suggestions as to what to do and how to go about it, but a quick survey of your current surroundings will offer a great many answers to your dilemma.

For instance, seniors or those about to become seniors often fail to inventory the services they may need. Once retired, your daily life will require things you had previously not considered. More than just the availability of medical services, more than the infrastructure of city services such as public transportation and well-lit and well-patrolled neighborhoods, your current location needs to stimulate you or at least have accessible stimulation to keep you mentally sharp and involved. This is not how many American cities were designed. Far too many cities and their suburbs require a car. And while this may be seen by many older Americans as a freedom, not being able to drive can imprison some seniors if they find where they live too far away from these activities. Only vast sums of retirement income can change that one item and few seniors, who essentially are on a fixed income, want to reach for their wallet or purse to pay to go shopping.

To pre-Boomers or those who are still working, where you live is not often what you can afford. If you live in the city, chances are you rent. If you live in the suburbs, chances are you have a mortgage. If you have a mortgage, chances are you can't afford it. That's a lot of "ifs" but they are an approaching nightmare for those about to retire.

While many of believe that the cities we live in should adjust to us and our current and future retirement needs, it probably won't happen soon. So retirees look to communities that cater to their needs. This ghetto-izing of seniors, much like Florida and Arizona is not only unappealing to many Boomers, it is not as healthy as it first appears. Sure, these senior-only communities do provide like-minded companionship, concentrated services and accommodations that cater to gradual aging, but they are often culturally void of the stimulation that all walks of life can provide. Being isolated is not the answer.

So what is? Cities are struggling with their finances and as a result are cutting back on services that once were taken for granted. We might be living longer but in far too many instances, your health may compromise that statistic or impact the quality of that longer life. And the cost of where you live - assuming your mortgage is paid off before you retire - is not getting cheaper. Add inflation into the mix and you have eliminated all but the most obvious choice: you have fewer options.

Of course, you can stay put in a house that might be too big and too costly to maintain. This will gradually eat away at your fixed income and reduce your opportunities to engage with the outside world. Now one plans on spending their day at McDonalds sipping bad coffee with fellow seniors, no matter how well-lit, no matter how inexpensive the house brew and no matter if the loitering rules don't apply. But take away any portion of that spendable income and you limit the choices.

Where is the right place? While there is no firm answer, you do have options. For instance, if family is important to you, be sure your family shares this thinking as well. The dynamic of marriage - and I am speaking of your children's marriage - can create some confusion. Deciding that you can rely on your children and their spouses for the help you might need is something you need to discuss well in advance of retiring.

At some point, one of your kids or their spouses may find you in their care. Perhaps not in the day-to-day sense or even the long-term care situation, but in the need to check-in, help with errands or assume a financial role. This needs to be discussed in advance, a discussion that should be instigated by you. This is no easy discussion.

You do need to tell your children what you expect from retirement, even if you are unsure. Answer the hard questions (can you afford to stay in your house for instance) and when the time comes, unfold your finances for them to see. Let them know where you stand and what your plan is.

Boomers will be sold a retirement that is unlike any other before them. If you live longer as the statistics suggest you will, what do you expect of your surroundings? What role does your community play in the decision? What role will your kids have? Retirement is much more than simply amassing cash. It is amassing support. And believe it or not, that is old school thinking, a throwback to the time when retired family members depended on their kids for everything. But those kids, who may not be thinking along the same lines as you need to be involved now, rather than later.

Leverage and Retirement

Over the years I have written about the topic of retirement planning, I have witnessed some incredibly crazy thinking. Many of those thoughts have come home to roost often too late for the investor to do anything to fix the situation. We plan, we tell ourselves, to retire at a certain age with a certain amount of money based on a certain withdrawal rate.  But those plans are often dashed by unforeseen events that, in hindsight we should have anticipated.

Recent reports have pointed towards an increase in employee contributions to their 401(k) plans. These upticks, however slight lead many to conclude that we are starting to get the message. But which message are we holding on to? Is it the need to simply save more because we know the chances are we will need more or is it the result of some other encouraging news? I'm inclined to go with the second choice.

Retirement planning is a whole package endeavor. In other words, simply putting money away for retirement is not enough. Numerous other pieces of the puzzle come into play and this is what is often ignored. The effort is noteworthy only if you have developed a budget that is actually less generous, forcing you to face the reality of an income in retirement that is not the same as the one the you had while working.

This income reduced budgeting is practiced by too few close-to-retirement planners. At no time in the history of retirement planning - and I'm going way back to the generous days of the defined benefit plan or pension - was the payout at retirement designed to replace 100% of what you live on now. The number was actually closer to 70% replacement and that was only if you had worked within the confines of that pension for thirty years or more (and it was not impacted by changes from the company). The remainder was to be supplemented by Social Security.

But with advent of the defined contribution plan (401(k), 403(b)), with the responsibility for funding your retirement placed squarely on your shoulders, we were forced to face the possibility that 70% of our current income would not be replaced. In order to get those kinds of post-work rewards, we would have had to invest 12-15% of our pre-tax income, every year without fail, in good markets and bad. For too many people with this plan, that sort of budget-busting restriction was simply too much to embrace.

We are to be forgiven for our human-ness however. We make mistakes and follow the herd - when they sell, we sell and when they pile in, we follow. In both instances we turn our backs on the whole concept of retirement planning: steady and ever-increasing contributions without consideration for what the overall market is doing.

Our employers didn't help much either. They gave us matching contributions, took them away or reduced them, and when they re-introduced them, they were far smaller. And we misinterpreted this as a sign that they knew something we didn't and mimicked their actions: we reduced our contributions when the matches were lowered and increased them when they were raised. As I said, we can be forgiven this tendency but we won't be absolved of this sin of remission when we begin thinking about retirement.

One of the other keys to the seemingly good news about an increase in contributions in 2011 is backlit with some additional news. Auto-enrollment helped to raise the account balances of the overall plan (and as employment improves, so will the news that we are using the plans in a more robust way). But those auto-enrolled new hires were placed squarely in the plan's target date fund of choice.

Long-time readers know about my reservations with these funds. New readers should note: target date funds are often less transparent than stand-alone funds, the underlying portfolio can be suspect, the target date may not be far enough in the future to be realistic and to date, the rebalancing implied in the fund is not determined by any specific guidelines. In other words, those who are put in a target date fund via auto-enrollment would be wise to get into an index fund (or four raging across a variety of markets) as soon as possible.

Those folks, the youngest among us who are the most likely candidates for these auto-enrollment options can make changes that will get them much closer to the goal. Older workers, however don't. And they know it. But they have some advantages, at least in their mind that the younger worker doesn't: equity.

And that equity in their homes, combined with the historically low interest rate environment has given many Baby Boomers a second option: to borrow against their homes and take the refinanced money and put into their retirement accounts. Is it a good idea or one that is bound to backfire?

Three things make it risky. One the equity in your home may not recover. Older homeowners who tap their home's equity are doing so at the risk of increasing their mortgages at a time when additional debt, no matter how inexpensive is not prudent. Two: They are eliminating a safety valve that could be used if retirement got too rough: the reverse mortgage. And third, if they are forced to or simply want to sell, the equity in their property is not there to give them a downpayment for new housing.

Leveraging your home to finance your retirement account does come with some tax advantages though. Just because one account increases as one is leveraged doesn't necessarily give you a balanced approach. In other words, there are "veiled risks".

You will still need to allocate your portfolio to perform better than the cost of the new loan and the interest rate you pay. This means that year-over-year, you will need to do much better than you may have calculated. A four percent mortgage added into the cost of the refinance (another one percent) added to the rate of inflation (another three percent if it holds steady) means your portfolio will need to return north of eight percent year over year - without fail.

The only way to give your retirement income any sort of sure footing is to increase your contributions by a much wider margin than what has become known as the average - 8% - and pay down your mortgage.

Fifteen percent is still the optimum contribution rate and even that number will give you only 75% of your current income in retirement - provided you saved for twenty years or more. Paying down the mortgage reduces your overall cost of debt service while increasing your equity.

Staying Home: For some, Retirement moves on

I have to wonder what people sometimes think. Confidence is down but spending is up. The recession isn't really a recession but for many it seems like one.The media talks of millions of homeowners looking for mortgage relief, being foreclosed or worse, are feeling the crush of owning a home adversely impact their retirement plans. And yet, some people are still planning a future with their house as part of the process.

Could be a sign of the times and then again, it might be the progression of where we would be in our retirement plan. If the results of the latest Associated Press-LifeGoesStrong.com poll are any indication, we have reached a pivotal point in retirement planning. Should I stay or should I go?

A great many retired couples have told me over the years that the biggest mistake they may have made was selling the family home. They have opted for a dream instead and chased it with their new found retirement freedom. But many failed to take into consideration that a place is more than just a shelter. It can be proximity to children and grandchildren, services such as health care facilities or other seniors and often, in communities that are growing with younger cohorts. And almost equally as many have found the size of the house they own in their pre-retirement years is simply too large to accommodate - or worse, afford.

Should it be a surprise that we begin making post-work plans in midlife? Or is the surprise the decision we make? According to the recent Associated Press-LifeGoesStrong.com poll, three out of ten midlife retirement planners are suggesting that they will look elsewhere when they do retire. And according to the poll, they are resigned to sell the family home for less than what they had thought it was worth a decade ago.

But that is understandable for two reasons: those out-sized estimates of property worth have been adjusted to fit a lackluster economy and there is a greater chance that the equity they may have calculated has shrunk due to refinancing. Folks in the midwest are more likely to stay put, more so than their east coast neighbors.

The poll also suggests according to Barbara Corcoran: "more than four in 10 want a smaller home, 30% would like a different climate, 25% will look for a more affordable home, and 15% will pack up our bags for the sole purpose of moving closer to family." And when they do move these people dream of a one-level home with enough room to accommodate the occasional visitor, close to medical facilities and not in-city. And those that stay put waste almost no time converting their children's rooms into something more focused on their evolving interests.

Oddly, the question of taxes didn't come up in the poll, something of major interest to older people planning on a fixed income lifestyle. A larger home requires upkeep and maintenance that might not configure into a retired income. And the thought of a second home was not amongst the wishes this group had either. In fact, only about 12% want to feel the sea breeze in their graying hair.

The question is: how much of a role should your home play in your retirement plan? Many people have factored in the equity in their plans - or at least they used to - and the mistake made by these folks is twofold. One, you need to live somewhere and two, unless you own your home and have considered the chance that you might reverse the mortgage at some point. this equity is nothing but paper dreams.

A harsh reality but more true than not. If you are factoring in your home as part of an estate, then no doubt you have made all of the considerations, tax and otherwise, surrounding that decision. But if the home will become unmanageable (how hard is the upkeep now?), then looking for the opportunity to sell it, no matter how much you might "love" the house, the location, the neighbors, should be weighed.

As retirees approach that magical time when you either cutback or stop working altogether, the best advice woud be to begin to stage the sale of the property now while your income is less fixed. If you don't sell, you will have a slightly improved place. If it does sell, it will help you get the price, or closer to the price you might think it is worth.

Your Retirement Plan is Not the Solution

Under the current laws governing tax-deferred retirement plans such as a 401(k), withdrawing money has consequences. I have mentioned many of them here over the years, not the least of which is the early withdrawal penalty, the payment of taxes on those tax deferred investments and of course the loss of retirement money. Yet, those penalties haven’t stopped many of the people who have found it difficult to make their monthly budget work.

Of course, I am assuming a monthly budget. Without some anchor in reality, not having a budgetcan lead to rash decisions withut considering the far-reaching impact. Without a monthly budget, you will have no idea what could be cut to maintain some level of financial stability when times get rough. It is also safe to assume that if you do not have some sort of monthly accounting of your finances, you probably don’t have an emergency account. Both of these would have served the households with troubled income streams.

Two Georgia Congressmen think that those 401(k) plans might be able to help. Their idea: Hardship Outlays to protect Mortgagee Equity (HOME) Act. Introduced last week, U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) and U.S. Representative Tom Graves (R-Georgia) want their proposal considered as a way to keep homeowners in their homes. The concept, somewhat like throwing you a lifeline of your own making and designed to rescue you from poverty in the future offers a short-term fix in the near-term. They believe that if you have been a diligent saver, adding to your 401(k) religiously over the years, you shouldn’t be punished for needing the money now as opposed to later.

Rep. Graves is convinced that the housing crisis is the reason the economy has not recovered. Calling up his decades in the real estate business, he suggests: “This bill will help Americans who risk foreclosure use their own resources to make their mortgage payment on time without being penalized by the federal government.” If his assessment of who may need this money now – 23% of those who have mortgages are underwater but not necessarily facing foreclosure – the government should step out of the way and allow these folks to withdraw that money without penalty.

They are proposing that there be a lifetime cap on these withdrawals of $50,000 or one-half of the present value of one’s 401(k) account (whichever is smaller), so long as those funds are used for that purpose within 120 days of withdrawal. This is not the first bill of its kind.

Since the Great Recession began, Congress has struggled with what to do with corner of the financial world. A similar bill was introduced in 2009 and never debated on the Senate floor.

Numerous homeowners should not be in the homes they own in the first place. They may have obtained these residences with fraudulent applications, been unable to afford those homes during what would be considered a normal buying environment and failed to restructure their loans or worse, keep with the terms of their bankruptcy decisions. Because tax-deferred retirement accounts are not considered in these proceedings, some mortgage holders may have been in a position to financially right their own ship. But because of the penalties associated with tapping those accounts, they simply chose not to.

The HOME Act will allow wealthier homeowners to save their residences without penalty, while the rest of us, those that underfunded their retirement accounts or couldn’t wait for Congress to act, have already drained those accounts, paid the penalties and taxes and tried to move on. This effort woud do little to help those currently in the foreclosure vortex or who have been spat out by the continued downturn in housing.

No matter who you are, this last ditch effort is not the way to go. Reducing future retirement payouts (compounding and time suggest that $50,000 in retirement savings would provide only about $290 a month in retirement – a projected shortfall of over $1200) would set the average wage-earner, hardship or no, back decades in support of keeping the house. Few of these folks, given the opportunity and the consequence of this decision will consider the long-range impact of that decision. And if it gets Congressional approval, it will push the real problem further down the road.

On the surface, it might seem like the right thing to do. But beneath the veneer of a tax and penalty holiday the problems this money promises far outweigh the immediate salve it may provide. There are solutions, none of them pleasant.

If you are seeing the problem on the horizon, don’t wait until the day of reckoning. Contact your lender before you run into problems. If the problem has arrived, keep in mind, as devastating as it seems, it is not the end. While temporary may well last several years, longer if you successfully pursue a bankruptcy, protecting your future, a time when this will all be an unhappy bump in life’s road will be worth the sacrifice.

True, protecting your credit is important. Just keep in mind, it wasn’t as important when you bought the house as it is to you now. This too will pass.

The bottom line: those 401(k) provisions were established decades ago when the thinking was to make it painful to withdraw your money all the while giving you the illusion that if need be, you could tap it. Now provision, recent or past will stop you if you have made up your mind. But for those who see this as an exit strategy for a bad decision, this Act will add to the problem.

I know it’s old school but it is worth repeating: get a budget (and figure worse case scenario, not current spending habits to allow a downturn picture to standout), attempt to negotiate before the problem strikes (ironically, most job losses are not a surprise) and divide this time and the future into two separate lifetimes. Borrowing – or in this case, stealing from the future is not a good short-term remedy. It is a bandaid on a gapping wound.

ReBuilding Wealth in a Paycheck-to-Paycheck World

I just published my fifth book - this time with Smashwords! And a special offer to readers of this blog, ReBuilding Wealth in a Paycheck-to-Paycheck World by Paul Petillo is available for a limited time (until 10.29.11) you can use this coupon code to get the ebook for half price or $1.50. The code for the coupon is UJ76Q This ebook is available across all platforms including iPad and iPhone, Amazon and Sony.

If You're asking "now what" perhaps an Investment Plan

I've been away a couple of weeks on hiatus but is seems there is nowhere in the world you can escape the marketplace concern. We have turned into a nation of economy-watchers. It's as if the voyeuristic nature of simply gazing helplessly, frozen in place or prompted by muscle memory, should force us to make investment, retirement and personal finance decisions right now even though we might just regret them at some point in the future. So I offer you a four part series on what we should do in the coming weeks as we anticipate that the previous weeks will give us more of the same.

So we begin with Now What Retirement

Believe it or not, some people, the true Boomers are actually on track for retirement. Right on the cusp of making the decision is quite possibly the wrong time to make most difficult one you will ever make. You may have second guessed your investment strategies over the last several years but had you been closer to what we consider traditional retirement age, those choices became fewer. And harder.

In fact, had these Boomers been preparing as they should have, sitting on their well-diversified portfolios and riding out the downturn in 2008 until the present, they may have actually found inaction more fruitful than shifting gears - gears that should have been set for low in the first place. And now, as the market roils for what looks to be another rise, dip and with any luck, rise again in the coming months, the nearest retirees need to make choices that are just as prudent as they are. For those of you who are not ready but at that age, the sooner you answer the following questions, the closer you too will get to the point.


What to do with your 401(k)? For this person, the choices are relatively narrow with consequences on each decision possibly impacting their income decades down the road. To leave your money in your old employer's 401(k) might be a good idea if your old employer has a good plan. They may have low cost fund options and on the other hand, have higher than needed administrative costs. If your plan had the foresight to include an annuity and you are a woman, this quasi investment (part mutual fund/part insurance plan) will give you a relatively clear look at your future income based on a unisex life expectancy. (Annuities bought outside your 401(k), will cost a woman more because of the expected longer-life span for women as compared to the same age man.)


And if I have to rollover? In most cases, you will be jettisoned form the plan which means you now have to make the choice. If you are a man, the decisions you make should always include "what if I die first" as the ultimate determination of how you take money from your retirement plan. For women, the consideration should be less about what your spouse may or may not do but what you should do should he make the wrong choice. You will need to protect your life first, and doing something that goes against your very nature: putting everyone else second.

Once again, you will consider the annuity. But you probably shouldn't commit your entire nest egg to it. You will need access to cash and keep that money invested at the same time has been the hardest job seniors have had in the low interest rate environment we have right now. A 10-year Treasury, based on inflation at its current levels, is actually considered a loss. So you will need to keep some of your money invested, perhaps across low-cost index funds.


Does Debt have an impact? It will be tempting to use this payout to get your retirement debt in order. This is generally not considered a good option unless that debt is so large that it will saddle you for the rest fo your life. On a fixed income, a debt counselor can construct a good plan and get the process moving along quicker and more efficiently. Keep in mind, you may love the house or condo you live in, but if the debt from trying to own it is too high, a debt counselor will tell you what you can't admit to yourself. If you overpaid for your home and do not expect to live long enough to recover your payment and equity, the counselor should be able to help with this as well.

Without debt, your home may be the single greatest retirement safety net you have. But don't use it until you are actually about to fall. Tapping the equity in advance of when you might have an emergency need is foolhardy in most instances. Wait as long as possible. Involve your children and your attorney (who has your will) and if you have one, a financial planner. You'll need experts.


Should I take Social Security? As to Social Security, take it when you need it. Experts are telling us to wait as long as possible. And it is sage advice. But if it is possible to take it, save it and return it at full retirement without having spent it, you can upgrade your monthly payment to the full payment due at full retirement. But you have to save it. And even if you don't, you now have the emergency medical account you might need is the interim. But if you can do it, don't calculate this income until the last possible minute. Ladder your retirement income so as to get an economic boost every several years with Social Security withdrawal being the last step.

And don't become frustrated with the argument that you could have done more. We all could have. But regret doesn't solve the issue at hand: dealing with what you have is the most important job right now.

So take your eyes of the news. Long-term issues are rarely reported on any channel. They just aren't sexy. If this reality is difficult to imagine, live the sixth months before you retire on half of your current income. Can't seem to do it? Then you need to rethink how much you will need, in part because for most retirees, even if they are beginning retired life with 75% of their current income, inflation, taxes and health care considerations will soon bring it to fifty percent. So calculate from there.

Next up: now what investments


Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com

Consider Your Personal Finance: A Clean-up Suggestion or Two

Sometimes, it's the little things that add up to the big things. or perhaps better put, what Henri Fredric Amiel suggests much more aptly: "What we call little things are merely the causes of greater things". So it goes with most of what we consider personal finance. It is mostly a collection of little things, some missteps, some untapped with potential, others forgotten. So in a season where most of us toy with the idea of cleaning out the garage, I thought we'd look at a few personal finance tips to clean up those accounts.

Who are you?

One of the first things every self-help book will ask you for is some sort of self-assessment. Which is fine but in almost every instance, you already know what is wrong. 

You want to know how to fix it with the least amount of effort and perhaps embarrassment. If you cringed when I made the off-handed remark about "cleaning the garage", you probably have pockets of money laying around you didn't know you had.

Take out your utility bill and read it. Why start there? Because if you're the type that simply pays every bill without so much as a question as to how much this really costs and how can I trim this, you know who you are. Money is somewhat an inconvenience.

And then there is the you who believes in this cycle: You made it, you spent it and you went back to make more. Granted some of you whipped out your credit card, and that's worse - and a much bigger problem than what we're discussing here, but the point is, do you like being the person who simply, blindly and willfully pays for what they don't need?

Do you pay your mortgage?

Of course you do. Most of us do. Mortgages are actually not what you think they are. They are the best forced savings plan ever and an opportunity too few of us take.

Yes, your home is like saving. For a couple of reasons not the least of which is that it isn't an investment, at least in the classical sense of liquidity. You put money towards the eventual ownership of the place an believe it or not, the vast majority of us never move. Statistics have shown that in ten years, 80% of you will be right where you are now.

But there is the question of what are you really saving in your home? Yes, you pay interest and yes, you get a tax deduction and sometimes, once upon a time, we saw the value of our homes increase with each remodel. Which made us feel good even if we didn't move. And that's all well and good. But in the mean time, you are paying a portion of that mortgage payment to debt service. A big portion with most of it piled into the first years of the loan.

To get the most bang for your buck, you need to put a little bit more into this plan called home. The numbers are relatively simple and I've discussed them before. But they bear repeating. Suppose you had a $200,000 mortgage with a 6% loan. Your payment would be about $1200. If you found an extra $100 each month and directed it toward the principal, not only would you trim about five years from a 30-year mortgage, but you'd save about $48,000 in interest over that time - most of it paid in those early years.

Yes the numbers get better with each extra payment you make to the principal, not tagged onto the house payment, but directed at the loan. Some banks will offer you bi-monthly payments attempting to do the same thing. Problem is that you will pay the interest off quicker but not eliminate quick enough to make the switch - which you are locked into - worth it. Trying to make two extra payments a year will turn a traditional 30-year loan into something lasting barely over 20-years. And save almost $80,000.

Next up,  we'll take a look at what you are missing in your retirement

Throwing Your House into Reverse: Not a Mortgage for Everyone

American dream or not, the games you may have once played with financing your home are not available for the vast majority of homeowners. And there is no doubt that this a good thing, a lesson learned that was far too painful but often, those tales are. But there is another game afoot in the world of mortgages, even as the largest lenders pull the plug on the process: the reverse mortgage.

Most of us don't envy those who are toying with this option. We know two things about these folks: one they own quite a bit of their house, referred to as equity and two, these homes are owned by cash-strapped people older than 62.

The reverse mortgage is a rather simple product with relatively simple goals. Because those who are considering this option are often older and in possession of much of the house they live in. This pool of cash is a very tempting option to a fixed income or one where retirement savings no longer is able to keep up with the cost of living. There are a variety of reasons they may need to tap this cash in their homes from medical bills to simply poor money management.

So the concept of tapping some of that equity is quite appealing. A reverse mortgage essentially gives you the money that your house is worth. Ron Lieber recently visited this topic in the New York Times explaining "reverse mortgages begin with a lender that is willing to pay you instead of you paying the bank. How much you get depends on your age, prevailing interest rates and the amount of equity you have in your home. The payout may also depend on whether you choose a lump sum, a line of credit, a regular payment for as long as you live or a regular payment for some fixed number of years."

The problem is getting a lender to do that. Many of the biggest banks have pulled away from offering the product, not because they don't think it is a good idea. But because those they lend the money to tend to fall behind on key elements of the loan agreement: paying taxes and keeping the house in sale-able condition. Aside from a check with the feds, there is no credit check on the applicants.

So banks, seeing the issue of foreclosing on granny because she opted for the lump sum payout and failed to keep current on those obligations have decided the bad PR will come with too steep a price. So enter the second and third tier lenders who will, without a doubt fill the void.

This could create several issues. The first would be fewer loans or on the flip side, loans that revert back to why this type of mortgage got its bad rep in the first place. Fees will be higher in a space with fewer competitors. Elderly will sign more complicated documents that will force them to maintain a fund for emergencies - which on the surface isn't a bad thing but could turn turn out to require higher funding balances than needed, leaving the reverse mortgager with less cash for the effort.

Another issue might be in how your heirs feel about the whole process. Often, parents,who may have mentored their children on the subject of money and financial prudence and who now find their finances in need of some review, may not be willing to or may be too embarrassed to ask for help. If there is no dialogue, the whole process might come as a surprise for kids who thought that house would eventually become part of the estate. And once these second and third tier lenders begin the process of foreclosing, it is often too late for the children to step in to help.

There are some key things to consider here. The first is what options do your parents have? Can they downsize? If not, can you talk to them about the options? Often this conversation needs to happen but it also needs to approached with great care and consideration. But once the barrier has been breached, you can move to include yourself in their financial affairs before it is too late.

This is also some tricky water to navigate. But the effort is worthwhile. If they need the money, and many older Americans will, attempt to get them to allow you to help budget the funds. In the future, HUD will probably set rules about creditworthiness and because many older Americans have little or no recent credit history, this might prove an obstacle at a time when they are already facing one too many. Helping them build some creditworthiness will enable them to be in a better position - with your help - to get the best deal possible.

Once you have gained their trust, you can include your input with their financial planners, with their attorneys and possibly with their medical doctors, all of whom may not be able to tell you what their clients or patients are deciding. You can take control of the vital payments that need to be made and keep things in good financial order.

So this summer, take a moment when visiting your parents or grandparents and have the discussion. And while you are at it, consider a plan to pay off your mortgage as well. (You can find recent articles about this topic here.)