Do the the Needs of the ‘Many’ Outweigh the Needs of the ‘Few’?
Despite being disappointed by HUD’s process for implementing change, namely, bypassing the public comment period which takes place during the rule-making process, the AARP is adamant in their support for the new changes calling them “well-intentioned.”
According to an article published by Reverse Mortgage Daily, “AARP: Reverse Mortgage Changes Will Bar Access but Improve Program,” despite AARP’s full support for the changes, and the good they can potentially do, they are still aware that the upcoming changes are likely to cut out some future borrowers.
Cristina Martin-Firvida, Director Financial Security & Consumer Affairs, for AARP’s State and National Group, stated:
“The changes announced yesterday will result in lower borrowing amounts and higher upfront mortgage insurance premiums for all borrowers […] Ideally, such significant changes should be made with the benefit of public comment which we believe would contribute to positive reforms.”
Thus far, the changes will cap the amount borrowers can access upfront, reduce the amount they can borrower overall and will include a financial assessment as well as property taxes and homeowners insurance set-asides.
The question is…how many people will have to lose out before the reverse mortgage stabilizes itself?
In the grand scheme of things, the AARP supports the sustainability of the reverse mortgage in the future. On the other hand, the recently implemented changes are walking a fine line between advantageous and harmful, in their race to ensure future borrowers are better insulated than ever before.
We yet don’t know how these changes will affect future business transactions. All we can do now is hope it is successful because there is no turning back. In the future, homeowners will have to adapt and realize that the reverse mortgage program, as they knew it, no longer exists.
If the first step to a successful business is customer satisfaction, then I’m sure these changes will guarantee just as much.
I ask again though: do the the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?