Basich believes seniors should consider borrowing against the value of their homes only as a last resort. If there’s no way around it, he says it’s smarter to refinance as a 30-year fixed loan.

Here’s how that would work: You own a home valued at $300,000. You find yourself in need of a large amount of cash for major home repairs and want a lump sum in the bank for future emergencies. You borrow a combination of cash and upfront costs (rolled into the loan) valued at $100,000 at 6%. Exclusive of taxes and insurance, you’d be repaying a little less than $600 per month on a 30-year loan. You wouldn’t need mortgage insurance because you’d still have plenty of unencumbered equity.
Many companies are freezing or dropping pensions. Here’s what to do if it happens to you.

The rub here is the monthly payments. However, Basich contends that the fees for this type of loan are lower, and your remaining equity isn’t subject to interest or other costs associated with a reverse mortgage.

True, in a conventional mortgage, the money must be paid back starting right after closing, while reverse mortgages don’t fall due until the home is vacated. But, Basich argues, because the payments on a conventional mortgage are stretched out over a longer period, they’re lower and more manageable.

In the case of a reverse mortgage, younger borrowers can’t cash out as much equity as older borrowers. To qualify for a reverse mortgage, you must be at least 62 years old. Because banks are repaid when the house is sold, it’s quite possible a lender might have to carry the note for 20 to 25 years or more. For that reason, a 79-year-old is a much more attractive loan candidate from the bank’s perspective.

As for the borrower, whether he lives six months or 30 years after the loan is closed, he still pays stiff upfront fees. Of course, statistically speaking, older borrowers are less likely to accumulate as much interest as younger ones.