Say it ain't so. Henry Wrinkler, the one and only "Fonz" is selling out. He has a new commercial, selling some type of retirement bonds for the "straights", the very people he always hated in the show "Happy Days". Yes, the Fonz was the Marlon Brando of the sitcom world in the 70's, riding his Harley Davidson like Brando in "the Wild One", although not as dangerous. Well, maybe a lot less dangerous, but he could still punch-out a jukebox and make it play any song he wanted it to. I never saw Brando do that. His leather jacket is even in the Smithsonian.
With his buddy Ritchie Cunningham, Happy Day's ruled the airways for years and there were even a few spin-offs that were so bad they had trouble making the characters stick to the film. This really surprised me. "Happy Days" was a spin off of "Love, American Style" which itself spun off the hit shows "Laverne and Shirley and "Mork & Mindy" and two terrible duds, "Joanie Loves Chachi" and "Blansky's Beauties". Blansky's Beauties? I know I was a little high back in the day, but "Blansky's Beauties? What was that?
The Fonz, Winkler's character, was supposed to be just a small part, but to say he stole the show from Ron Howard, along with "Ralph and Potsie" is an understatement. The guy's picture was everywhere. If you didn't have a Fonzie lunchbox, you weren't cool. But, on the flip-side, if you did have a Fonzie lunchbox, you really weren't cool. "Confusing Day's" they should have called it. But, I digress.
The kids today will not see the irony of the Fonz selling out to the "suits" and selling this retirement crap that is supposed to keep you in your home until you die, and they then own it. You can bet their kids hate it. It sounds like a big-time rip-off, but in the long run if you're dead, what does it matter. But for me, to see the Fonz selling-out is like killing another childhood memory and they are getting fewer and farther apart. I can't tell Henry Winkler what to do and not do, he's just an actor. To the Fonz', I can only give a big "thumbs-down". To you, I can only say Be Cool, we ain't dead yet~~
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Alii
Steel Breeze
Eljekar
beauty1947
hilarad
Lisa Tibbitts
Salon.com
Comments
We've lost our shelter entirely.
So that makes me happy that there is still YOU in the world. You see the truth---you scan it in fact.
It wasn't a good idea. I was in China when I said it.
Love this, Kenny. :) r.
_____$
_____$
_____$
_____$$
$____$$$
$_____$$$
$$____$$$$
$$$____$$$$$
_$$$$$_$$$$$$
__$$$$$_$$$$$$
___$$$$$$$$$$$$______$$$$$$$
_____$$$$$$$$$$____$$$$$$$$$$
______$$$$$$$$$$__$$$$$$$$$$$$
________$$$$$$$$_$$$$$$$$$$$
_________$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
__________$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
___________$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
________$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$_❤
______$$$$__$$$$$$$$$$$$__$$$
_____$$$__$$$$$$$$$$$__$$$_$$
_____$$_$$$$$$$$$$$____$$$$
___$$__$$$$$$$$$$______$$$
_$$___$$$$$$$$$$
_____$$$$$$$$$$$$
_____$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
_____$$$_$$_$$$_$$_$
_____$___$$$$$$$$
__________$$$$$$$
___________$$$$$$
___________$$$$$$
_________$$$$$$$
_______$$$$$$$$
______$$$$$$$
____$$$$$$
___$$$$
_$$$$$
_$$$.$$
__$$.$$
___$$.$$.....
______$$....
Guilty secret: I liked Happy Days. Da Fonz reminded me of some guys I knew growing up. It was a lot less fraught in those days. That said, I can't believe Winkler is selling out. Cripes, I AM old.
Long ago I realized that Fonzie was a middle aged jew ,and yet still it smarts to see him with such reverse mortgages.
Fine and timely post, Scanner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR_Bjf-a5rs
And, of course, there were the TV commercials with Robert Wagner as spokesman for seniors signing up for reverse mortgages.
What's this world coming to?
m, the Fonz was the Dude of his day (did I say that)
Jon, I'm surprised you're not sweeping Tiananmen Square now!:-)
Algis, hero's are like dinosaurs I think. A dying breed.
Nikki, I saw that too. The guy has to be a multi-millionaire, WHY?
Boaner, that shows what I know about motorcycles. If it doesn't have 4 wheels, I walk. And my friend, we're both old, hah~
fernsy, you're really up on them. I know Scott Bio used to go with Pamela Anderson and that blew my mind~~~
How did we get here Kenny?
HUGGGGGGGGGGGGG
The Fonz became a caricature and left television with an enduring term: "Jump over the shark". Of course that's TV talk for an event or scene or plotline on a TV show which is stretching just a bit too far in an effort to get viewers.
And he's not as scary looking in these commercials as Robert Wagner with his "face jobs" and botox. But I doubt that he'll ever get to "Wilfred Brimley status".
Frank, you're right. Plus, those secret bank accounts~
Linda, now that was a big-time sell-out. He is richer than God!
Walter, I haven't thought of that in years. But, doesn't it mean something dirty now?
Stim, I guess they get no royalties like the actors do today, ya' think?
also, I agree. He started off tough, then moved in with Richie, hah!
Local man, plese forgiv ty[pin errer]s, I am only trhee2 year ole!
:-) / r
I never even heard of the show "Blansky's Beauties"
R♥
Reverse mortgages are the biggest bank rip-off of seniors ever. Pay attention to the ad; it says "as long as you live in your home." That "live in your home" clause is the killer. If you get sick and are away for more than 90 days, or if you want to spend the winter in Florida, that mortgage comes due and payable IN FULL immediately! You don't pay - they take your home. You CANNOT be away from your home - for ANY reason - for more than 90 consecutive days. (And that means everyone whose name is on that mortgage. If you are a couple, NEITHER of you can be away for 90+ days!)
They talk about loaning you "lots of money to do with as you wish.TAX FREE!" (What bullshit - all loans are ALWAYS tax free)
They won't "loan" you more than 30% of today's value of your home. If you're 6o now and live until the expected age of about 80, that interest will be ballooning for 20 years. (Yeah, it's a variation on the old, illegal, balloon mortgage) At the end of that time your home will likely be worth double what it is now. You'll owe it ALL to the bank (give or take 2% or 3%).
And if your home DOESN'T increase in value enough to pay the bank off in full, guess whose kids get stuck with that debt?
It is the most disgusting ploy by the banks EVER! A deliberate, carefully planned rip-off of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Any bank that offers these "reverse mortgages" ought to be burned to the ground with the manager in it!
If anyone wants to see actual numbers on this, please PM me and I'll provide them.
.
bad, but
nothing compared to dylan selling out to , ha,
victoria's secret. yikes.
longlegged gaunt female parts moving across the screen
to his "love sick"...
icons disappoint us.
but they are only human.
fonz needed some cash . so what? we should say:
"gotta do whatcha gotta do" but still...know this...you
are "dishonoring" our image of u. i doubt they care that much.
Also, after a meeting with my financial consultant (for all of my measly, measly net-worth) about a new plan for retirement (like THAT'S ever really going to happen! HA!), a reverse mortgage will actually work quite well for me ... particularly as I have no children, and as you say, it's of no consequence to my family what happens to the house after I bite the big one.
Yes, there are conditions, but it's like the stock market ~ gotta play the odds that I won't have to be away for 90-days ... for me, it beats the alternative of possibly losing my house to foreclosure. I'll still have to work, but even now (years before I even qualify for the reverse mortgage), it's a tough gig not just to find work but to find sustainable work. I'm the only one looking after my future ... at least there's sense of familiarity and trust in getting this information for *known* actors. I'm not an idiot, so the actors are not WHY I checked out the reverse mortgages, but the future and *retirement* options are not a one size fits all scenario, so if it doesn't work for you, why denigrate those for whom it does?
~R~ Good read, though!
:D
Reverse mortgages don't work for ANYONE. Assuming that you are still living alone, here's some food for thought.....
First you need to own your home, free of all encumbrances, just to get that "loan." So you'll get 30% of its value. You'd be waaaaay better off to rent it out through a competent property management firm and rent a nice little condo-in-the-sun to live in, somewhere that's economical.
Second; although you may be in perfect health now and expect to stay that way for the rest of your life, anything can happen (and usually does as you get older. Trust me; I know about this.)
You would even be better off, at that time, (presuming economic recovery) to sell that house, invest the money, and live in smaller accommodation.
Another thing to consider is that, while you only get 30% of the value of your home, the bank has a lien on 100% of it. If you got ill and needed expensive treatment, you CANNOT BORROW AGAINST THE REST OF ITS VALUE!!!!
If you thought that, in an emergency, you could sell the house, pay off the bank and use the balance for your emergency, think again. The charges, by the bank, for doing so are horrendous! They are so bad that if you needed to d that only one year after taking out that reverse mortgage loan, it would cost you about 50% of the value of your home. And after about 9 years, forget it - the bank gets it all.
You are right about, "To each his own". If Your own" is a fondness for being ripped off, jump right in.
NOTE: I am a former real estate speculator/investor, I know mortgage financing inside and out.
;-)
.
He doesn't know mortgages inside out, neither do I. No one does. Mortgages are very complicated. But I have run several mortgage companies and worked at several others in an executive capacity so I have some idea whereof I speak.
1. You do not have to own your home free and clear to get a reverse mortgage. You have to have sufficient equity, but they will pay off your existing mortgage when you refinance into reverse mortgage.
2. I just priced a reverse mortgage for myself and it allows me - at age 63, to put down 40% on a purchase and have 6o% picked up by the reverse mortgage lender.
3. My parents did a reverse mortgage when they were eighties. They got 60% of the property value, after the lender paid off an existing lien.
4. As long as either the husband or the wife remains in the property, the occupancy condition has been met. There is no requirement that BOTH husband and wife be in full-time occupancy.
5. There is no 90 day consecutive occupancy requirement anywhere in the reverse mortgage rules. You can be away every other month for a full year and still satisfy the occupancy requirement.
6. Under no circumstances are the heirs to the estate liable for anything. They didn't sign anything and therefore they are not liable for any portion of the debt. If the value of the home doesn't cover the note when it is sold, the lender's only recourse is to the federal government, which guarantees reverse mortgages.
7. The reason you can't write a second mortgage on a home that is under a reverse mortgage is that reverse mortgages are always written to cover 100% of the value of the home. If the property appreciates (yeah, right. Good luck with that.) the homeowner can refinance into a new reverse mortgage to pull the excess value out of the home.
8. Homeowners have the option of taking a lump sum payment at closing, a monthly stipend, or both. If they take a lump sum, there's no residual value. If they take a monthly payment, they can always pull the remaining residual value out to meet an extraordinary expense.
9. Selling a house in a reverse mortgage is just like selling any other house. The reverse mortgage fees - which are pretty high - are taken out in the original transaction. The pay off has to cover the current balance on the note and after two years there are no pre-payment penalties.
10. The homeowner can be away from the home for up to 12 months for medical treatment before the loan becomes due and payable....but if there are two borrowers, a husband and wife, the mortgage remains in force for as long as one borrower remains in the home.
That is mostly just flat out bullshit! If that were true the banks would be virtually giving away money and expecting the feds to pay them back.
You say your parents got 6o% of their home's value at age 83? Had that lender never heard of actuarial tables!! They had zero time to live according to those tables.
Now I know that things are different in the US than they are here in Canada. I have definitely overstepped my knowledge as far as American rules for reverse mortgages.
However, no prudent lender is going to put himself in a position to incur financial loss just to be nice to old people. They're in it for the money - and somebody always pays. if the government is picking up the tab for the banks to make a profit, then the taxpayers are getting the shaft.
Your #1 - is wrong. You do have to own your home free and clear. Why the heck do you think they'll pay off any very small amount still owing when they set up your reverse mortgage? That clears your original mtg., does it not?
#2- This is unbelievable. You can surely get a regular mortgage with 40% down - hell lenders will climb all over you to lend you 60% on a first with 40 down!! But why would they take up the other 60%? If that property doesn't appreciate greatly, they'll soon be over the collateral value of your home (traditionally 75% of market). Or again, are the banks depending on the government guarantee for their profits?
#4- The occupancy requirement is different with every bank/state.
#5- I DID NOT say that there was any sort of a 90 day "occupancy requirement". I said that the owner cannot be "not living in the home" for 90 consecutive days. That is a "un-occupancy" clause - NOT an "occupancy clause. Obviously being away every second month meets the requirement of not being away for over 90 days consecutively.
#6- Heirs to an estate can avoid any responsibility only by not inheriting that property. If they inherit it, they'll have to take responsibility for it and any liens against it.
#8- What "residual value" would you be talking about? Unless that property appreciated markedly, with the bank fees, legal fees, appraisal fees, balloon interest accrual, sign off charges, registration fees, etc., etc., there is unlikely to be any such thing as money available for an emergency. (Unless, of course, your banker is your fairy godmother)
#9- You keep on ignoring that ballooning of the interest. It is only small bucks the first year but it grows to a huge amount as time passes. When you go to sell that house you'll end up with so little it won't pay your moving costs!
#10- Again, this is subject to each lender and the rules he plays by.
Something not mentioned here is that the homeowner is also always required to maintain that home, at his own expense, to the standards set by the lender. Over the life of that mortgage, that can amount to a LOT of money!!
You went to great trouble to prove me wrong. You failed to do so. Reverse mortgages are only liked by those who lend money on them. Nothing - I repeat - NOTHING is a bigger rip-off of seniors. Any one of a half-dozen other options would suit them better.
;-)
(sorry scanner!)
Nicolas Cage: Japan
Jennifer Aniston: Germany
Leonardo di Caprio: Italy
Meg Ryan: Japan
Snoop Dog: Germany
You can watch these commercials at: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/lists/5-celebs-in-foreign-commercials-blog
"Caveat emptor" - Wot Wot.
Press send please FRed(tm)......
This is an example of what happens when an expert and an opinionated individual meet.
First, I have skin in this game. I don't write reverse mortgages.
When we wrote the mortgage on my parents house, I thought the government was nuts to underwrite this program....and I still do. It's another wave of foreclosures just waiting to happen because virtually all of the reverse mortgages are underwater....and I am living in my parents house waiting to be foreclosed upon myself....and I still think the reverse mortgage was a good idea.
Six says that no prudent lender is going to put itself in the position of taking a financial loss....but that's exactly what they did precisely because the loans are guaranteed by the federal government, so their losses will be covered.
You are 100% wrong about having to own your free and clear. They will pay off an old mortgage as part of the process, just as they do with any other refi.
Sky, you are completely wrong about the heirs to an estate inheriting debt. Debt does not transfer to the heirs. I am presently the heir to my parents estate, and there are no debts accruing to me from the mortgage on the house. This is black letter law in the US.
You are splitting hairs on the occupancy requirement., They are much more flexible than you think.
Borrowers are ALWAYS required to maintain the home. It's in every single mortgage contract.
Reverse mortgages were invented when we all thought that property values would increase forever. We should have known better and now we do but they are still writing them.
The key flaw in your thinking is that the borrowers stay in their home - mortgage free - for as long as the surviving borrower lives. Simple fact. Yes, they are using the equity in the house but, when that equity is exhausted, they still get to stay in the house forever.
Look, Sky, I genuinely respect you, but you are arguing with someone who is an actual authority on the subject. I don't know anything about Canadian law, and I don't pretend to....but what I do know is that reverse mortgages have been a god send for many home owners. Yes, it erodes multi-generational wealth, and it does take an asset out of the estate, but it also enables the home owner to live well longer.
Any other mortgage would require a monthly payment. These loans pay the borrower back. Yes, it consumes the equity...but that's what equity is for in the first place: to use when you need it.
In our case, the house was worth $350,000 when we wrote the mortgage. It is now worth $75,000, if that, but we got almost $200,000 out without having to sell the house because we refinanced into the Reverse Mortgage at the top of the market. Had we not done that, we would be upside down on the mortgage today. It was the right move at the right time.
I don't know what qualifications you have that make you a "pro" about mortgages. I suspect that they involve much more lending than borrowing. Your parents incredible luck in a) having the feds support such stupid mortgages, and b) in getting one just before the bottom dropped out of the real estate market, does not make reverse mtgs. a good deal in general; unless you know how to guarantee that everyone who takes out one of these loans, can get that lucky.
My qualifications are that I was a borrower - not a lender - and the not inconsiderable fact that I made a tad over two and a quarter million in my first two an half years at it - not for some financial institution - for me! . How much have you made as a lender, Mr. "Pro"?
I too have great respect for you (my snide digs notwithstanding) but you continue to ignore such things as being away for a winter, both official owners being in hospital or a nursing home at the same time (in Canada only one), and the fact that ballon mortgages of ANY kind are such a rip off that they are illegal if done in any other way than this.
You can fill pages with blather that you were trained to hand out as a lender but you simply can't beat the knowledge gained as a borrower.
It is true that in some cases your statement that "equity is there to be used," is valid. Yet when that equity has an encumbrance, it is NOT in point of law, "yours" anymore. The amount available for an emergency, or even what will remain after an emergency sale of the property is minuscule compared to what would be available had that mortgage not been applied to the property. Medical emergencies have a way of being EXPENSIVE! Tell me sir, how much of the $200k, your parents got, do they have left? How much could they "upgrade" that reverse mortgage in time of need? It wouldn't be $zero, would it?
Unless they had a definite NEED for that money, barring an unforeseen occurrence such as the real estate downturn, they'd have been better off to discuss a regular mortgage with their children, borrowed on a regular mortgage and have the children share the monthly payments since they'd be inheriting the property, which, again, under normal circumstances, would have appreciated greatly in value.
Unless one has a functioning crystal ball, one cannot know when such a downturn will occur. Without that happening, i.e., in a normal market, the deal your parents made would have been crap. I don't think you are the "pro" you say you are, but I'm sure that you do know enough to know that, if you can set aside your bias as an employee of a lender.
You can study all you want, at any school you want, but don't try to teach your grandfather to suck eggs.
.