I'm horrified...

The people I feel sorry for and who they should be careful of are the next of Kin when these people pass on.

Many pensioners hand over vast sums unaware of what they are actually handing over. i can see huge problems (legal and moral) with this type of transaction.

Its why I dont like the retirement village industry. they prey on the fact that it looks like a bargain and a good deal for the aging person. The real subtext is that it is anything but a good deal and it definatley isnt a property deal in the true sense of the word.
 
Thanks aussie, and others who PM'd me to let me know I didn't misread the posts.

What saddens me the most, is that although I always understood investors here to be staunch businessmen and women, I certainly didn't expect to read of such posts that indicated any could behave so unethically.:(
 
They were US figures, so comparatively high costs being paid back vs low cost of house. The same thing here would look terrible - paying someone a few $1000 a year for a few years for a $600k house looks far worse than paying someone quite a few $1000 a year for a few years for a $130k house - wouldn't take too long to reach the value of the house there, wouldn't scratch the surface here. US annual property rates/taxes are a lot higher than here for whatever reason.

Can see the logic though, as I have a relative who is busy 'asset shedding' so they can get eligibility for support before they die (which is Real Soon Now). Not owning the house and not having a large lump sum of cash does work in your favour if you want a carer in once a week for support. Its a strange system, this aged care thing. My mother works in it so she has this huge conflict of interest now *her* mother needs to use the system.
 
Unfortunately, ethical & legal is not always the same.

The biggest crooks tend to have a strong legal team to make sure they won't get in trouble.

I left a large Investment bank because I couldn't stand their unethical practices. They had a strong legal team. Nothing stops these people except maybe getting in trouble with the law.
 
They were US figures, so comparatively high costs being paid back vs low cost of house. The same thing here would look terrible - paying someone a few $1000 a year for a few years for a $600k house looks far worse than paying someone quite a few $1000 a year for a few years for a $130k house - wouldn't take too long to reach the value of the house there, wouldn't scratch the surface here. US annual property rates/taxes are a lot higher than here for whatever reason.

Can see the logic though, as I have a relative who is busy 'asset shedding' so they can get eligibility for support before they die (which is Real Soon Now). Not owning the house and not having a large lump sum of cash does work in your favour if you want a carer in once a week for support. Its a strange system, this aged care thing. My mother works in it so she has this huge conflict of interest now *her* mother needs to use the system.
The expenses have been outlined clearly in the post, they (even in US dollars) would hardly scratch the surface of the house's true value!! Besides which, carers are generally paid allied health staff appointed by councils, hospitals, the health system. If an elderly person wants "extra personal care" this can be arranged by accessing cash from banks using the person's equity to give them the needed funds in return they will take the house once their client has passed on of course, but even they would pay more than what is projected here!!!

I'm sorry but this would be seen as shameless robbery on either Aussie or US soil!!! :mad:
 
The expenses have been outlined clearly in the post, they (even in US dollars) would hardly scratch the surface of the house's true value!! Besides which, carers are generally paid allied health staff appointed by councils, hospitals, the health system. If an elderly person wants "extra personal care" this can be arranged by accessing cash from banks using the person's equity to give them the needed funds in return they will take the house once their client has passed on of course, but even they would pay more than what is projected here!!!

I'm sorry but this would be seen as shameless robbery on either Aussie or US soil!!! :mad:

In the US there is no medicare, no allied health professionals, no free access to hospitals or healthcare of any kind. You want meds, care, assistance of any type, you've got to pay for it (usually up front) unless you are lucky enough to have insurance (provided by your workplace as part of your package - not common for the elderly, especially post gfc as a lot of previous workplaces have gone bust and their insurance provisions/plans with them).

Whilst the reverse mortgages are still possible here, in a lot of US areas it's not possible to get them any more as there is still a lot of fear surrounding house prices and their near future direction (as well as funding availability).

It's not pretty but if both sides have sought legal advice and feel it's in their best interest (ie older person gets to die in house they've probably lived in 80% of their life, they can afford the care and meds they need, they have entered into for them a low risk situation, the new owner has a house sometime in the future, has taken on a risk hoping it will go up etc and that things will end out roughly even). Not for everyone, but in some circumstances it may be what is needed.
 
In the US there is no medicare, no allied health professionals, no free access to hospitals or healthcare of any kind. You want meds, care, assistance of any type, you've got to pay for it (usually up front) unless you are lucky enough to have insurance (provided by your workplace as part of your package - not common for the elderly, especially post gfc as a lot of previous workplaces have gone bust and their insurance provisions/plans with them).

Whilst the reverse mortgages are still possible here, in a lot of US areas it's not possible to get them any more as there is still a lot of fear surrounding house prices and their near future direction (as well as funding availability).

It's not pretty but if both sides have sought legal advice and feel it's in their best interest (ie older person gets to die in house they've probably lived in 80% of their life, they can afford the care and meds they need, they have entered into for them a low risk situation, the new owner has a house sometime in the future, has taken on a risk hoping it will go up etc and that things will end out roughly even). Not for everyone, but in some circumstances it may be what is needed.
Yes you're right, I had forgotten this and was referring to our health system here.

Valid points and of course, if all parties consent, it may well be legal but it still doesn't address the moral issue.

You can dance around it all you like, but this type of transaction is not common practice among decent people!!
 
I think this also reflects on how we treat older people.

With the aging population - there will be huge money to be made. And unfortunatley as a class of consumer they are vulnerable.

I look at my old man who is now 79. 10 years ago he was switched on and could handle everything. Now he gets confused about most things financial and doesnt really understand intricate ideas like how retirment villages work, how his super is going etc etc.

He recently paid over 5k to get his car fixed. His car is 12 years old and worth 2k max. 10 years ago his head would have told him to buy a new car!

So those of you with oldies - look after them. The circle of life...
 
I also see it as a reflection but more on the younger generation - and their lack of wanting (or in some cases inability) to take care or assist those who took care of them in their infancy. Or there are also those who unfortunately don't have anyone to look after or provide for them.

Whilst this is not an area of property investing I'd choose to engage in, I can see how for some older people, especially in the US, in many ways it's the only way they can remain where they have lived the majority of their lives (and for many of the older folk I know over there, they want to die where they've lived) until the end of their lives.

I can see how some would find it morally repulsive, but I would also find it wrong to try and make some of these people move due to financial circumstances when it's against their strongest wishes.

I just hope that there is a requirement for strong legal and financial advice for both parties, especially if the elderly person does not have next of kin.
 
If the person selling their house receives $1 but has all their heating and property expenses paid by the purchaser, what happens if they need money for health care. They can no longer sell their house to fund a move to a nursing home.

Or is the system different over there to the system here?
 
Sorry folks,

But I just had to ask, if I am reading these posts correctly:
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?p=645491#post645491

Is this type of property venture ethical and/or indeed legal??? I can't see it as moral, and it really concerns that this type of mindset exists among investors here.

Please tell me I've misread these posts.:eek:

Wow, that is competely disgraceful.

She should be ashamed of herself. There is a difference between negotiating a good bargain on one hand (which is is NOT) and what legally amounts to unconscionable conduct and morally amounts to out and out theft (which is IS).

She is nothing more than a slum lord.
 
Valid points and of course, if all parties consent, it may well be legal but it still doesn't address the moral issue.

Actually if the old person is doing it because they are suffering financial pressure, and dont understand what other options they have, and the transaction is done well outside market value then its probably able to be set aside by a court. Other factors would be the old person not having received independent legal or financial advice before entering into the arrangement.

Again, I cant hide my disgust at the original poster.
 
What's the big deal? Taking advantage of others is a time-honoured tradition here. Along with counting unhatched chickens and viewing the world from atop high horses.

That's why i enjoy myself so much. :D :D
 
We all have to decide how comfortable we are with our own actions. For me, sleeping at night and being able to look in the mirror are more important than money.
 
An average $130K house

Taxes $1200
Insurance $900
Heat & lights $3500
Maintenance $1000

It will cost us $400 month for 15 months, and it is paid off.
After that we make $400 month profit minimum.

Total outlay = $12,600
House value = $130,000

Not even a lousy 10%....how do you sleep??? :eek:


I also put an ad offering a senior to live in their home rent free, and we will also pay their heat and lights and give them a small monthly stipend. (in exchange they sell us their house for $1)
Let's be fair here, you're paying a tad more than a lousy buck even with the sale of your soul!!!

You just need to think outside the box.
Again I have to ask, what kind of box.....pine or cardboard???
 
Illegal no......morally...ethically...I can clearly say that it is disgraceful.

Preying on the most vulnerable in society is disgraceful. Kathryn also needs to be careful that the relies don't challenge her on the person dying. I could never do one of these deals...it is bad karma and may jinx my normal deals. :p

It does anger me that people like this post matter of factly....I am a hard negotiator but have my boundaries which lays off the elderly and vulnerable. I have not issues buying bargains off idiots who over capitalised. or did other stupid things as investor....that is just business...but will not entertain what Kathryn is doing.

What troubles me is that she is proud of what she does....must reflect her character. I am hard nut....and have gunned for people like this all my life.......unfortunately plenty of them around in this world.

There are certain things in life you should not pursue....there are plenty of other deals around.

Sorry folks,

But I just had to ask, if I am reading these posts correctly:
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?p=645491#post645491

Is this type of property venture ethical and/or indeed legal??? I can't see it as moral, and it really concerns that this type of mindset exists among investors here.

Please tell me I've misread these posts.:eek:
 
Sash, what if someone said to you that taking advantage of some 'idiot' (your term) is disgraceful and immoral? Would you not consider a person's lack of knowledge and lack of negotiation skills as a vulnerability? Even more generally, hatred for investors as a group is hardly rare. The fact that we own ips would be considered immoral and disgraceful by some, since we 'prevent' people who want to buy homes from doing so. Is that any more or less justified? Or is it because your code is reasonable and saying landlords are scum isn't?

I wouldn't use the suggested strategy, because I think it smells. However, I hold myself to a higher standard than I hold other people. Just because I am unwilling to use it, though, doesn't mean I will judge someone who does.
 
I don't believe Kathryn has had any takers yet, at least not from those who either still have their faculties, or (worse) families who aren't prepared to let someone steal what is rightfully theirs.

This may not be illegal, but I'd be more concerned about battling with my own conscience than any relatives who mysteriously turn up when they discover "dear old......." has finally croaked!!!
 
Top