Why Most Financial Advisors Get Reverse Mortgages Wrong — and What a Good One Does Instead

← Back to Articles

Published April 9, 2025

This post is written for two audiences simultaneously.

For financial advisors: an honest examination of the most common mistakes made when advising clients on reverse mortgages — and a framework for doing it better. It is not a criticism of the profession. It is an acknowledgment that most financial planning training in Canada does not cover reverse mortgages adequately.

For clients of financial advisors: a framework for evaluating whether the guidance you are receiving reflects the current state of the evidence — or a default position that has not been rigorously examined.

The Default Position and Why It Exists

Most Canadian financial advisors, when a client raises a reverse mortgage, default to one of two responses. The first is a simple recommendation against it: "I wouldn't recommend that — the rates are high and you'll eat into your estate." The second is a deflection: "That's really a mortgage question. You'd want to talk to a mortgage broker about that."

Neither response is serving the client well. Both reflect a gap in knowledge rather than a considered position. Financial planning curricula in Canada cover registered accounts, tax planning, estate planning, and investment management in significant depth. They cover mortgage products superficially, if at all. The reverse mortgage sits at the intersection of mortgage lending and retirement income planning — a gap neither world has traditionally claimed.

The Three Mistakes Most Advisors Make

Mistake 1 — Treating the Home as Off the Balance Sheet

Every advisor knows to ask about assets and liabilities. They model the RRSP, the TFSA, the non-registered portfolio, the pension. The home is listed as an asset — and then essentially ignored. It appears on the net worth statement but not in the income plan.

This is incomplete analysis. The home equity is real, often the largest asset on the balance sheet, and it can be made liquid — without sale, without payment, with tax-free proceeds — through a reverse mortgage. A retirement income plan that does not model the home equity option is missing a significant variable.

Mistake 2 — Evaluating the Reverse Mortgage in Isolation

The most common framing is: "Is the interest rate on the reverse mortgage higher or lower than the expected return on the assets being preserved?" That's a reasonable question — and an incomplete one.

The alternative to a reverse mortgage draw is almost always a RRIF withdrawal, a registered account draw, or a non-registered investment liquidation. Every one of those has tax consequences: taxable income, potential OAS clawback, potential GIS reduction, capital gains, bracket effects. A reverse mortgage draw has none of these. The correct comparison is "reverse mortgage interest cost versus the combined cost of the alternative — including tax, benefit loss, and the depletion of income-generating assets."

Mistake 3 — Overlooking the Structural Advantages

Reverse mortgage proceeds are non-callable. An investment portfolio can decline. A HELOC can be frozen or reduced. The approved limit is non-callable as well: as long as the borrower maintains the property, pays taxes and insurance, and lives in the home, the lender cannot reduce the limit or demand repayment. For a client building a retirement income plan, this structural stability has value that never appears in a simple rate comparison.

What a Good Advisor Does Instead

• Models home equity explicitly in the retirement income plan — what does the plan look like with a reverse mortgage draw of $1,000 per month? $2,000? A lump sum?
• Compares the after-tax cost, not the pre-tax rate — what a $24,000/year reverse mortgage draw actually costs in interest versus what a $24,000 RRIF withdrawal costs in tax and benefit loss.
• Refers to a specialist broker who works with all major Canadian reverse mortgage lenders and can produce a side-by-side comparison. This deepens the client relationship rather than surrendering it.
• Has the conversation proactively when the client profile fits, rather than waiting to respond with a default dismissal.

A Note on the Broker–Advisor Relationship

The best outcomes come when the mortgage broker and the financial advisor work from the same information. This is not common in Canada — the two worlds run parallel and rarely intersect, to the detriment of the clients in the middle. Matthew Hines works alongside financial advisors and their clients: not a competitor to the advisor relationship, but a specialist who can answer the mortgage side of the question the advisor cannot fully answer alone.

This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, tax, investment, or mortgage advice. All reverse mortgage products are subject to individual lender approval and terms.

More articles →