Quote Originally Posted by Beagle View Post
Why is it scary ? Suppose Joe Bloggs is 65 and fit and healthy and owns a $1m house in Auckland and nothing else.
Option 1. Buy a fancy Auckland RYM unit and be broke for the rest of his days. (Actually he can't do that for quite some time due to minimum age restrictions)
Option 2. Buy said leasehold unit and free-up $800K invested at say a 5% return in a balanced portfolio of shares and bonds and enjoy a comfortable retirement. Odds are he won't live past 95 anyway. Suppose he gets to 85 and needs better care. Sell Leasehold unit for somewhere about what he paid for it, and buy a care suite at OCA which on average on a national basis are just $227K.

Option 2 looks considerably better than option 1 to me as for one thing he can get on with enjoying his retirement now, not at some predetermined future date RYM decide to accept him, assuming they don't move the entry age goalposts again..
For a start the model they used was for 55+ with the idea that at 85 they'd be gone.
If they aren't gone they have no lease.
I have no idea about the terms of the lease but the idea that they'd 'just take their house away' is fanciful at best.