Is a house a home or an asset? Traditionally, houses have been considered homes first and assets a very poor second.

Perhaps the family home has been modified and renovated through the years, and certainly the garden has matured. However, nothing can ever alter that sense of rightness one feels upon stepping through the front door. More than a feeling of security or comfort, one has but to consider the word homesick—ill due to being away from that special place and curable only by returning—to understand the depth of that sensation.

At the same time, when viewed from the perspective of the cold world of microeconomics, the family home is strictly an asset: a major purchase, often the most major purchase, of a lifetime. It’s an investment of many years’ duration and the depository of a considerable store of funds in the form of home equity.

The bridge between these two perspectives has always been that of the sentimental asset, more properly known as an inheritance. After fulfilling its task as a home for the family, a house’s next expected role has generally been as a financial windfall to the adult children upon the passing of the parents.

However, after almost a generation of economic security and growth in Australia, this secondary role for the family home has become less important. Comprehensive and widespread education has helped raise the standard of living to such an extent that the younger generations seem to be doing rather better than their retired parents, and instead of waiting to inherit the old homestead, many of these upwardly mobile young Australians have chosen to take the plunge into home ownership on their own.

Therefore, the questions are: whose home (not house) is it? Do the adult children have residences of their own, and therefore their own sentimental assets? Do they want the old home at all, or do they intend to sell it when the time comes? Do they need the financial assistance of an inheritance from their parents, or do their parents, perhaps cash poor and asset rich, have a greater need for those funds while they’re alive?

A reverse mortgage could be the answer to this problem. By reversing the mortgage and withdrawing some of that equity saved through the years, cash-poor pensioners can fund their own retirement with their major asset, without the necessity of borrowing from their adult children, doing without the small comforts of life, or having to leave their home, retaining full ownership of their property. Arranged properly, a reverse mortgage can even reserve a percentage of that equity from ever being necessary to repay the loan, to serve as an legacy for one’s children, needed or not.

In addition to equity, there’s a large investment in sentimental value in one’s home, which must be considered during the decision-making process for funding one’s retirement. The desire to leave an inheritance for one’s offspring, no matter their age, is a strong and salutary one, however, there’s a balance to be found between that desire and the need to fund one’s retirement, between home and asset. A reverse mortgage, properly arranged, can make finding that balance easier rather than otherwise.