Talk on retirement at Cosmopolitan Club

Cities with high sunshine hours natural magnets for retirees.

Cities with high sunshine hours natural magnets for retirees.

DON’T WAIT: If there was one thing he hears often it is, “I wish I’d moved in sooner,” says Retirement Villages Association of NZ executive director John Collyns.

LIVING in a retirement village is advantageous financially as well as socially and physically, a Commission for Financial Capability seminar heard.

People who sell their homes and release equity built up over the years typically come away with more money in the bank.

Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand executive director John Collyns and national manager of the Commission for Financial Capability, Troy Churton, spoke to an audience at the Cosmopolitan Club.

Gisborne has the second-highest percentage of people (15.3 percent) aged 75 and over who choose to live in a retirement village, second only to Bay of Plenty at 17.4 percent.

Mr Collyns said it was no surprise Gisborne had the No.2 in the country, as cities with high sunshine hours were natural magnets when it came to retirement.

He cited a report completed last year by research firm Centre for Research Evaluation and Social Assessment (CRESA), which found 60 percent of people who choose to move into a retirement village came away with $50,000 or more in the bank, compared to 38 percent of those who downsized but bought again in the property market.

This was because retirement village residents do not own the home, they buy an occupational right agreement, which usually costs significantly less than a freehold home.

But this did not mean equity was lost, Mr Collyns said. The estate of a person typically got back 70 to 80 percent of the equity invested, which was then passed on to the family. The retirement villages kept around 20 to 30 percent, which was a deferred management fee that paid in arrears for the village’s amenities enjoyed over the resident’s time at the village.

Mr Collyns said people were reaping the rewards of selling their homes and realising equity they had built up over
50 years.

The CRESA report showed 20 percent of people who bought into a retirement village had $200,000 or more to put in the bank, compared to only five percent who continued with home ownership.

Retirement villages also charged about $120 a week to cover rates, water and other fees. This was cheaper than most mortgages, had fewer hassles attached than home ownership, and residents got to live among like-minded people in a purpose-built home that was safe, secure, warm and comfortable.

Mr Collyns said social isolation was one of the biggest drivers why people decided to move into a village. Often their spouse had died, children lived overseas and neighbours were at work, he said.

But those who preferred to live privately could do this too at a village, with arranged activities and amenities there only if you wanted to use them.

Mr Collyns said people in their mid to late 70s were the typical ones investigating living in a retirement village. It also provided a pathway to care when needed at a later stage.

New Zealand's aging populating meant 36 new retirement village units were built every week, with 50 people moving into them every week.

“The industry is burgeoning. Demographics are on our side,” he said.

Mr Collyns said his only piece of advice would be “don’t leave it too late” as you would miss out on all the good things village life had to offer.

“So often we hear ‘I wish I’d moved in sooner’.”

LIVING in a retirement village is advantageous financially as well as socially and physically, a Commission for Financial Capability seminar heard.

People who sell their homes and release equity built up over the years typically come away with more money in the bank.

Retirement Villages Association of New Zealand executive director John Collyns and national manager of the Commission for Financial Capability, Troy Churton, spoke to an audience at the Cosmopolitan Club.

Gisborne has the second-highest percentage of people (15.3 percent) aged 75 and over who choose to live in a retirement village, second only to Bay of Plenty at 17.4 percent.

Mr Collyns said it was no surprise Gisborne had the No.2 in the country, as cities with high sunshine hours were natural magnets when it came to retirement.

He cited a report completed last year by research firm Centre for Research Evaluation and Social Assessment (CRESA), which found 60 percent of people who choose to move into a retirement village came away with $50,000 or more in the bank, compared to 38 percent of those who downsized but bought again in the property market.

This was because retirement village residents do not own the home, they buy an occupational right agreement, which usually costs significantly less than a freehold home.

But this did not mean equity was lost, Mr Collyns said. The estate of a person typically got back 70 to 80 percent of the equity invested, which was then passed on to the family. The retirement villages kept around 20 to 30 percent, which was a deferred management fee that paid in arrears for the village’s amenities enjoyed over the resident’s time at the village.

Mr Collyns said people were reaping the rewards of selling their homes and realising equity they had built up over
50 years.

The CRESA report showed 20 percent of people who bought into a retirement village had $200,000 or more to put in the bank, compared to only five percent who continued with home ownership.

Retirement villages also charged about $120 a week to cover rates, water and other fees. This was cheaper than most mortgages, had fewer hassles attached than home ownership, and residents got to live among like-minded people in a purpose-built home that was safe, secure, warm and comfortable.

Mr Collyns said social isolation was one of the biggest drivers why people decided to move into a village. Often their spouse had died, children lived overseas and neighbours were at work, he said.

But those who preferred to live privately could do this too at a village, with arranged activities and amenities there only if you wanted to use them.

Mr Collyns said people in their mid to late 70s were the typical ones investigating living in a retirement village. It also provided a pathway to care when needed at a later stage.

New Zealand's aging populating meant 36 new retirement village units were built every week, with 50 people moving into them every week.

“The industry is burgeoning. Demographics are on our side,” he said.

Mr Collyns said his only piece of advice would be “don’t leave it too late” as you would miss out on all the good things village life had to offer.

“So often we hear ‘I wish I’d moved in sooner’.”

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.