There’s a word that does a lot of the heavy lifting in later-life lending right now: appraisal.
It sounds reassuringly strict, balanced and professional. But what does that mean?
We’ve been told time and time again that advisors should evaluate every option. I agree. Standard repayment or interest-only mortgages, retirement interest-only mortgages, lifetime mortgages, downsizing, local authority grants, charitable funding and family support may all deserve a place in the discussion.
Completion is not automatically a good outcome, as the research has revealed
But evaluating it is just the beginning. Customers don’t want a beautifully presented menu. They want a recommendation.
“We evaluated alternatives” can become a more complex cousin of “We considered alternatives.” Both statements sound reassuring in a suitability letter, but neither proves that the alternative has been properly researched, tested, and compared to the client’s long-term circumstances. Evaluating without arriving at a conclusion is the theatrics of analysis, while professional advice requires ownership.
The FCA has already explained why this cannot be treated as semantics. Its 2020 review of equity release advice found that generic wording is used to explain why clients supposedly don’t want alternatives. Some advisors appear to be little more than takers of orders.
Its 2023 follow-up found that companies are reducing discussions about alternatives and shifting results toward lifetime mortgages. This is not unbiased product advice!
Why do the numbers for the product continue to be discussed as if they were describing lending later on?
The way we report it doesn’t help. The ERC’s Q1 2026 prospectus reported £574 million worth of activity among new and returning clients. This is useful data about equity issuance, but by no means a complete picture of later lending.
The UK Treasury recorded 36,050 new loans to borrowers aged over 55 during the same quarter, worth £6 billion. Of this total, there were 5,300 new lifetime mortgages worth £490 million, and 353 pension-only mortgages worth £33 million.
The data sets are not directly comparable; ERC also includes return withdrawals and further advances. But it is certainly impossible to ignore the size of the broader market.
Incomplete picture
Why then do product figures continue to be discussed as if they were describing lending later on?
Celebrating lifetime mortgage advances separately may tell us that the product is selling. It tells us nothing about whether or not these customers received the correct recommendation. Worse still, it reinforces the silos that the industry claims it wants to dismantle.
Customers don’t want a beautifully presented menu. They want a recommendation
The FCA’s current market study terms of reference recognize that standard mortgages can be suitable for older owners. They point out that about 350,000 record mortgages have been sold since 2021 to borrowers over the age of 55 who will be at least 68 when their term expires.
For the clients we talk to under 65, a lifetime mortgage is rarely the recommendation. This is not an attack on the lifetime mortgage; Of course they can achieve excellent results. But there is a recognition that age alone no longer closes the door to mainstream borrowing.
We also know the cost of making this mistake. Qualitative research conducted by Savanta for the Financial Services Consumer Commission found that customers experienced anxiety, guilt and remorse when the long-term consequences of releasing shares later became apparent.
Participants spoke of beginning to realize the financial impact, and many assumed they were too old to get a regular mortgage. When asked what they would tell their younger selves, a frequent answer was to think about releasing equity later in life.
If we stop at evaluation, we have not completed the task. All we served to do was describe it
This research included a small qualitative sample, so it should not be misrepresented as a market-wide regret rate. But they reveal something that statistics cannot: that completing a project does not automatically constitute a good result.
A truly neutral advisor should do more than just mention each option. If the scholarship is theoretically available, has eligibility been verified? If a standard mortgage can work, have the lender and affordability criteria been tested? If the monthly interest can be serviced, has the cost of renewing it been compared over a lifetime? If family assistance is realistic, has the difficult conversation actually occurred?
The uncomfortable truth is that some of these methods require more work and may generate less revenue.
Evaluating without arriving at a conclusion is the theatrics of analysis, while professional advice requires ownership
Local authority aid and charitable funding do not arrive through the source system, and the prevailing mortgage may fall outside the permissions or customs of the equity issuing specialist. None of this changes the client’s right to obtain the correct result.
Consideration is awareness. Evaluation is the guide. Giving advice is making a recommendation and standing behind it. If we stop at evaluation, we have not completed the task. All we served to do was describe it.
Malcolm Davidson is Managing Director of UK Moneyman
This article appeared in the September 2026 edition of Mortgage strategy.
If you would like to subscribe to the monthly print or digital magazine, please click here.
