Seniors trying to figure out how to cash in on their home equity without having to leave their houses now have another choice. So do low-income borrowers who've yet to refinance their government-owned loans.

First, the new option for seniors. Typically, they tap into their equity either by refinancing or by opting for a reverse mortgage, which pays them an amount based on the value of their house and their projected remaining longevity.

If they refi, they still have to make house payments and pay their taxes and insurance. When they finally leave the nest, willingly or otherwise, the remaining mortgage amount has to be paid in full.

With a reverse mortgage, there is no payment, but you still have to cover your taxes and insurance. When you leave, the house reverts to the lender to satisfy your debt, and any profit left over after the place is sold belongs to you or your estate. But you never owe more than the home is worth at the time it is sold.

Now, Oklahoma-based company Finance of America Reverse is creating what it calls a "new category" of retirement financing, combining aspects of forward and reverse loans to give borrowers at or near the end of their working lives greater flexibility.

FAR President Kristen Sieffert calls the hybrid product, EquityAvail, a "retirement mortgage" -- something that makes sense for those preparing to transition to life on a fixed income.

EquityAvail was just rolled out last month, and is currently only available in six states: California, Florida, New Jersey, Virginia, Connecticut and South Carolina. But the plan is to offer it in at least 15 states within 12 months, Sieffert told me in a phone interview.

Here are a few more details: EquityAvail is a proprietary fixed-rate product with a minimum loan amount of $100,000 and a maximum of $4 million. Because government-insured reverse mortgages, more properly known as Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM), currently come with an upper limit of $822,375, you may be able to get more money out of your house this way.

Also, whereas the typical reverse mortgage might have a maximum 55% loan-to-value ratio, EquityAvail is a tad higher at 60% to 65%, depending on the borrower's age.

"We can go higher because the borrower makes payments," Sieffert said.

The proceeds are distributed at closing. Borrowers are required to make payments for 10 years, but the monthly cost is about half of what it would be for a typical refi, according to Sieffert. That's because EquityAvail is a negatively amortizing loan in which the principal rises rather than falls. In this respect, it resembles a reverse mortgage.

After the loan is on the books for a decade, it becomes even more like a reverse mortgage, because you need no longer make any payments to principal and interest. Again, though, you still have to pay your taxes and insurance.

Borrowers must be at least 60 years of age to qualify, versus 62 for a HECM. So that means you'll be on the hook for house payments until you are at least 70. But that's better than a regular refi, which can obligate you for 15, 20 or even 30 years. FAR is considering lowering the age requirement so that early retirees could apply, along with people forced into retirement and other interested parties.

The outstanding balance must be paid when you pass away, or when the house no longer serves as your principal residence, but you never owe more than the house is worth. And unlike pure reverse mortgages, there are no origination fees, nor monthly servicing charges.

FAR says it created the new loan when it identified a need that wasn't being met by traditional loans or reverse mortgages.

Meanwhile, low-income borrowers whose mortgages are either owned or controlled by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are now able to refinance into less costly loans. The two government-sponsored enterprises will even throw in $500 to pay for an appraisal if one is necessary. And if you are low on cash for closing costs, you'll be able to roll up to $5,000 into the loan amount.

Fannie and Freddie's regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, estimates that by using the new option, the more than 2 million low-income families who have yet not taken advantage of today's near-record-low mortgage rates will save upwards of $250 a month -- $3,000 a year.

The loan will be available through Fannie this month; Freddie is shooting for August. To be eligible, borrowers must occupy the house, have incomes at or below 80% of the area median and have not missed a payment in the past six months (or no more than one payment in the past 12). Also, debt-to-income ratios cannot exceed 65% and credit scores must be 620 or higher.

In an infamous 1993 "Seinfeld" episode, George Costanza found himself in hot water when he was caught double-dipping a chip -- taking a bite and then dipping the uneaten portion of the chip a second time.

It was hilarious. But not so funny is when someone double-dips in real life. A freelancer, for example, who bills two different clients for the same expenses. Or perhaps a financial professional who places commissioned products into a fee-based account, thereby drawing income from both sources.

Double-dipping also occurs in real estate when an agent lists a house for sale and also lands the eventual buyer. When that happens, the agent retains the entire commission, but often fails to represent the best interests of one side of the transaction or the other. And it's usually the buyer who draws the short end of the stick, according to a new report from the Consumer Federation of America.

The practice is known in the trade as "dual agency." It's banned in eight states, and should be prohibited everywhere, says the report's author, CFA senior fellow Stephen Brobeck. Absent that, he says state regulators should ban listing agents from attempting to persuade sellers to accept a change in the agent's status from fiduciary to facilitator when he or she also finds the buyer.

Dual agency is an oxymoron that "can only be justified when agents greatly reduce their commissions and function as a facilitator with the full knowledge and approval of both buyer and seller," Brobeck said.

According to his report, double-dipping is more prevalent than most people realize. He estimates that roughly 1 in 5 transactions -- about 1 million per year -- occur with a single agent, resulting in consumers being charged "excessive commissions" to the tune of several billion dollars a year.

The rules vary widely from state to state. But generally, a seller lists a house with an agent, who is supposed to represent the seller's interests above all others. The eventual buyer usually deals with another agent, who speaks for the buyer alone. And together, the agents split the commission -- typically 5% or 6% -- down the middle.

Sellers pay the listing agent's commission based on the eventual selling price. So on a $400,000 transaction, the agent's cut is anywhere from $20,000 to $24,000. But the money comes from the buyer, which leads to the age-old real estate chicken-and-egg question: Who really pays the bill?

In the typical deal, half the commission goes to the seller's agent. But when the listing agent also finds the buyer, he or she pockets it all. Some agents will even delay putting the house on the local multiple listing service in hopes of first finding an agent-less buyer.

If the listing agent is successful in finding a buyer, he or she often tries to convince the seller to change the agent's status to that of a facilitator, at which point the agent can no longer advance the seller's best interests. That includes negotiating a higher price or simply offering advice that will materially impact the sale.

But "buyers suffer the greatest harm," Brobeck's report maintains. Because the agent does not represent their interests, either, he or she won't try to negotiate a lower price. Indeed, if the agent fails to change to "facilitator" status, he or she is obligated to advance the seller's interests: bargaining for a higher price and refraining from offering advice to the buyer.

The CFA doesn't necessarily recommend banning double-dipping altogether, though it does want all states to forbid dual agency, which is just one form of the practice. "One agent cannot represent the material interests of both seller and buyer," the report says. "Dual agency aggravates the conflicts of interest inherent in double-dipping."

The organization also wants regulators to block agents from changing their status midstream to dual agent, transaction broker or facilitator. These are the terms used in different states to describe an agent who works in the interest of neither buyer nor seller, instead walking a fine line between the two.

Double-dipping is one of the most controversial practices in residential real estate. While some agents love the idea of working both sides of the fence on the same property, others consider it unethical.

According to a survey by Inman, an agent- and broker-centric news service, about 1 in 4 view it "unacceptable" and 1 in 3 say it is "not desirable." (Full disclosure: I once contributed articles for Inman.) And in a recent Inman article, one agent said dual agency was "akin to sharing an attorney with your soon-to-be ex-spouse."

If you are buying or selling a house in Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Kansas or Vermont, you don't have to worry about dual agency. That's where the practice is prohibited.

But no state outlaws double-dipping. The CFA warns buyers and sellers to try to determine how often an agent double-dips by reviewing his or her profiles on websites like Zillow and Realtor.com. "Aggressive double-dipping by agents is associated with the highest risks and costs from agent conflicts of interest," the group warns.

Sellers also should make it clear to any agent that they want their full and total allegiance throughout the sales process, and refuse to later accept any change in the agent's role. Buyers, on the other hand, should recognize the risks of being a customer of the listing agent -- rather than a client of their own agent.

Having a run-in with the law is one of the quickest ways to disqualify yourself from homeownership.

According to research from a Rice University sociologist, getting arrested just once can keep aspiring owners from buying a house as quickly as their peers.

Using data from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, assistant professor Brielle Bryan found that millennials who had any form of contact with the criminal justice system were less likely to own a home as quickly, and for as long, as their peers who had no criminal justice contact. That held true regardless of race, education and socioeconomic status.

"It was surprising the see that even low-level contact with the criminal justice system appears to be detrimental to homeownership prospects," she said in a recent edition of Cityscape, a Department of Housing and Urban Development publication.

The nation's 10 largest builders closed on 207,700 houses in 2019, according to Builder, a trade publication. That's nearly a third (30.4%) of the total new-home settlements that year -- and a far cry from 1989, when the national behemoths claimed just an 8.7% share.

D.H. Horton led the list, as it has since 2002, with 58,400 closed contracts -- an 8.6% share of all new-home settlements. Lennar was the second largest, with a 7.5% share.

Moving back home is probably the last thing young adults want to do. But it has its benefits.

Mom may not do your laundry, Dad may ask where you're going whenever you leave the house, and you might have to live under your parents' rules. At the same time, though, you could accumulate enough cash for a down payment on a house of your own -- and leave the nest for good.

It all hinges on whether your folks charge you rent. If they don't, and if you bank what you would have been paying for a one-bedroom apartment, according to an analysis from realtor.com Chief Economist Danielle Hale, you could have enough for a 5% down payment on a typical house in less than a year. Based on the national median rent for a one-bedroom unit ($1,533 a month) and the national median house price ($327,000), it would take just 11 months to save enough for 5% down (just shy of $17,000).

Of course, it will take longer in places where prices are higher. Across the 20 largest metros, it would take an average of 15 months to accumulate a 5% down payment, based on home prices and rent savings in each market. The 11-month scenario holds up in Chicago, Philadelphia and St. Louis, but it could take twice as long -- up to 22 months -- in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego.

It's important for homeowners to keep and maintain accurate financial records for insurance and tax purposes. But if they are lost in a fire, flood or other disaster, it's difficult to prove -- or even estimate -- your losses in order to qualify for loans, grants or other kinds of assistance.

Here are a few steps to take to reconstruct your records:

-- Free transcripts of your federal income tax returns are available at IRS.gov/individuals/get-transcript, or by following the prompts at 800-908-9946.

-- Bank and credit card companies can provide copies of past statements, either online or on paper.

-- Contact the company that handled the closing on your house to obtain a copy of your settlement papers. Ask the appraiser for a copy of his or her report, too.

-- If you've made any improvements to your house, ask the contractor to verify the work and cost. Or ask anyone who's seen the house before and after to provide a written description.

-- Check with your county tax assessor's office for records. Even old, out-of-date files can help.

With a new federal risk-rating system set to begin in October, now might be the time to review your flood insurance coverage. Especially in the states where the cost for National Flood Insurance Program coverage will increase.

A new analysis from ValuePenguin says some 3.8 million homeowners will see their premiums rise under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's new ratings.

FEMA's rate changes promise to correct the problem of policyholders paying rates that don't reflect their true risk levels, says ValuePenguin's Andrew Hurst. But rate increases will be moderate. Existing limits on annual rate hikes are still in effect, so most won't exceed 18%.

The largest proportions of homeowners who will see increases are in Hawaii (87%), Texas (86%), Mississippi (84%), West Virginia (83%), Florida (80%) and Louisiana (80%).

Overall, about 193,000 homeowners will be hit by the highest premium hikes. And about 1.2 million owners will benefit from lower premiums.

You wouldn't know it from the way would-be buyers are fighting over every house that comes on the market, but according to a Bankrate.com survey, millions of people have put off their home searches.

Some said they'll hold off until next year before restarting the hunt. But a significant portion said they're finished with the process indefinitely.