10 or 17 years fixed interest rate on a 250k loan?

What do the financing experts say here? It won't get cheaper than 1.1% fixed for 15-20 years, right?

It definitely won't get cheaper than now in the coming months. Make sure you get a signature, no matter which of the two options.

Contract signed, interest secured.

However, I still have a small problem...

250k fixed for 16 years are secured.

However, until we sell our apartment, we have to finance an additional 230k temporarily. Of course, we were aware of that. It is also logical that the interest rate will be much higher, but a full 4%!

Never mind... I thought to myself. After all, I also have 12 months of interest-free commitment here... So I'll just take the fixed 250k first, then the variable 230k at the end.
After a short phone call, however, I understood from the lady at the bank that I have to start with the expensive, variable loan. Is that correct? I can decide myself from which pot I withdraw the money first, can't I?

Hi

Bridge financing is very expensive, no matter where. Banks charge for the flexibility that you can repay without costs after 6 months, or 9, or 12, or 18 as needed.

And you are basically tied to the bank where you do the main financing.

But rates between 2.75-4.25% are common for bridge financing... of course, you are rather at the upper limit here, and at 12 months it might amount to around €2,300, but you save a lot on the house financing ;)

After a short phone call, I understood the lady from the bank to mean that I have to start with the expensive, variable loan. Is that correct? I can decide myself from which pot I draw the money first, right?

From a non-banker’s perspective: The variable money is practically the temporary replacement of your equity capital, which will only be available later. And equity capital usually has to be used first, so the variable loan must also be drawn first. That’s how I could explain it...

After a brief phone call, I understood the lady from the bank to mean that I have to start with the expensive, variable loan. Is that correct?

That's what I was told at ING as well, that the variable loan replaces the equity until it is actually available, and equity must be used first.

However, I also drew on the cheaper fixed-interest loan first (so far almost 80% of it) and no one said anything :)

From a non-banker’s perspective: The variable money is basically the temporary replacement for your equity, which only becomes available later. And equity usually has to be used first, so the variable credit must also be drawn first. That’s how I could explain it...

Damn... really? And what do the bankers say?