Banks must require more collateral for real estate loans

well, a good financial advisor always shows it to the customer and advises them to include 3% or more.

but since the volume (as stated in the article) of loans per customer is increasing, driven by price increases, and financing is becoming increasingly scarce, 2% or less is usually chosen

inflation and construction prices are now decoupled from salary increases. these are significantly lower

The advantage or security lies with the customer for fixed interest periods longer than 15/20 years, the risk lies with the bank. These variants are increasingly subscribed to and only a few short-term ones remain.

Yes, but that doesn’t change the fact that no one knows where interest rates will be in 10 years; currently, however, they are historically low, and with an interest premium of around 0.4% for 10 years more interest security, one should consider what can be achieved instead with a higher repayment rate.

The marginal interest rate at 2% repayment is alarmingly low; when this is calculated—which is part of good advice—in my view, most consumers rightly decide in favor of the higher interest costs with lower interest rate risk and a slightly lower repayment effect.

It says "fully" = means financing is secured by 60% of the lending value. The statement is therefore merely that more people finance more than 60% of the lending value. Could be 61% or 300%. So no real significance.