Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

I actually did not write any nonsense. Where exactly is that, can you please quote it. What the customer ultimately does is his business – fact is, he pays more pointless, non-substantial interest to the bank. Done. I wrote nothing else. Nevertheless, there will be enough who make stupid decisions for ideological reasons – the house simply has to be worth twice as much at 4% interest as at 2%, to make that clear once again.

Basically, you are right, but that the house has to be worth twice as much at 4% is wrong.

Just venting for a moment... I had to take Meisterbafög including a loan because of the educator training (really had to, because the office would have counted the amount anyway). So far, the interest was around 1.4%. Just opened a letter... from now on 3.54%.

Oh man, I'm sorry. I hope the remaining amount isn't that high?

There will still be enough people who make stupid decisions for ideological reasons - the house just has to be worth twice as much at 4% interest as at 2%, to make that clear once again.

So basically every renter is a stupid person because they throw out money without returns (the buyer eventually owns the property in contrast to the renter)? And maybe even more than the buyer. The renter who wants to “be” a renter for ideological reasons and makes a stupid decision :rolleyes:

Basically, you are right, but the idea that the house must be worth twice as much at 4% is wrong.

not quite - with a 5% annuity (4% interest, 1% repayment) for a 300k loan, you have a total expense until the end of exactly 604,545.04 euros.

Let's take 5% annuity again (this time 1% interest, 4% repayment), at the end you have only paid 334,854.83 euros.
The rate in example 1: 1250 euros. In example 2? Of course exactly 1250 euros.

A nice side effect in 2: you are done in a considerate 22 years, in example 1 after 40! years.

It may be that mortgage salespeople among us only focus on the monthly rate and do not explain this properly to the "uninformed" customer (extension of the term sounds not as bad as about 270k more expense), but facts remain facts. This is simple math. That’s why my saying is true: the house must be "worth twice as much" to you because you actually pay almost twice as much.

So basically every tenant is a stupid person because they pay out money without getting anything in return (the buyer eventually owns the property, unlike the tenant)? And maybe even more than the one who buys. The tenant who wants to be a "co-tenant" for ideological reasons and makes a stupid decision :rolleyes:

I never claimed that a tenant is stupid. YOU did! Just wrote that. Apart from that, a tenant is actually quite smart if they invest the saved costs (i.e., the money they don’t need because they have no financing costs and possibly require less living space, etc.) into other more profitable investments.

If you really want to find the “grain” in my statements – you’ll have to make a bit more effort, right ;)

not quite - with 5% annuity (4% interest, 1% repayment) you have a total cost of exactly
604,545.04 euros for a 300k loan until the end.

If we take 5% annuity again (this time 1% interest, 4% repayment) you only pay 334,854.83 euros at the end.
The installment in example 1: 1250 euros. in example 2? Of course, exactly 1250 euros.

A nice side effect with 2: you finish leniently in 22 years, in example 1 after 40! years.

But you’re basically comparing apples and oranges because of the different terms. People actually compare those, too. And if I set the same term, e.g. 25 years, the installment increases by about 40% when interest goes up from 1% to 4%. That is then also coincidentally exactly the amount by which the loan becomes more expensive.