Construction costs: Is home construction financing really that realistic?

Hello, you should place more importance on the child and also consider/calculation when there is/are child(ren) in the world. Then the cost of living rises and usually the salary falls.

Loans with repayment changes are all well and good. But do you want to become a master of the fine print? A bank will charge you for such flexibility. Worse still: this signals the opposite of continuous financial strength, which will lead to an additional interest surcharge. A bank prefers predictable cash flows; only in this way can it ensure refinancing.

Better to have a low installment + special repayment. Although this also deviates from the bank’s desired cash flows, a) a bank can generally model and manage such early repayments quite well in aggregate, and b) every early repayment at least reduces the bank’s credit risk (in the case of suspension of repayment, the risk increases because less is repaid than originally modeled and planned).

Overall, you will be offered the special repayment option much more cheaply by the bank and can use it more reliably and easily.

Again, my warning (as with almost every financing): please always consider the worst case, which is a liquidity bottleneck. Then the house is unnecessarily lost despite fundamental solvency. You don’t have to pay off a loan as quickly as possible at all costs. It’s better to always maintain a liquidity reserve. This doesn’t have to be 100% on the checking account. Especially for high earners, you can safely set up an ETF savings plan in parallel. A nominal after-tax return of 3% is no big deal now (4% before taxes). Yes, some people blow the money. But will you suddenly start blowing it after 30 years of frugality?

Otherwise, I would reconsider a 15k kitchen. Sure, if it’s only the size of a rental apartment kitchen and has rather simple appliances, that might work. The standard case is likely different.

Loans with changes in repayment terms are all well and good. But do you want to become the master of the fine print? Such flexibility is paid for by a bank. Even worse: it signals the opposite of continuous financial strength, which will lead to an additional interest surcharge. A bank likes predictable cash flows, only then can it ensure refinancing.

What nonsense. And does an option for special repayment then conversely signal particularly good creditworthiness/liquidity and lead to a discount on interest?
The switching option is a completely normal option that signals absolutely nothing. That it – like the special repayment option – costs money, however, is undisputed.

In total, you will get the special repayment option offered by the bank significantly cheaper and be able to use it more reliably and uncomplicatedly for yourself.

That is nonsense as well. The repayment switch is only half as expensive as the special repayment. Current costs for example:
Special repayment option: interest surcharge 0.04% ==> 5% special repayment from disbursement or 10% from year 6
Special repayment option: interest surcharge 0.50% ==> up to 100% repayable from year 4
Repayment switch: interest surcharge 0.02% ==> three options to adjust repayment in the range of 1-5% (repayment rate based on the approved loan amount)

Thank you very much for the concrete numbers.

Now for the follow-up questions:
How often and with what notice can one freely change the repayment rate within the range of 1-5%? The special repayment can be chosen every year at will and without any effect on the following year. Is this also the case with the reduction of the repayment rate? This is exactly what I mean by "do you want to become an expert in the fine print?"

Unlike you, I do not work in private real estate financing, but I am quite familiar with risk modeling. Since I assume that you also work mathematically validly, the following observation remains:
A special repayment is mathematically nothing other than a flexible repayment rate with a hard floor (the regular repayment). So nothing other than a base repayment of 5%, which I can reduce to as low as 1% if needed, just in the opposite direction. The crucial point, however, is that in one case I increase the repayment from the base case (the bank’s credit risk decreases) and in the other case I reduce the repayment (the bank’s credit risk increases). Viewed purely rationally, the bank must price the second case higher. Therefore, the theoretical statement: As far as the extent of flexibility is identical (just in the opposite direction), the suspension of repayment must be priced higher than the special repayment.

If your numbers are correct (which I assume), then the flexibility must be lower than with the special repayment.

Additional note: Everything naturally assuming that the initial repayment is identical in both cases.

Of course, other questions now come into play, e.g. with what probability the respective options are chosen. The special repayment will probably be chosen more in tighter financings, whereas the reduction of repayments will presumably only be granted if the bank already has sufficient collateral.

But still: The concrete design (when, how often, under which conditions, necessary requirements, etc.) of flexible repayment in practice would be of great interest to me. Especially in times of zero interest rates, this seems to me to have been an extremely unattractive option for the bank.