"Corona" clause in the construction contract

If you sell the property, always set aside the fictitious interest and repayment nicely, you will have more in retirement.

You are certainly better informed, but with the way money is being printed and given away now, my confidence in the paper is also decreasing significantly.

So I consider a reasonable distribution of assets between cash, special funds, and real estate to be important. Over the past 100 years, it has always been best to own real estate. But of course, you also need liquid funds, for which money in bank accounts is quite good. Make sure never to have more than 100,000 EUR per bank in the account. If a bank really crashes, at least the statutory deposit guarantee will kick in. Otherwise, I currently consider it the smallest risk to invest the amounts of money that you do not need in the long term in an MSCI World ETF, because it contains 1,600 companies worldwide. Although I caught the worst possible entry point in mid-February, you just must not look at the portfolio. In ten or twenty years, the price will have risen significantly. And the price drop now for the MSCI World was not as big as it was for the DAX.

Otherwise, regarding the original question: The desire for such a regulation impressively shows the mindset of building sharks: They would love to write into every contract that they are the only ones allowed to get rich and that all risks must be borne by others. Therefore, I find building sharks extremely unsympathetic because they cheat both the builders and the craftsmen equally. Therefore, I would always tender and award everything myself, possibly with the support of an experienced site manager. That can also be a retiree who is happy to accompany such a project. Although they cost something, they help avoid trouble and can save more costs than they themselves cause.

You are surely better informed about that, but the way money is being printed and given away now, my trust in the paper is also significantly decreasing.

I didn't mean that he should put it in cash in the corner. Even today there are still good opportunities to invest money. See

I consider this a quite sensible investment. But if you build for tenants, you should keep the costs low. And, currently, time is probably on the builder’s side. If the workload of the craftsmen should worsen, then architect plus individual contracts will again be more worthwhile.

Whether the investment makes sense due to possible falling construction costs is open for discussion. In principle, it is designed for retirement and should pay for itself through rents.

Single-family homes are by far the worst properties to build and tie oneself to in terms of return. Maintenance efforts are also the highest possible, as tenants have high demands on the house. If anything, then a classic multi-family house.

I would not accept this passage. Did you have other GUs in previous discussions? Why were these removed?

The tenant would give me headaches. If it should (significantly) be delayed, that would be very unpleasant. However, I can quite understand that you want to get started slowly.

Would you like to let us know which GU wants to include this passage?