Do we have enough money to finance the house?

Sorry, but I don't quite understand the reference to the posts here in the forum. I cannot see where anyone would post "defamations" or similar things for which one would immediately get into trouble in "real life." And for me, as for most forum participants, this is "real life," which is why the questions and suggestions are indeed meant seriously.

You represent, in my eyes, a somewhat unusual argumentation. The origin of your posts might be that you generally feel defamed by the posts here and want to (more or less) stand up against that. In doing so, you could certainly brighten up one or the other post, especially when it comes to the realistic assessment of construction costs and incidental construction costs. After all, you offer a quite interesting construction cost calculator on your web presence.

Good evening,

I am the head of SHW Planungsgesellschaft UG and do not use a pseudonym.
[...]

Nonetheless, I wish all critics a Merry Christmas.
Yours, Peter Brunk of SHW Planung

Dear Mr. Brunk,
as an uninvolved party, I find it positive that you come forward publicly with your name and try to clarify things. I would only change the strategy a bit. Instead of accusing forum participants of using pseudonyms (which is quite normal on the internet) and indirectly attacking them for critical (and partly justified) concerns, I would courteously and factually dispel their concerns.
Perhaps this topic will turn out to be a blessing for you in the end, and instead of losing potential customers, you might even gain one or two prospective builders...
The people here in the forum are not your enemies. Yes, they may be very cautious and suspicious because a lot of money is involved. Just refute all the arguments that have been raised so far (as you have partly done already), but not in an accusatory tone, and the mood could turn positive...

Best regards,
another anonymous person

Good evening,

I have not had the opportunity to observe the activities on the forum today. I was just about to move this thread to the moderated forum when I noticed your (yes, the language of the forum [aller Foren] is informal you) posts. Since you are replying in the public forum, the thread can initially remain where it is.

UG stands for Unternehmergesellschaft and is the so-called colloquially named mini-GmbH. Anyone who is somewhat familiar with HGB, tax law ...

I am aware of this and responded to it in #23.

Only: 25 thousand euros share capital for a real GmbH and the next day wages, the fat 7 Series, leather chair, and iPhone are paid from it... What remains in case of damage: just as little as with a UG. Show me your coverage here ...

The share capital does not protect any harmed builder; just as little as the contribution protects the shareholder(s) in the worst case from interventions in their private wallet.

Don’t you know better or do you prefer to gossip unsuccessfully in the background?

The quality of your confused response does little to help you achieve your goal.

SHW turned 5 years old a few months ago. It is a UG! You cannot talk about a fraudulent scheme there.

The purpose of a UG should be to increase the share capital to EUR 25,000 medium-term from the annual profit. However, after 5 years, I only read of a contribution amounting to €300. That this scares off potential builders should hardly be surprising.

Caution. There are quite a few fools, know-it-alls, or competitors involved here, and one wonders whether one is taking the worse path here...

I will leave this unchanged as an exception because it provides deep insight into your understanding of a "dialogue with potential builders." Should I find further derailments of this kind in future posts, I will no longer hesitate.

Rhenish regards

For companies that have only existed for a few months/years but at the same time advertise that they have been in business for decades, I become alert. If one can provide me with valid arguments for this (e.g. risk diversification, diversified business model, old company still exists but manages other projects, profit transfer agreements exist, etc.), then everything is understandable within reason.

In all other cases (old company no longer exists), it must be allowed to ask for the reason.

And I agree, neither a UG nor a GmbH with 25,000 EUR share capital is sufficient to be liable for anything.

Therefore, at this point, I recommend the guarantee of the shareholders (whose assets should be valuable). So, who is in? Hands up!

A UG protects against nothing. A GmbH has a share capital of at least 25,000 EUR, often significantly more due to capital increases. This will not protect against insolvency either, and in that case, builders will not get their money back. Here, as with all contracts for work, payments/services should be staggered so that the builder does not have to pay in advance, unless they receive from the general contractor's bank a self-debtor maximum amount guarantee or suretyship.

Regarding SHW, it remains to be noted that Mr. Brunk manages a number of UGs, all of which are involved in construction and/or planning services. Of course, tax reasons may also have been decisive here. However, my experience makes me raise an eyebrow here. This does not have to be a negative element, but it is rarely a positive one. Basically, you always have to pay attention to whom you are contracting with.

Also, I cannot really extract any useful information from the previous posts that would help me to bridge the gap that Mr. Brunk is trying to make here. Well, a little bit. What I can gather is that all persons acting under pseudonyms have no idea about the matter because they hide behind some root thing. However, I am more impressed by the quality of the posts than by the name of the person who writes posts here. SHW is for me an impressive confirmation of my previous handling of the evaluation of posts here in the forum. Names are smoke and mirrors; content is what matters.

It may certainly be my tone that meets with criticism here in the forum, but the "forum," the group of people who YES in part simply write destructive posts without perhaps being aware of the consequences or people who comment on them, naturally also provides a breeding ground for criticism.
I am entirely with the victims who were defrauded of money through UG´s GmbHs, even AG´s, but does the forum help if someone writes destructively against, for example, UG´s? Years ago, I already tried, like here, to set a few things straight because opinions are just what they are... subjective.
But I have had the experience that people simply do not want to read that. My answers were torn apart because someone thought they knew better and signaled to me that I would soon be off the market anyway. That was 2007/2008... Now it will soon be 2015, and as I wrote through Voki, I now have "a whole series of UG´s."
Two! SHW Planung and SHW Hausvertrieb. It is sensible both fiscally AND in terms of liability and in some parts also not otherwise feasible, but is it therefore disreputable because someone else may have done something wrong with 2 companies, and must one then write "a whole series"? They are 2! I have a share capital of 300 euros (on paper), but with 5 permanent employees - partly for years - one can assume that the material assets are present... Is it disreputable to keep the UG since converting it to a GmbH brings me and my customers nothing? SHW has liability insurance - for years - and it has never been used... Why? I regularly and actively do a lot of acquisition, I always try to win new customers, and - as with every service provider - there are satisfied and dissatisfied customers. Even at the butcher around the corner! Fortunately, the proportion of satisfied customers is well over 95% and I am recommended and can be proud of that - and the numbers I have to publish in the Bundesanzeiger confirm this as well...
I just think that a forum, in which you exchange thoughts, share experiences, give tips, can benefit much more if the contributions come factually and the reporter names himself. ONLY THEN does everyone consider what they write, and then it becomes truly transparent because in the best case the report is also open to criticism. I would find that clean and fair towards potential building owners, whom everyone wants to win for themselves. Towards the customer!! Someone who lies through life and cheats people has no place here anyway...
THE portal, THE forum would then be an incredibly good platform for the layperson, the insecure, to become SAFER, to be able to trust. Sorry, as a layperson I cannot trust anyone who calls themselves schnurpsi and partly talks rubbish. I’m not saying that ALL do only that, but many often do, and that is a pity because even if no damage has yet occurred to the builder, damage has already been done to a decent market fighter who already has a hard time due to partly bad competitors - even without such a forum. Then being mentioned in one breath with these is indeed a shame when you know yourself you are different, and when the facts are also wrong, it’s not only a pity but annoying, even defamatory AND it ultimately does no good to the insecure forum reader because in such cases they turn away from a "good" one and go elsewhere.
That is why consciously WITHOUT pseudonym and also open to attack. Through my real name, the legal form and its content could also be verified at once. Legitimate, but... also not reprehensible if one nevertheless remains a UG......

Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and thoughtful days....