BauherrSaarlan
2020-01-15 11:35:45
- #1
Well, now, detached from the discussion about the sensibility/nonsense of some posts, the general tenor (including me) seems to be that it all looks pretty much tailor-made.
2055€/month in expenses minus 140€ maintenance reserve results in 1915€/month.
With 5,200€/month, that is just under 37%. I find that far from exaggerated. I deliberately leave bonuses etc. out because I now know how it goes: New garden furniture, awning, garden shed, vacation, Christmas, and so on all need to be paid for as well.
But in my opinion, the problem lies in 3 other points:
1. On the one hand, the OP gives the impression of a prime example of consumer greed, listing the wine cellar next to the grill hut, the 2 big cars and many very expensive vacations, only to add that one will no longer need all this in the future and wants to live a simpler life anyway. If you really manage that so easily, you have my respect. I don’t want to accuse anyone here, but I find it very hard to believe that one – especially in one of the most stressful phases of life (building a house) – will turn one’s life upside down and give up many things one had before and probably liked.
2. With a financing volume of 500,000€, a rate of 1,500€ corresponds to an annuity of just 3.6%. With 1.15% for 15 years, you still have a remaining debt of about 300,000€.
That would be personally too risky for me, but that’s a matter of taste. And if I read the posts of the OP, he seems to be more risk-taking, after all he internally plans for an inheritance…
If interest rates rise by just 2% at the follow-up financing after 15 years (3.15% for the second 15 years fixed interest), the rate must be raised to about 2,100€ to be finished after a total of 30 years.
Again, I don’t want to assume anything, but I am not sure if the OP is aware of that.
3. Regarding the mentioned house costs, there were several indications that it will not work out financially and a financial bottleneck is approaching.
On the one hand because construction costs are already considered relatively low, on the other hand because there is hardly any buffer for nice things.
And here the circle closes:
A building client who lives the aforementioned lifestyle will also want to upgrade during construction and reluctantly give up only little. That is understandable, many – including us – have had this experience. But one should counteract if one still can.
I would simply recommend you start actually living the plan from now on. You yourself said so nicely that the best plan is only as good as its execution.
Also, I would still have a look at what the same houses cost according to the Energy Saving Ordinance. So not KFW40+ or KFW40 and especially not KFW55. The jump is not from 55 to 40(+) but from Energy Saving Ordinance to 55. I would be very surprised if the KFW40+ house turns out so worthwhile overall that it is a clear case.
As an example: We have about 190 sqm, built according to the Energy Saving Ordinance in 2017. Central controlled residential ventilation with heat recovery, heated with gas condensing boiler without solar.
We used about 15,000 kWh gas last year at room temperatures of about 22.5°. That is – including hot water – about 900€ per year for heating.
What else can you really save there? That’s 75€/month…
Also, I would reconsider the topic of smaller build; a good 170 sqm is better than some houses with 180 or 190 where some dead spaces occur because the floor plan is just the way it is.
I don’t wish you (and probably most of the others here) any harm. But I do wonder a bit what you actually want here? It kind of seems as if you have already made the decision for yourselves and just want confirmation that everything is fine…
Many of those who answered you are far ahead in their planning, therefore also their experience. That would make me think a bit if I were you.
In my opinion, you sleep much, much better with this building project by spending 50,000-70,000€ more. Whether this comes from a smaller house, building according to the Energy Saving Ordinance, or more equity… doesn’t matter.
I recommend a combination of all three.
All the best for your project.
Thank you very much for this truly great post and this critical perspective.
Regarding point 1: I of course agree with you there, obviously there are much easier matters than restricting one’s consumption. We have now done this for a few weeks (of course not a representative period) and it works quite well. The big challenge will be to sustain it long-term, although over the past few weeks we have also disciplined ourselves more than necessary and given up more than what we would actually need according to our own calculations.
But at this point the project will either work or fail.
However, a large part of the consumption was deliberately done by us. The plan to build a house and have children has been around a bit longer, but beforehand we still had dreams we wanted to fulfill and we have fulfilled them.
In certain areas, I also have a kind of “stock thinking” which I think will benefit us in many ways in the future, since many things are available in more than sufficient quantities, from which we can draw in future without losing liquidity.
Regarding point 2: We basically also see this as critical and associated with some risk. However, as things stand now, we don’t see a really sensible alternative except possibly lowering the project costs somewhat overall.
Waiting and saving more equity, in our view, dissipates with rising costs.
Regarding point 3: That is why we try to plan everything as precisely as possible and appreciate any tips regarding potentially overlooked or insufficiently considered costs.
Concerning the energy standards, I am only partially in agreement, although I do understand some controversial opinions and views here.
What is relatively important to us, also because obviously the large buffers are not included in the calculations, is that even with children after all possible expenses there still remains 800€ per month + usually 10,000€ per year. But we do want to live a little more than sacrificing everything – we want to be able to plan energy costs as well as possible and therefore keep them as low as possible.
With prefab house providers, KFW55 is usually already the standard. The upgrade to KFW40 is mostly covered by the higher subsidy, so it’s a non-issue.
The step towards KFW40+ is then again somewhat bigger and would cost about +10,000-12,000€.
We have already requested a smaller floor plan at the first provider (169 sqm instead of 181 sqm), which had a price impact of about 25,000€, even with a better layout without major compromises concerning the rooms.
We currently end up with a total price of 487,000€, so already slightly under 500,000€.
We considered the photovoltaic system with 20,000€ (which theoretically might cost less), so if we went from KFW40+ to KFW40, we would be at 467,000€.
If we then deduct the fireplace in the living room, we would be at 459,000€. The fireplace isn’t really sensible in a KFW40 house anyway; it’s just about the "living comfort factor" for us.
So, we see a downgrade to 459,000€ as possible, including fireplace preparation and photovoltaic preparation.
In the total costs, we included the following buffers/upgrades and ancillary building costs:
Electrical upgrade: 2,500€
Electric and aluminum roller shutters: 9,500€
Air/water heat pump with central ventilation system, underfloor heating, 2 additional towel radiators: 20,000€
Front door upgrade: 3,000€ (from plastic to aluminum with side panel)
Upgrade of roof tiles to clay tiles: 3,000€
Upgrade of downpipes to titanium zinc: 2,000€
Staircase upgrade: 11,000€
Soil investigation / surveying etc.: 10,000€
Connection costs: 10,000€
Construction electricity, construction water, other fees, etc.: 15,000€
Earthworks: 15,000€
Kitchen: 25,000€
I don’t really see a significant change to the loan amount here, but at least there is an additional buffer of 41,000€ for unforeseen expenses and upgrades that we currently don’t think about.