Evaluation of financing offers for our house construction

Your chatter annoys me! Ignorant and unqualified, you post dangerous half-knowledge and don't help anyone!!

Bauspar contracts have always been allocated according to the allocation calculations, and if that should no longer be the case, then provide a well-founded explanation as to why and how that should happen!

You don’t have to read it. There is an ignore function for that.

Tell that to the customers of Vereinigte Bausparkassen AG Hannover (VBK); back then the fifth largest building society in the republic.

For to fulfill all obligations of the building society, there were 650 million marks missing in their vaults. Under these circumstances, the board had no choice but to order a rigorous allocation stop.

However, it is now certain that they cannot obtain loans from the fifth largest private German building society. Because at the beginning of September, the Berlin Federal Supervisory Office for Insurance and Building Savings approved a creditors’ request to cease new business.

And I can’t be responsible for the fact that you don’t understand the mechanisms underlying a building society collective. Only as much money can come out as is in there.

Looking back into the past is even less useful in this case than it usually is, as the market environment is unprecedented so far. When people take out home savings contracts during low-interest phases (=betting on rising interest rates) and the interest rates actually rise significantly, they will increasingly withdraw the home savings amount

Moreover, has nicely explained why the target valuation number could come under pressure.

In this context, the search term is highly recommended
"Bausparen – Cracks in the System

A study by the Verbraucherzentrale Bremen within the framework of the Marktwächter Finanzen project – June 2016"

In 1981, exactly this situation occurred. In a phase of rising interest rates, the number of newly concluded building savings contracts dropped significantly. At the same time, demand for the meanwhile comparatively affordable building savings loans increased. As a result, the pool of building savers, the allocation mass, lacked the necessary funds to meet the allocation forecasts.

The consequence: Building savers had to wait three to 38 months, in individual cases even up to five years longer for the allocation of the building savings loan at some building societies than planned. They had to bridge this period with interim financing. To increase deposits, the building societies introduced new tariffs with higher minimum deposits.

So please spare us from repeating advertising brochure statements. Thank you!

The 5th largest private building society, and that in 1970!!!

Building societies rather have a luxury problem, namely too much money, with too high interest! Moreover, the low interest rate environment is squeezing the building societies, because who wants a building loan now when the market is cheaper and the highly interested ones with the then bonus options - which no longer exist in this form and where it becomes apparent how the building societies react to market situations, and these tariffs are now gradually expiring - do not result in a loan, since the bonus interest only exists with waiver of a loan.

Caspar2020, if you think interest rates will remain like this for the next 10 years or that the full repayment variants and variants with longer models will remain the cheaper options, then you don’t need to sign a building savings contract, not even as insurance for the house, not as a government-subsidized investment with WOP; employee savings allowance, Riester subsidy not, and also not as a loan-to-value-reducing savings investment for future financiers. Only if you think the interest rate level should stay like this, then I no longer take you seriously! Do you know the reasons for the low interest rate level and the reasons why that should change for us citizens again? Savings interest in retirement provision / expropriation of citizens? Inflation rates? Income increases?

Bring reasonable arguments and put them into economic context, above all, but not a 3rd-class building society whose name I did not even know. This still from a time when things – topic globalization and Europe – ran a little differently than today!!! Because of such stupid and isolated arguments like yours, some people can really be prevented from a great investment as part of their total investment portfolio, if they believe this nonsense!

It really annoys me that because of your – in my view unnecessary comments – I have to defend the building societies and the product building savings contract, because you really write completely out of context stupid stuff about it! I was never an advocate of building savings, but when it fits, it fits, and there are financing constellations where it fits, moreover, it is a subsidized product and can always be a trump card as insurance for property owners!

You accuse me of wanting to hold advertising events here, while you are spouting nonsense and going on a campaign against a whole industry because in 1970 an insignificant 5th largest building society with 86,000 building savers!!!!!!!!! went bankrupt! So??? Did that harm the industry? Did customers lose their homes? Were there no rescue actions that were not accepted?

I do not run an advertising campaign for my products – regardless of the fact that I am not a building society representative at all – no, I am advertising that you should read your posts with caution and recognize that you are a hobby expert. Opinions from you are ok, that is completely ok, but to underpin them so unfoundedly as you do with building savings, you need to make that clearer!!!!

Read, for example, the entire investigation by the Verbraucherzentrale "Bausparen – Risse im System". You can easily google it.

I quoted from it, for example, because of the allocation problems from 1981. And the basic problem (rising interest rates) is also what is a *possible* scenario they foresee for the coming years. You yourself say that interest rates have to rise. The only question is how high they will go.

The insolvency was only mentioned as an example that something like that has happened before (see your statements further down).

Building societies rather have a luxury problem, namely too much money, with too high interest!

That’s why they announced again at the beginning of this year to terminate a lot of high-interest contracts. And nobody currently wants to take out building loan contracts with interest rates of 3-4% last and this year (I wouldn’t either). But everyone wants to secure cheap loans in 10 years. Do you notice something?

That was from a time when things – globalization and Europe – were still a bit different than today!!!

Sure. But building loan contracts within financing can be quite long-lasting constructs. And that causes difficulties for the building societies; after all, the world is turning much faster than the inventors of the building savings principle had imagined.

By the way, your statements in this and other threads were:

[*
There have never been allocation problems, and the building societies have mastered all crises with flying colors.
[LIST]
[*]Answer: At least one building society went bankrupt. And there was also a longer phase of allocation problems (because interest rates rose sharply there as well). Many today take out TA/building savings contract constructs with terms of 20-30 years.


[*]The balances are unlimitedly safe


[*]Answer: They aren’t anymore... The building societies dissolved the building society deposit guarantee fund on February 28, 2017, and most building savers have received the new deposit certificate which only guarantees up to 100,000 per building saver via the Entschädigungseinrichtung deutscher Banken GmbH.

Once again a quote from you as a reminder. Hope you never wrote that in your clients’ advisory reports:

The deposits of building loan contracts are always secured without limit, including the interest. In addition to their own security systems, all building societies are secured by the Entschädigungseinrichtung deutscher Banken GmbH and alleged allocation problems will definitely not lead to forced auctions. That is adventurous, it questions a system that is intrinsically secure. A system that has always worked, in all crises we have had! Building societies have too much money, admittedly, also too much from highly interest-bearing funds, but these reserves are manageable, and customers are still partially cheated so that they exit these contracts.

You or your clients are not the problem with your sickness certificate for the house or the F60 to secure the KfW loan.

However, there are enough who currently go to banks/building society representatives with TA/building loan contract products in the range of 200/300,000 or more going into the house.

It annoys me a lot that because of your – in my opinion unnecessary comments – I have to defend the building societies and the building loan contract product because you really write completely out-of-context stupid stuff about it! I was never an advocate of building savings, but if it fits, it fits, and there are financing constellations where it fits, furthermore, it is a subsidized product and can always be a trump card as a sickness certificate in the sleeve for property owners!

Don’t be annoyed

I do not run an advertising campaign for my products – regardless, I am not even a building society representative – no, I advertise that your posts should be read with caution and that it should be recognized that you are a hobby expert. Opinions from you are ok, that is totally fine, but you have to better mark them when you support them so unfoundedly like you do with building savings!!!!

None of us have a crystal ball or have cornered wisdom.

I believe everyone who is active on the internet will not implement what they read 1:1 but will be able to question what they read and form their own thoughts.

I also do not fundamentally advise against building savings or claim they are all bad, but one should think about what they are actually signing.

At least I referred to sources from consumer protection agencies and several newspaper articles on this topic. But apparently, they are all stupid too.