Finally financing approval and 2nd offer

I find the beginning very unfortunate, with the nonsense, because dear HilfeHilfe, the nonsense is rather that the banks require 2%. According to my findings, the two largest mortgage banks, measured by revenue, do not do that, because Ing.Ing-Diba accepts 1% repayment even at 100% loan-to-value, and DSL Bank accepts 1.5% repayment.

Furthermore, at a loan-to-value below 80%, several (not few) large banks accept 1% repayment.

The low repayment may be nonsense, but not the facts regarding the possibilities offered and the basis of my proposal. However, if at the same time a home savings contract is repaid in addition to the 1% direct repayment in the annuity, then one does not repay 1%, rather only 1% directly, while using further repayment money to buy the follow-up financing. The home savings contract justifies the shorter fixed interest period with the desire for 100% interest rate security, and this creates an interest gain compared to the longer fixed interest period.

I think this should be clearly stated and communicated as well, otherwise statements would be wrong, regardless of which option we consumers choose.
I believe the decision basis should be based on information that corresponds to truth and practice, otherwise decision-making would be difficult and distorted, and I would consider that nonsense.

I do not know what your findings are, but the minimum repayment applies. Everything else is negligent anyway and I would never advise anyone to do it. Should the borrower repay over 45 years at this interest rate level? If you obviously deal with it so intensively, you also know that special repayments are hardly and only in old contracts used disproportionately in new business.

He is not talking about a special repayment but about regularly saving into a building savings contract. Scheduled, planned. With a standing order/direct debit authorization. The money for that has to come from somewhere, in this case from the otherwise paid installment. And in fact, at least with Ing-Diba, it is such that they accept 1% repayment, so the construct is possible. Whether it is also sensible is another question, which I do not wish to judge now.

In my previous post, I only wanted to suggest considering choosing an annuity loan with, for example, 1% direct repayment and, if necessary, in parallel without obligation (since the building savings contract would not be a fixed part of the financing), securing the follow-up financing through special repayment capital and additional monthly repayment funds via a building savings contract. This justifies an interest rate fixation period of 10, 12, or 15 years, which justifies savings in interest payments compared to 20 or 25 years.

If HelpHelp now says this is nonsense because banks want a 2% minimum repayment, then this statement is more nonsense than the idea of an annuity loan with parallel accumulation of a building savings contract. And if I already choose a higher repayment annuity, then as a consumer I must also ensure that I have options to change the repayment rate, because it would be fatal in the event of rising interest rates if my repayment capital repays at 1.78%, while it could possibly be invested again at a fixed interest rate of, for example, 2.3%. I do not want to assume further or higher interest rate increases yet, but 20 years is a long time and whether I really want to repay 3% fixed (initially on the original debt) forever without an option to change the repayment rate... I don’t know. This is just a thought in passing, which is justified, because one chooses long security assuming rising interest rates; I think one should also apply these thoughts to one’s repayment money, and the solution of an annuity with low repayment combined with the building savings concept would be a flexible solution where I can always react and act, thus remaining master of my finances.

I also did not find it very nice to leave falsehoods as counterarguments, which is why I briefly intervened with another post on the contribution with the nonsense accusation from HelpHelp, so that wrong ideas do not dismiss good ones, or at least do not nullify the approach of the idea.

I don’t know what your findings are, but the minimum repayment applies. Everything else is negligent anyway and I would never advise anyone to do it. Is the borrower supposed to pay off 45 years at this interest rate level? If you obviously deal with it so intensively, you also know that the special repayment is hardly used in new business and only disproportionately in old contracts

If you secure the interest rate for the entire term, or would secure it, it would also be acceptable from my point of view if future property owners choose a long repayment period, as would be necessary, although 45 years would rather not be possible with building savings combinations, and those are the ones I just considered.

Of course, one should repay quickly, but rather when there is a high residual risk on the remaining debt at the end of the fixed interest period and especially knowing how the repayment is used most flexibly and sensibly. If this interest risk does not exist or is only manageable, in my opinion a 25-year-old could also pay off their property over 42 years if they consider it reasonable and suitable for their life planning and finances.

Only acquiring, wanting to acquire property if you have repaid it within a (who actually sets this and where can it be found??) certain period makes sense to me only if this period is supposed to be the retirement start. But if someone decides, knowing about the pension to be received, to still accept a residual debt at retirement and then continue to service it with a moderate monthly burden, one may find that strange, but it would also be conceivable.

I see no point in saving up a home savings contract at almost 400k. I’d rather take that money and pay off the loan. Everything else would have to be calculated for me whether it’s worth it. I generally object.

You argue against pauschal, okay.

It was an idea; arguments against generalization won't convince.

I think you should be right here and others will inform themselves, compare, and calculate.