Financing evaluation. Specify total equity to the bank?

Stocks and ETFs, however, benefit from the length of the investment. In this case, 10 years less can sometimes be a huge amount. I see no risk here at all.

yes are creditworthy

It doesn't necessarily have to be repaid at a specific moment. To me, this doesn't sound like speculation, but rather like a long-term investment, which in the vast majority of cases leads to a reasonable return over time. The money and income are there. I also wouldn't touch the portfolio and take a 4% loss to save 1% interest.. Possibly use the maximum special repayment in the first 3 years to further reduce the interest costs of the financing.

That was exactly the intention. So far, I have refrained from various Riester, Rürup and life insurance products and have arranged my retirement provision independently. They have already been on the market since 2014 and accordingly follow a long-term HOLD n Buy strategy.

Of course, I am well aware that the market has been very stable in recent years. On the other hand, and that is the core of the question, I hesitate as much as possible to liquidate, since the markets have simply been flooded with money and will continue to be so, meaning that capital will continue to create demand in the capital markets in the near future (stable or rising prices). If you look at the dividends alone, which come in every year (about 3%), we are well above the "lending rate" of the bank for the mortgage money.

This does not necessarily have to be settled at a specific moment. To me, this doesn’t sound like speculation, but rather a long-term investment, which in the vast majority of cases leads to a reasonable return over time. The money and the income are there. I also wouldn’t touch the portfolio and incur a 4% loss just to save 1% interest.
Maybe use the maximum special repayment in the first 3 years to further reduce the financing interest costs.

Thanks. So I’m not completely alone with this idea after all.

And as I said: Even assuming there is a 50% market crash in 3 months, wouldn’t it be reasonable to ride it out and then break even again in 10 years? At the same time, in case of job loss, one could keep paying the ongoing annuities.

But as I said: I’m happy to be enlightened by you about the weaknesses of this setup.

You are probably right with your assumptions. But there is still a small risk that it will not come out to +/- 0 in 10 years.

I think personally I just don't like debt very much and the less of it the more comfortable I would feel. But everyone is different. I didn't become a civil servant for nothing, because I'm not really into risk ;-)

And as I said: Even if we assume there would be a 50% crash in 3 months, wouldn't it be reasonable to just wait it out and then be back to plus minus zero in 10 years? At the same time, in case of job loss, one could service the ongoing annuities.

In that case, it would of course have been smarter to sell everything today and invest it in the house, thereby servicing a larger savings plan with a smaller rate over the next few years. The problem is, no one knows that. But it is known that prices are historically at their highest, both for stocks and for building ;) What is quite certain, however, are the transaction costs. By selling now, investing in the house, and buying again later, you also burn some money now. I'm not opposed to your strategy either. A few weeks ago, there was also an article in the FAZ about Volker Loomann’s approach (unfortunately behind a paywall) who calculates an example of it.