Financing evaluation. Specify total equity to the bank?

  • Erstellt am 2021-01-01 15:41:19

Joedreck

2021-01-02 08:08:58
  • #1
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.
 

HilfeHilfe

2021-01-02 08:13:58
  • #2
yes are creditworthy
 

Smeagol

2021-01-02 09:31:16
  • #3


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.
 

Smeagol

2021-01-02 10:26:41
  • #4


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.
 

Hausbautraum20

2021-01-02 11:48:15
  • #5
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 ;-)
 

WilderSueden

2021-01-02 12:25:47
  • #6
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.
 
Oben