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.
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.
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.
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.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.