Financing request - How many documents are normal?

Sort of. The bankers really have no clue about construction! What we found shocking, considering they boast about handling real estate financing for xx years. They also simply don’t know the much-discussed difference here between general contractors and property developers, etc.!

We also see that the mistake lies with us. We simply don’t know how to properly play along in the banking system. That’s why we originally asked here for an assessment.

And you have no clue about financing

And you have no idea about financing

You are absolutely right! But that's exactly why we are looking for a good partner, and in previous discussions, we never felt well taken care of - and we wondered whether it’s worth looking for one or if it’s a wasted effort because they all think that way.

Hello,

we started a financing request which ended with the bank saying they don't finance if everything doesn't come from one company!

With all due respect: That is never the whole truth. After 15 years of experience in construction financing at various banks, in the approval and sales departments, I can exclude that as the sole reason.

We only want to contract the foundation slab ourselves (timber frame house in prefabricated construction). We simply save a lot of money if we hire a local company instead of having the home builder contract a company.

That is legitimate and not uncommon – and with a coherent cost concept definitely doable. The important thing is reliable figures, ideally supported by quotes in advance. This serves your security and the bank’s security.
Generally formulated, the following questions always arise:
Are there reliable figures? From whom do/did they come? Are these figures well-founded and also made plausible by quotes from the companies that are supposed to perform these trades?

We therefore asked a second bank, with which we actually felt much better off. But now the same discussion unfortunately starts: If you contract something yourself, then that is a big risk for the bank that the house will not be finished.

The second bank, the same problem – Is it really the bank’s fault?
Why should that be a major risk in the constellation you described? The bank checks beforehand whether the planned costs are plausible (and to me, that seems to be the problem) and in a second step, it checks whether the planned measures were/will be carried out step by step (disbursement according to construction progress). I stand by my statement – with all due respect, but this seems to be only half the truth.

Why don’t you have an architect preparing a cost plan? Who assures us that you won’t need additional financing? Please provide third-party evidence for every item (e.g., how we arrive at the estimated (!) sum for the follow-up selection).

All legitimate – The bank finances against collateral that doesn’t yet exist and must ensure that it will be completed as intended/planned with the requested sum. It is even legally obliged to do so. As I said, I don’t understand the problem at all – it ultimately also serves your own security.
In the end, the money you planned with is spent, but the property is not finished. That helps neither the bank nor you. And this risk must be avoided in new construction.

Are there increased requirements since the Corona crisis?

I can only speak for our bank. No.

We don’t know if this is the normal process we have to fight through because it’s like this everywhere or if we should rather abort everything and start anew?

Sorry, but with that mindset, you will have problems with every (reasonable) bank.

If you can believe the counterpart, credit amount vs. income/equity matches.

Maybe that is the case at the current status – but no longer if additional financing is needed because the costs were calculated too tightly.

We will follow up again. Because we already asked whether the “basic numbers and facts” even fit. If not, they should just honestly say no...

That no longer sounds to me like you are truly convinced of your project.

By the way, an architect’s cost breakdown is also made plausible by the bank – so the idea of “there just has to be a stamp on it and then they’ll swallow it” is not true. The most important thing is reliable numbers.

We were shocked! We only want to award the base slab ourselves (timber frame house in prefabricated construction).

I just stumbled over this in the quote of my predecessor: what gigantic difference in offers are we talking about here that drives you to the devilish idea of taking the base slab out of the general contractor’s contract volume?
This clearly belongs on my hit list of the biggest assumed stupidities in construction.

I understood that the base slab is not included in the scope. By the way, this is quite common with nationwide providers.

I understood that the floor slab is not included in the scope.

I already commented on this in April of this year ...

That made sense (for "prefabricated" houses) when basements were still typically built. Today, and with "solid" houses, it seems to me like legal but questionable price cosmetics. At the very least, I would include the floor slab "from raw property" as an option and have it executed by the same provider. Having the "top edge of the floor slab" as a warranty interface would not feel right to me.

... this was about a "solid" house. For "prefabricated" houses, it is basically the same: separating a house and its "substructure" into two manufacturing units can make sense or not. If the house is heterogeneous in the sense that the above-ground part is basically a timber construction and the earth-contacting part is a masonry or concrete construction, then we have a reasonable factual basis for a division, which lies in the different competencies. A basement is a complex field of competence; the same company can only become an expert either for one thing or the other. With a slab-on-grade house, however, in my opinion, one must be able to expect that the provider acts towards the customer at least in terms of warranty as a system provider, instead of cheekily expecting the customer to accept their offer covering only chassis, engine, and transmission, while providing axles and suspension at their own risk. Whether the provider openly and honestly says "let me pick the cherries and take care of the part I don't like myself," or chooses the elegant route of the defensive offer, selling this to the customer as their own cleverness, it comes down to the same thing: namely a risk shifted onto the customer. Whoever falls for that presumably understands as little about building as the bank criticized here presumably understands about financing. OKKD can be a reasonable (also warranty) interface, OKBP is – at least between general contractor and client – honestly not. At this point, my personal warning light as a financing decision-maker would have gone on and I would have read the cost breakdown with this corresponding warning sound in my ear. I do not want to constantly rescue banks with my tax money just because some builders consider naivety a legitimate layman’s privilege.