House buying - No idea what one can afford

Google the formulas for how the terms of annuity loans are calculated and try it yourself in Excel

I still remember times when with 1% repayment you were done after 30 years...

I rarely agree with Steffen (because I come from a completely different angle and usually have a different opinion) but Steffen is basically right about private leasing.

The flexibility naturally speaks in favor of the OP's perspective, so the conclusion remains.... it can be done.

But it costs extra.

And in my opinion, that is precisely the OP's only problem.

Everything that makes life extra sweet simply costs extra.

Unfortunately, I am mobile right now and writing "long texts" is not so much fun. Maybe I will find the time for it this evening.

But I want to vehemently deny that only people with money are involved here, or only those with at least 50% equity.

What distinguishes most (not all) here, however, is that sooner or later they had a realistic battle plan at hand. And unfortunately, I do not see that so far except "what does the world cost...?".

You have received suggestions and tips, even if not entirely pleasant, and I would take 80% of them if I were in your situation. There is really some truth to that.

Even though I assess the current case here similarly to you, I do not see some assessments regarding 100% financing as entirely negative. I was in a similar situation as the OP and also had no significant equity and always spent all available income. Especially on expensive vacations. However, my income is significantly higher and I was able to save the ancillary costs in a few months and then start with a 100% financing. At Interhyp, all signals were green and due to 4% repayment, I was able to get 450,000 at 1.7% for 15 years. 100% financing therefore does not necessarily have to be high-risk and super expensive...

was able to save the additional costs in a few months and then start with 100% financing. At Interhyp, all lights were green and due to 4% repayment I was able to get 450,000 at 1.7% for 15 years. 100% therefore does not necessarily have to be high risk and super expensive...

The insight was not yet present with the thread starter today. In addition, today we had to deal here with 130% in his specific project (existing property via broker with quasi "furniture").

With 100%, the risk for the bank is significantly smaller. Also, you started with a significantly increased repayment.

Did you want 4% repayment or did you have to?

The insight was not present in the threadstarter today. Besides, today we dealt with 130% in his specific project (existing property through a broker with quasi "furniture").

At 100% the risk for the bank is significantly smaller. Also, you started with a much higher repayment rate.

Did you want 4% repayment or did you have to?

I see it the same way. But earlier there was also talk about 100%.

From 4% onwards we were offered significantly better conditions by a lot of banks. Interestingly, from 5% some offered worse conditions again. Even the Interhyp consultant was fascinated to play through the individual cases.

I checked again. On a large credit platform, the following loan-to-value ratios were realized at the end of 2015:

0-80%: 61%
81-90%: 23%
91-100%: 13%
>100%: 3%

The thread starter didn’t want to believe it, but an overwhelming majority (97%) paid at least the incidental costs from equity, if not contributed significantly more to the property financing.

Of course, equity substitutes such as muscle mortgage or building society loan also play a role.

How the WIKR influenced this can probably only be said/read by mid-year.

Unfortunately, the public data does not differentiate further in the >100% range.