How much money do you have on the edge?

1) Production costs 315,000 euros including outdoor facilities and 2) without 300,000 euros.

Equity 100,000 euros.

Loan-to-value values 1) 315,000 euros 2) 300,000 euros

Financing requirement 1) 215,000 euros 2) 200,000 euros

Loan-to-value ratio 1) 215,000 euros divided by 315,000 euros = loan-to-value ratio 68.3%

Loan-to-value ratio 2) 200,000 euros divided by 300,000 euros = loan-to-value ratio 66.7%.

Provided a bank is selected that does not apply a safety margin.

In these calculations, the ratio does not make a difference in conditions, but it goes without saying that if we determine 69% and 71%, in consultation with the consumer, customer, the builder, and with the acceptance of my banks (and these are almost all relevant banks) I do not leave 71% standing, which sometimes results in 0.2% - 0.3% worse interest rates, but rather bring the loan-to-value ratio down to 70%, and this happens when I increase the costs by 5,000 euros and the equity by 5,000 euros EL, so that the requirement remains the same, but the ratio decreases.

That can be expected from me as an experienced financing broker, otherwise one can also just go alone to the bank and take what they give, and the good banks also adjust that for their customers and if not, well then that can only be good for us big intermediaries, because we will – and not only for that reason – be able to generate better conditions, and at the latest when our offers arrive on the table there, they are also more flexible.

It is possibly fraud to state outdoor facilities that are then not made or not even intended, but to state small equity portions which almost every builder does somewhere, no one, no judge, no bank equates that with fraud!!!!!

I have absolutely no problem if customers who talk about fraud go to their house bank or anyone else, who then disadvantage the customer in another way, without speaking of fraud here now.

It’s fine, the early bird catches the worm and that one does not fly backwards.

By the way, the judge and the banker who then have to rule on fraud will not define fraud, because if he himself commits it, he does it no differently, especially not if he takes an hour with me in his planning cool: and a few former colleagues and also judges have already sat with me

You are babbling a bunch of nonsense and your calculation proves my point. Whether and what can still be adjusted in the conditions is completely independent of whether it is without or with an additional measure, and with that we are back to my very first response to your original post. By the way, this possibility is also completely independent of whether a garden is 100 % value increasing (or 50 % or 17.3 % or 0 %). And I know that, completely without having a house bank.

No, I’m not going to explain to you how loan-to-value ratio and equity ratio are related. Get further training if you don’t know that. Tip: that’s exactly what it was about.

I also don’t know what it’s supposed to be about “again.” Do we know each other better? Was there a “previous time” and if yes: what was it about then?
From my side, it’s about the fact that you are spreading nonsense here that can easily mislead unsuspecting readers.

Oh Kekse, I do accept your opinion, all good and for the sake of peace I’m also stepping back again, just one more thing, you define fraud for yourself, but not for me or the consumers, let alone for the common practice and the laws.

Do it as you see fit, all good, but don’t accuse me of fraud, because I have never committed fraud, in almost 30 years not, verifiably, and I know what I’m doing, okay? Thanks.

You are one kilometer off topic.....

Which authority is actually responsible for supervising financing intermediaries? Just curious.