On the topic of the amortization schedule: of course it is correct. Anything else is nonsense talk. You can calculate or set up an annuity loan down to the cent exactly in Excel. BUT: the amortization schedule starts from a fictitious date, which means if the disbursement is delayed or paid out in partial steps (as in your case with renovation), the timeline or amortization schedule becomes invalid. This is basically the case with all loans. That simply means requesting a new one after 100% disbursement. Regarding renovation: yes, the funds are then approved. But especially with renovation involving own labor, the payment prerequisites should be checked (submission of invoices, construction progress report, etc.)
Where is the amortization schedule correct? Something like this would get a 6 in vocational school and just fail at university. Consumer protection agencies would issue warnings here. So beware! Something like this really shouldn’t even be called an amortization schedule under the new guidelines.
Don’t let the sellers in the market confuse you with smoke screens. This is usually the strategy of bad advisors. Look for many alternative scenarios and comparison calculations within the framework of longer fixed interest periods, with and without full repayment, with and without suspension of repayment of home savings contracts. And if you want a combination with a home savings contract, obtain offers from at least two other building societies. An advisor must be able to juggle alternatives and express the pros and cons not only qualitatively but based on actual numbers that include all costs and also the correct timing of their occurrence. If you are only shown one variant, it is a sale, not advice. Moreover, the amortization schedule should contain all attributes according to the consumer credit directive. This amortization schedule does not comply with the formula of the directive, nor does it materially correspond to the presented products. It is not only worthless, but here one must already assume deception or ignorance of financing and amortization schedules. Sorry, but this makes me furious when "HilfeHilfe" obviously presents formally and materially incorrect calculations as a banker (!) as correct. Consider that it could possibly be to the detriment of the post’s author if he now also believes your sweeping statements – by the way, you have failed to provide evidence.
What could be a small comparison criterion for the author of the topic in the end is the total interest burden over the entire term of the loan. However, this is only meaningful if all costs are included in the calculation and certain assumptions about interest rates are made. If you use the amortization schedule here as a basis for determining the total interest burden, you will be taken for a ride!
