Is house construction financing possible at all?

Oops, I did not intend to start such a discussion with my statement. I only wanted to say that no matter how high the remaining debt to the bank is, if you can/want to no longer pay, it will sooner or later liquidate your property.

Today is the day of flat rates! ;)

I partly agree with you.

Nevertheless: if I am a tenant for 30 years paying 10,000€/year, I pay 300,000€ and have nothing left to save.
If I pay off my little house in 30 years with 10,000€/year, in the end I have 300,000€ in concrete gold. So a bit more than rent ;)

No no, that calculation doesn’t work like that... not at all.
You’re already starting out by putting in a lump sum, let’s say about 100k equity, which makes 3–10k of your 10k rent that you have to pay. At the same time, you have to pay interest on the remaining loan. Then the rent might already be covered ;)
As a homeowner, you also pay 15k every 20 years for a new heating system, 20k every 30 years for a new roof, 20k every 20 years for new windows. Every 20 years 10k for bathroom renovation...

Finanztest has in my opinion pretty good calculations, yes as a homeowner you’re slightly better off, but it’s by no means as much as people like to tell themselves.
And of course, as always, depending on what assumptions you want to make, you can neatly calculate it in all directions.

but it is by no means as much as people like to convince themselves.

I know that.., I told you.

As a homeowner, you pay 15k every 20 years for a new heating system, 20k every 30 years for a new roof, 20k every 20 years for new windows. Every 20 years 10k for bathroom renovation...

That too… I have owned property for 30 years… saved up some equity back then alongside rent and then bought… now built. Not for 300,000€, but 200,000€. I also don’t need 30 years, but now only 15 years for the built house. Ok, I’ll count 15 years for the bought house too, then it’s 30 years. But my house is now worth a lot more than I paid. Even if I subtract the one heating system and 25,000€ renovation again. Roof every 30 years and windows every 20 years I consider exaggerated. As a tenant, I would have more left for an RV and squander it ;) I’m saying: generally speaking! :cool:

Finanztest has, in my opinion, quite good calculations; yes, as a homeowner you are slightly better off, but it is by no means as much as one likes to convince oneself.

That assumes a condition which, in real life, only occurs in very few cases. Namely, that the tenant invests their higher liquidity—compared to the homeowner—profitably over time.
In fact, in retirement age it is actually the case that the homeowner is not just a little better off, but generally significantly better off.

It's just the difference between theory and practice.

That assumes a condition which, in real life, occurs in very few cases. Namely, that the tenant invests his higher liquidity - compared to the homeowner - profitably over time.
In fact, in retirement age it is actually the case that the homeowner is not just slightly better off, but usually significantly better off.

That's just the difference between theory and practice.

That is true, indeed... just like the nice calculations when a smoker quits and can then afford a Ferrari ;) And then the question to the non-smokers arises, why not everyone owns a Ferrari...

I would never have mortgaged my apartment and invested the money in an index fund. In a house, it somehow feels safer despite the concentration risk. Probably because you can still live in it, even if it is only worth half. That in itself is also worth something.