sorry, I have to disagree. That would mean that you have a right to a loan/credit and that the property as collateral is sufficient. People always talk about real (property) and personal liability (in the worst case wage garnishment).
Banks will never throw loans around but will set up a check for you where you enter into a 100% loan. It has to fit. If you have no equity and still 3 cell phones, a car on credit, and earn 5,000 net per month, then something can’t be right.
I don’t disagree with you there either. A bank will look closely at whom they grant a loan to. And a bank will not approve a loan without equity or other security. I only said that you can’t categorically say that with little or no equity a high financing is ALWAYS not sensible or conceivable.
Even with a 100% plus financing, there are situations where financing is possible without worries and is also sensible. Most likely, of course, in a low interest phase.
I also did not intend to refer to this financing with my statement, I haven’t read everything. Just to relativize the generalization a bit.
That having sufficient equity is positive in every respect, I do not question.