Maturity of mortgage loans - Under what circumstances?

Thanks for your answers! So I take the following with me and had already thought so: The bank would legally have the possibility to demand the loan repayment immediately, especially since "significant deterioration of financial circumstances" is not precisely defined and must be interpreted by courts.

However, the banks will probably not do this as long as the installments are being paid, because they assume that it would be financially disadvantageous for them. Which is probably true.

this is always this misconception that the greedy banks are happy when they can demand payment and get all the valuable real estate.

A bank has only one interest: that the interest income remains stable. And it only remains so if the loan is serviced. There is no department that is able to check every creditworthiness daily. The check takes place purely through the monitoring of loan repayment.

However, there is still Building Code 490. It is not so clear; in particular, a significant deterioration (even if only threatened) could lead to or enable action by the bank.

We are not talking about the significant deterioration (of creditworthiness or property). This has always led to consequences according to the GTCs (additional collateral, termination, etc.). That is not new. Therefore, referring to practice, I stick to my statement.

In the last 25 years, I have not seen a single loan that was terminated unjustifiably. Even in case of unemployment, the bank does not take action as long as the installments are paid. Only when the borrower no longer pays the installments does the bank react. Property deteriorations that are identified in the course of new valuations (but actually only with investment properties) often lead to discussions about the bank's collateral position.

The bank would legally have the possibility to demand the loans immediately, especially since "significant deterioration of assets" is not precisely defined and must be interpreted by courts.

It is not immediate. And as written, part of the significant deterioration includes that the collateral no longer covers the risk. And there are court decisions on that as well.

A very theoretical scenario would be, for example, purchasing a property during a hype and financing it with 100% or higher loan-to-value.
Now comes a substantial crisis and the property value drops below the amount of the outstanding loans.
Now you come along and also have financial difficulties or cannot provide substitute collateral etc. Then it would be a case for 490.

It is not from one moment to the next. And as mentioned, part of the significant deterioration includes that the security no longer covers the risk. And there are court rulings on this as well.

A very theoretical scenario would be, for example, a property purchased during a hype and financed with a 100% or higher loan-to-value ratio.
Now a substantial crisis occurs and the property value drops below the amount of the outstanding loan.
Now you come along and also have financial difficulties or cannot provide substitute securities, etc. Then it would be a case for 490

Then every bank is glad when it is serviced! It is more theoretical in nature

Then every bank is happy when it gets serviced! It is more theoretical in nature

Of course. At the moment, the situation is excellent. The question will be how banks will act in a substantial crisis to reduce risk positions. And that will rather affect those with a very high loan-to-value ratio than those with a buffer (between loan and value).

Of course. At the moment the situation is excellent. The question will be how the banks will act in a substantial crisis to reduce risk positions. And those who have a very high loan-to-value ratio will be affected more than those who have a buffer (between loan-to-value and value)

yes, and then? will they massively terminate the loans and worsen the crisis?

no bank wants to become a real estate or loan dealer