Private retirement provision and free saving alongside financing?

That has nothing to do with before or after. If you take out a loan in the GmbH, one point regarding the securities is that you are liable with your private assets. The GmbH must already be quite large and financially well-equipped for the banks to waive this security. You can also work with a marriage contract and land register entry on the partner to at least protect the house in the event of insolvency; whether you can maintain the house in an emergency without the managing director's salary is then another question. But we are drifting too far off topic.

You can "protect" yourself against insolvency – that's the advantage of a GmbH. Liability is limited to the contributed capital. Private assets are not involved, unless insolvency has been delayed or gross negligence has been committed.

That is only partially true.

Health insurance/pension contributions for employees, taxes of all kinds must definitely be paid. The managing director of a GmbH is personally liable for this. Something has already been said about granting credit. And then private assets are indeed pledged after all.

Sylvia

...well, I don’t know, but I don’t believe that one can even remotely get by on the statutory pension in old age. Even if there’s no rent to pay... utilities, food, etc. all continue nonetheless.

That a property usually represents one of the lowest-yield retirement provision options is probably relatively undisputed. However, it could already be used in the decades before retirement, and THAT is probably more the reason for the purchase.
Whether the statutory pension will be enough can be calculated quite well in advance. Whether one "believes" in it is of course another matter... but one also "believes" in rising stock prices, guaranteed interest rates, surplus participation, a stable currency, etc.

Personally, I definitely don’t want to have to turn every euro or whatever the currency will be called twice... I also want to still "live" well then, not just vegetate...

Nobody probably wants that, but the question here should be: "Can one financially fulfill this wish?" Or analogously to your statement: "Do I want to turn every euro twice when I’m young in order to be free of that in old age?"

As for me, I have my property AND private and occupational pension provision including risk coverage AND liquidity AND various securities...

all broadly diversified... betting on just one horse is simply too risky for me personally.

The topic of diversification has already been addressed by bieber0815. However, the reason for this approach is probably to minimize risks due to lack of transparency. One simply does not have the necessary insight into the companies, their market environment, global contexts, political influences, etc., to reliably assess corresponding stocks, funds, surplus participations, interest rates, and so on.

It looks completely different with one’s own house, however. Of course, there are also certain factors here that are difficult to anticipate or not at all, but the risk is overall very manageable – the only absolute certainty is death.

As I already wrote, nothing speaks against running with multiple tracks, but you have to be able and willing to afford it. Those willing to pay a (supposed) price for this security because it helps them sleep better – okay. But it would be naive to believe you could still make a profit doing that.
Only with stocks do I consider this possible, but that is also a comparatively risky form of investment, where you, in turn, are rewarded for precisely this risk, which runs diametrically opposed to the originally existing desire for security.

An essential aspect for me when it comes to a property is the disciplining mechanism. If I know that I can only keep the house if I pay my installments (and it doesn't matter whether I earn a lot or a little or have financed generously or tightly), I am practically forced to build assets. I think that's good.

Many other, if not all other, forms of saving can be canceled, made contribution-free, reduced, etc. And people are often such that they want to treat themselves to something from time to time...

Regarding GmbH, there have been many "unpleasant" judgments in recent years. The fact is: Even without loans, a GmbH no longer protects private assets today as it did 10..15 years ago. Just by the way.

A key aspect for me with a property is the disciplining mechanism. If I know that I can only keep the house if I pay my installments (and it doesn't matter whether I earn a lot or a little or have financed generously or tightly), I am practically forced to build assets. I think that's good....

I hear that argument often too. But seriously: Do you really have to build a house to learn to "save"? I find that pretty weak. Saving should have worked before building the house (except if a man/woman won the lottery or inherited).

I find that anything but weak. I find it honest and think similarly.

If I have built a house and live in it, then that is a real value for me. However, if I save for it for 10 or 15 years, that certainly shows consistency and perseverance, which is quite commendable, but frankly, I would find it too stupid, probably knowing that I don’t even know whether everything will go well and I will be able to fulfill my dream later.

Giving up something you would like is simply much easier than restricting your already accustomed standard of living because you haven’t yet developed a taste for it. Ergo, I try to do everything within my power to remain a homeowner. (That’s also why there are so many celebrities and lottery millionaires who end up completely ruined after millions, but just as a side note.) If I save for it and it gets tight, then I just don’t save for 1 or 2 months ---> The consequence, reaching the savings goal 1 or 2 months later, is not immediately noticeable and therefore rather negligible.