Realistic or daydream? (Buying property without equity)

We have also just had good experiences with the Sparkasse despite very unclear conditions regarding equity, but with a good income.

That was so straightforward and after half an hour we already had the first figures that showed us in which direction it was going.

But you had the condominium. That is counted as assets for you, isn't it?

We have also just had good experiences at the Sparkasse with very unclear prerequisites regarding equity, but good income.

Exactly the same here. A bridging loan for the purpose of property switching is daily business.

But the starting position for the OP is 0 equity to be invested, or no substitute equity either.

3 different Sparkassen/KSK here in the area either have minimum requirements (each only has one of these requirements; the association ticks so differently :rolleyes:

[*] 15% "equity". Below that you can leave the bank directly; although, for example, a building society loan ready for allocation is counted as substitute equity.
[*] at least ancillary costs must be covered, but then with significantly increased requirements (higher flat rates in debt service capacity)
[*] Able to pay ancillary costs. However, increased repayment rates are mandatory.

Maybe you overlooked my question regarding your striking statement, but I think everyone would be happy if you could elaborate a bit on it.

especially since a mixed interest rate with 100% interest rate security of the target 2.5% still seems cheap and attractive.

Will you also tell us how much he has to pay monthly for that? So, how much do private loan + bank loan + building savings contract cost him monthly? Or how is the 100% interest rate security with 2.5% represented?

But you did have the condominium. That counts as assets for you, right?

Basically yes. But as I said, it was the bank that financed the apartment that saw how I paid off the loan in record time and always fully utilized the special repayments, which was not able to provide initial figures. Instead, it wanted some documents that the now financing bank never wanted. So I completely broke camp there, goodbye house bank.

On the other hand, after 10 years an even larger amount is still outstanding if you have long interest rate security and thus a correspondingly higher interest rate. A difference of 10,000 euros in the remaining debt quickly adds up. The OP can probably tolerate the risk well and service the loan even at higher interest rates.

.

10 years fixed interest? But then there is still a huge amount left that is called remaining debt! Caution, caution, you don't want to pass on debts either.

Morning, I just wanted to make it clear that after 10 years, in the OP's case, there is still so much to pay. I definitely did not mean to suggest that you should lock in too high an interest rate for 30 years. For example, we also have only 10 years, but after that there is a big "zero" in the remaining debt. You always have to reckon with the possibility that you become unable to work, and then the income situation no longer looks so rosy. And if you then need about 30 years to pay off the whole house, the risk is not manageable. Finally, once again: Just don’t take on too much debt!

If only people build who are debt-free after 10 years or can be, the construction industry will collapse.