Too old to buy a house?

YES the retirement provision is good, at least we hope so... but still, without repayments at my retirement there would be a remaining rate of 850 EUR and at my wife's retirement 450 EUR... but the idea with the company pensions is good. I will check if that works

You want to access your company/private retirement provision? People have such things to compensate for income losses at retirement and to at least roughly maintain their standard of living. Have you enjoyed a high standard of living so far, or how does the relatively low equity relate to your income/age? Even if you only have about 15-20 years left until retirement, I consider repayment based on retirement provision components quite risky.

Do you have children who could/would eventually take over the property? Then you don't have to be finished at all costs by retirement. For your bank, it apparently is not a problem to present a total term until you are 69/73 years old.

Hello,

Have you enjoyed a high standard of living so far, or how does the comparatively low equity relate to income/age?

I have to intervene here now...

When it comes to financing questions, I keep reading: "why so little equity? Have you lived too well?" etc. Can people who ask these questions not imagine that there are lifestyles in which saving equity is simply not possible? For example, those who have raised 2 children and enabled them to complete vocational training and university studies cannot show large equity, because the capital is tied up in the children! Any child who had to finance their studies themselves usually cannot show any equity either... those who had to move frequently for work are also not blessed with piles of euros... those who started their own business have their money primarily tied up in the business... etc.; there are many examples.

Could you please refrain from that?

Rhenish regards

We bought and renovated at the ages of 53 and 51. The renovation period was at times a horror; I felt every year of life times three.

Since we moved in, I have been experiencing a strange rejuvenation. From today’s perspective, we would do it again.

That’s my take on the benefits.

Now comes the somewhat critical side. Our income is somewhat higher than yours, and we planned to be finished at 63 and 61 with a 10-year full repayment mortgage. We wanted to allow ourselves two reserve years because at our age someone can also become seriously ill or similar. Then things could quickly get very tight if that’s not planned for.
If everything goes according to plan, we would then still have two years to increase “the retirement cushion.” And that wouldn’t be bad either.

I would no longer touch the normal retirement provision for a house at that age. Professionally, I have seen quite a few people who had invested their retirement provision in a house, couldn’t maintain it for various reasons, and had to prioritize servicing the bank without any reserve for old age. That would be too risky for me personally. But maybe I’m just too safety-conscious?

Sylvia

In this regard, I sometimes envy the Americans for their carefree attitude, even though I probably couldn’t or wouldn’t want to live like that. A house/apartment is bought at a young age. When a family is started, a bigger one is bought and the too small house is sold. If you don’t need as much space later, you buy the next one. Thanks to the built-in closets, they don’t even need to take many large pieces of furniture with them. Whether there is still a mortgage on it at the end of life or not is actually completely irrelevant. They live here and now, not for their children or grandchildren. At the moment a house is not used as retirement provision, it doesn’t have to be paid off either. By transferring the company/private retirement provision into loan repayment, the house then becomes retirement provision, since monthly expenses are reduced then.

I consider the question about low equity with a high income legitimate because in real estate financing it is regularly stated that money was spent in the past, but in the future of course one will save. Or it becomes clear that one also wants to afford a high standard of living with home financing, which relativizes a high income.

I find the question legitimate, but I can understand if someone does not want to answer it.

Hello,


I have to interrupt here ...

When it comes to financing questions, I often read: "Why so little equity? Have you been living too well?" etc. Can people who ask these questions not imagine that there are life plans in which saving equity is simply not possible? For example, someone who has raised 2 children and enabled them to complete vocational training and university, cannot show large equity because the capital is invested in the children! Any child who had to finance their studies themselves usually cannot show any equity either ... those who had to move frequently for work are also not blessed with piles of euros ... those who started their own business have their money primarily tied up in the business ... etc.; there are many examples.

Can you please refrain from that?

Rhenish regards

I know that there can be many other understandable reasons for relatively low equity compared to total costs. Besides the ones you mentioned, caring for relatives or a recently increased income can also be reasons. Unfortunately, the OP has not yet provided enough information to assess his question. Therefore, I directed that to the OP not as an accusation but as a question. It is a pity that you interpret it this way and my post has to serve as an argument for your comment.

The moment a house does not serve as retirement provision, it does not have to be paid off either. By transferring company/private retirement provision into loan repayment, the house then becomes retirement provision, since monthly expenses are then reduced.

But if loan installments are still outstanding and income decreases upon retirement, then there is less money available. Or am I missing something here?