We, the hostages of the bank!

Do I see that correctly? You have a property with almost 100% debt, one with 20% debt, and now you want to build another one with 100% debt? I don't think the "die Welt" subscription makes the difference anymore, does it?

Can only agree. We waited a whopping over 6 months for the bank's approval. The lady at the land registry office then also reacted after 3 weeks *oops - oh yes, there was still something* . The bank cheekily set the data for the contract conclusion to 2.5 months before the approval. So we had 2 weeks to draw down the loan without paying commitment interest. Of course, that didn’t work because the land registry lady also took that long. Since we already needed the money long ago, the developers were already pushing and getting quite fidgety. Really embarrassing. If we had insisted on the correct data now, the whole contract still wouldn’t be finished today. Since it was only about €14, it wasn’t a huge deal, but it was cheeky. Luckily, they are now very accommodating with the payout. That’s why we have calmed down a bit again.

97% is bad because then 3% fail within one year.

Simple math: Within 100 years, this customer statistically fails 3 times. In other words, this person fails once every 33 years.

Within a mortgage loan, this is not unrealistic. The question is just when it happens.

No one actually has 100%. But many do have 99.9%. Even a default probability of 1% is no longer good, only satisfactory. Good banking has a default probability well below 1%.

I might write a bit more about this tonight.

well "Die Welt" is also just a Bild without pictures ... you can understand that people become suspicious here

no seriously... a bank always evaluates the construction site as well. We were refused additional financing with an equity share of almost 50%.
It was about €20,000 on a total loan of €250,000. Back then still two full earners with a net income over 5k.
Maybe the bank also got cold feet after the review.
I think every bank has given out too many bad loans recently.

97% is only 0.5% below "very low risk" (there is no better category) and is classified as low risk. The difficulty in financing was not due to that.

This entire text from [Schufa] is superficially correct but says nothing, as fundamental assumptions are missing. The default probability of 2 or 3% is bad. Quoting does not help. The quoted text is eye-wash, so that there is no outcry.