We, the hostages of the bank!

Hello

You are making it too easy by shifting the blame onto the bank. If you own 2 apartments, an iPad, a brain, and eyes, you should read contracts. The big ones as well as the small ones.

about the small ones:

What can the bank do about mobile phone contracts, subscriptions, or small online orders? They score a customer, and if he has a negative record, they rate the raw numbers. Here's the score. Usually, all internet providers are aggressive when it comes to reports.

about the big ones:

When 2 apartments are purchased and a mortgage is registered, you should make sure to separate them! You also had 2 loan agreements! Probably the notarization was cheaper back then and you went along with it. Neither can the new bank be blamed for the collateral nor for the delay at the land registry office. And without new collateral, no bank will disburse loans.

What about the real estate agent? Surely the bank is to blame there too ^^

The only favor you did for the bank was signing a pointless Riester contract, very expensive

30% are deducted from that...

Correction: 20% (Otherwise the calculation doesn’t add up)

When 2 apartments are purchased and a land charge is established, one should make sure to separate them! You also had 2 loan agreements! Probably the notarization was cheaper back then and they went along with it. Neither can the new bank do anything about the collateral nor about the delay in the land registry office. And without new security, no bank will disburse a loan.

Regarding the topic of land charges, I would say that few people understand the difference between a land charge and a collective land charge. Only a few are aware of the difference, let alone that this was distinguished when commissioning the notary. Possibly, the bank’s instruction also went in this direction. In addition, people often colloquially speak of a mortgage—but how many of those are there? Right, very few. The differences are generally simply unknown.

Regarding the topic of Schufa and the 100-person example. I would exclude a score of 100. I don’t believe such a thing exists—it would be interesting to see if the bank wouldn’t almost interpret this as a guarantee if it were so.

On the topic of land charges, I would say that very few people understand the difference between a land charge and a combined land charge. Only a few are aware of the difference, let alone that this distinction was made when commissioning the notary. It is possible that the bank's instruction was also in this direction. Additionally, colloquially people mostly talk about a mortgage—but how many of those are there anymore—right, very few. The differences are generally simply unknown.

Regarding the topic of Schufa and the example of 100 people. I would exclude a score of 100. I don’t believe that exists—it would be interesting to see if the bank wouldn’t almost interpret that as a guarantee, if it were so.

With all due respect. If you call yourself an investor and don’t know any better, you ask the notary. He should be able to explain it. That’s what he is paid for. Complaining about the bank afterwards is, in my opinion, rude.

And for the score, each of us is responsible for ourselves.

Therefore, it is advisable to contribute the remaining 60,000 as equity. What does the bank do, conversely, with the capital/assets of the investors? The risk of this money that does not even belong to them, that is what is calculated, earned, and gambled with. And if you look at how much equity a bank must prove, it probably shouldn’t even receive money from anyone at all. The money that flows as a loan into the pocket of a small homeowner doesn’t even belong to the bank from which it is obtained. What risk does it ultimately have? The few euro-cent "risk premium" don’t save anything, you might be right about that. But they only exist on paper anyway. When it crashes, the homeowner is back with all his assets. It’s not like the bank says after the foreclosure auction: you can keep the remaining 70,000... After that, you are first milked and seized down to the last cent, including all fees. And what remains unpaid is the risk, nothing else.

But let me guess: you have a score well over 99% and now want to unload here that with an interest rate of about 4% you MUST pay the risk of all 97% scorers.

But let me guess: You have a score well over 99% and now want to dump here that with an interest rate of over 4% you HAVE to pay for the risk of all the 97% scorers.

Yes, probably that too. But primarily, I am a controller at a bank and professionally deal constantly with the topic of credit risk in all its forms, colors, and facets. And then I am also the builder of my own construction project.

I just want to point out here that scores (regardless of who provides them) of 97% are far from "good," but are highly risky for a bank (for the portion that is not classified as a secured loan). There are simply banks that no longer offer unsecured or only partially secured loans if the default risk is 3%. And believe me, that will be the majority. And the rest charge hefty interest rate premiums to cover the risk.