We, the hostages of the bank!

Now it's getting serious. The previous examples were still far from a meta-level. More than just the score matters here. Additionally, there is security in the form of equity, job security, and income. And the score - if you believe the statements - does not show that. If you go to the bank without any significant securities and have nothing but a bad score in your pocket, numerous other payment obligations do not make it any better.

Yes, probably that too. But primarily, I am a controller at a bank and professionally deal constantly with the topic of address 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 (no matter from whom) of 97% are far from "good," but rather highly risky for a bank (for the part that is not assessed as a secured loan). There are simply banks that no longer make offers for unsecured or only partially secured loans at a default risk of 3%. And believe me, that will be the majority. And the rest charge hefty interest rate premiums to cover the risk.

However, banks also run completely different simulations to determine defaults for, for example, real estate customers. Then even a default probability of 0.75% is just below average. But that is like comparing apples and oranges. The Schufa provides indicators, while the bank (especially if it is an IRBA bank) incorporates its own real statistical values/experiences and comes to a well-founded conclusion.

However, the bank runs completely different simulations to determine defaults for, for example, real estate customers. Then a default probability of 0.75% is just below average. But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Schufa provides indicators; the bank (especially if it is an IRBA bank) incorporates its own real statistical values/experiences and arrives at a well-founded result.

After the 0.75%, the PD share decreases rapidly (at most one quantile, roughly felt), which leads to an average of 0.75%. Basically, it confirms my statement that 3% PD is too high or represents a significant risk that a bank is rarely willing to take with a new customer.

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’s paid for. Complaining about the bank afterwards is, in my opinion, rude.

And everyone is responsible for their own credit score.

It would be nice if people asked questions, but unfortunately this rarely happens, and with notaries there are also significant differences; some explain very well and others don’t... For example, with collective notarizations for building areas, a contract is read aloud to all builders, and then everyone is allowed to announce the amount of the mortgage during the notarization in front of the assembled neighbors. Many ordinary consumers are so intimidated during notarizations because they are "at the notary’s office" that they are simply afraid to reveal their supposed ignorance by asking questions. I’ve experienced all sides: working in a notary’s office, as a buyer myself, and working at the land registry office. In addition, I was allowed to gain insight into insolvency departments, compulsory enforcement, and foreclosure departments as part of my training. Many people are simply not capable of understanding all this and/or identifying problems with contract conclusions, and if they have no awareness of problems, then they simply don’t ask. Others simply trust that the "notary" knows what he is doing, and due to lack of other instructions, he carries out the supposed order.

But first and foremost, I am a controller at a bank and professionally deal permanently with the topic of address risk in all its forms, colors, and facets.

I almost thought so. Only someone who is knowledgeable about the subject can make such statements.

First of all about us. I own two condominiums, one of which is rented and fully financed and so far only slightly paid off, the other is paid off except for about 20% remaining debt. Of course, I want to sell the owner-occupied apartment after the new building, which should not be a problem in Frankfurt. In addition, the situation of the two condominiums was too complicated. The statement here was that one should already sell the owner-occupied apartment now and try to stay in it for a while longer and pay rent for it or move out immediately and look for a rental apartment for the interim.

The "financial structure" consists of several (Riester) home savings contracts and also bridge financing until the owner-occupied apartment is sold and we can move into the house. Also, with the purchase price payment, which is due at the end of this week, it will be tight because the land charge is not yet properly registered in the land register, as one still has to wait for confirmation from the city from which I bought the land.

The thing with selling the apartment is understandable. Sure – it should not be a problem to sell an apartment in FFM, but it also depends on the asking price. It is uncertain what price can actually be achieved. The bank acts according to the principle that craftsmen also like to apply: "Cash is king." In the end, you are a customer who has a loan burden through a full loan (1st condominium) and another burden (2nd condominium), which hopefully will be replaced soon. When this replacement happens (through the sale) is still open. To put it exaggeratedly: You could also stop the planned sale of the apartment after loan approval and disbursement = which in turn increases the default risk.

Regarding the registration of the land charge and the resulting delayed payout: Well – the bank only has the land as security. As long as this is not registered, the bank has nothing in hand as collateral. Therefore, this step is understandable. Were you already a customer at this bank (so that the bank can take your customer history into account) or are you a "new customer" they do not know?

The bridge financing is actually a rather better solution for you (I would not criticize it). The bridge financing is certainly financed variably (due to the short term and upcoming replacement), which is generally supposed to be cheaper than a long-term fixed interest rate. It can be fully repaid in one sum (after the sale) – without prepayment penalties.

That you didn’t have the iPad credit on your radar is understandable. I think many are not aware that they actually sign a loan contract with a mobile phone contract for 10 euros a month including a phone.

Certainly, it went somewhat unfortunately, but partly understandable.

Ouch, what happened here?
Sure, the bank wants to protect itself. And maybe it was too complicated for some people.
What really drives me crazy is that the bank takes weeks to prepare the contracts and then the time for the payout becomes tight. And even though we went to the notary again, the payout is still pending and we have to pay the high interest rates on the checking account.
Because of the score. A financial broker had mentioned that even credit inquiries lower the score.