What can we finance?

This is, sorry, wrong from start to finish.

The only meaningful comparison calculation was already made by himself in #70. My critique of it was that you can only calculate like this if you were to sell the house. Moreover, I found the chosen time of sale arbitrary because it lies, among other things, before the following:


You misunderstand all these capital expenditures. Furthermore, the maintenance reserve is set incorrectly.

The real savings through the house are quite simple to see. Rent savings from the time of the last installment. Until then, you have built up assets and paid interest. The return on the assets has until then flowed into asset building.

The savings in %/year are not based on a payment of 300k, but on the 300k + all interest + all maintenance incurred until then. It is further reduced by the maintenance reserves, which you set completely wrong and which, as already correctly stated, are insufficient even with conservative reserves at the first proper renovation.

The big difference compared to, for example, stocks is that in the—let's say fifteen—years in which you use the rent savings for asset building through loan repayment, you do not generate compound interest effects, which run with stock portfolios from the first euro and the first day. You have to additionally factor in this difference concerning the repayment period (which is already short at 15 years in the concrete example). But you don't.

If you seriously wanted to compare house and stock market, you would also have to refer not to the return on the equity invested, but to the asset value. This means in fact: The greater the value increase in the house, the smaller(!) your return you can use for comparison. (Which is why selling and moving into age-appropriate rental housing can also be so attractive in the end if the house really has appreciated well).

From these arguments, it can be logically deduced that you are cooking the books.

Separating processes semantically here because it suits accounting does not change the reality behind the numbers. For these reasons, I consider your post factually incorrect.

You are engaging in wishful thinking and ignoring or twisting facts. I have stopped discussing with people like that who are not interested in facts but only looking for pebbles that might be useful for their preconceived opinion.

The problem here is that for future considerations you always have to make assumptions

10-12 years ago there were still yield properties here for 10-15 times the annual rent. Some places are now well over 30 times the annual rent.

The nice thing about owning your own home is the freedom to design the property the way you need/want it. As tenants, we would never have built our terrace roof. You probably wouldn't even have considered a sunshade if the landlord didn't contribute anything. But you can't express that in monetary terms.

What makes renting relatively cheaper compared to buying/building... and makes it purely economically sensible to sell and switch to the rental property. I've been saying that all along *duck and run*