Which financing option to choose?

My statement is a hint to the OP to consider whether the 40 that his savings bank wants to see as equity capital might actually be reasonable, whether there might be a reason why he is only being offered such wild things and insurances in his financing, whether he should perhaps approach this more frugally and then conclude a serious annuity. The answers are for the OP alone. Yes, when it comes to money matters I am very conservative, but I have always done well with it.

I have already understood that, but especially Ergo will also expect this equity capital, otherwise he will not get an offer there at all, and the insurance offer was not bullet repayment either, which is supposed to be irrelevant.

I could not judge at all here what the best option is (rather none at all), but in one thing we seem to agree: without equity or with little, this question should not even arise if it is available.

In order to assess the financing, which we are supposed to do, the following parameters must be clearly and accurately known:

- total production costs (excluding kitchen and inventory)
- land purchase price
- construction location (due to the selection of regional banks and state funding)
- incidental acquisition costs
- equity capital
- financing requirement
- desired interest and repayment rate

This would then create a common terminology and allow for sustainable help and support.

In order to be able to assess the financing, which we are supposed to do, the following parameters must be clearly and precisely known:

- total production costs (excluding kitchen and inventory)
- purchase price of the land
- construction site (due to selection of regional banks and state funding)
- incidental acquisition costs
- equity
- financing requirement
- desired interest and repayment rate

This would then create a common language and allow sustainable help and support.

it’s all in the initial OP

Please simply find a competent broker

HelpHelp

No, there are a few parameters listed and of course you can then add up the values, but errors can also occur in doing so, or the value to be applied can shift, thus leading to an incorrect loan-to-value ratio being assumed.

If we are supposed to compare financing offers with each other, then the loan-to-value ratio is decisive and it can shift if, for example, a kitchen is included, the incidental purchase costs (broker yes or no, real estate transfer tax for which federal state) shift, or possibly state funding is available.

We neither know the region nor any other details, but you say everything is in the original post.

I don’t understand why the OP shouldn’t post the initial situation in a way that makes it clearer to us.

Actually, it’s quite simple: You have to calculate the interest for each option. There will be huge differences. Then you need to decide for yourself what is more important: fixed interest rate or low payment. Usually, you can’t have both.

We have a rather fragmented loan structure. From KFW to the break and a building society saver, we have everything covered. This means we have saved at least 10k in interest compared to a classic loan, we have our interest rate security until the bitter end, but a higher payment and special repayments only through the KfW loans.

So simply declaring option 3 as the best doesn’t work. Your criteria are important here, not ours.