Which financing option to choose?

I find it a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Why is the combination with kfw used in one case and not in the other? Do you want the security for 20 years or not?

Thank you very much for the response RotorMotor

In the second post I wanted to improve the formatting, but something got mixed up. I don't know how to edit it, sorry.

As far as we are informed, the KFW part is regulated for 10 years. If I get the entire 365,000 for 0.6%, then it would be pointless to take part of it for 0.84% through KFW and thus pay more.

Therefore, KFW only makes sense in the variant where we buy a longer fixed interest period with a higher interest rate, or mitigate this again with the KFW part.

Do you want the safety for 20 years or not?

Yes, that is the question only the thread creator can answer. Personal risk tolerance is individual. Just like whether I prefer to eat apples or pears.

How would you decide or have you perhaps decided and with what reasoning?

That depends on many other things. For example, your income and assets. Whether you can or want to afford gambling. Or also the repayment and thus the remaining debt that still stands after 10 and 20 years. If someone here could reliably predict the interest rate development, that would of course be a great thing! So I would first decide how much security one needs or wants and then obtain appropriate offers. And not ask whether the red apple or the yellow pear is better now.

So we basically chose variant 1, but with Kfw, because with the repayment grant it was definitely better.

Why do we have the risk variant?
- Unlike you, we do not believe in significantly rising interest rates
- The remaining debt after 10 years is such that we could also manage it with a higher interest rate
- We believe that we can save significantly more than the bank allowed us as the maximum rate and the likelihood that we will receive gifts/inheritances in the next 10 years is still there. This further reduces the risk for the follow-up financing.

So basically we chose option 1, but with Kfw, because it was definitely better with the repayment grant. Why do we have the risk variant? - Unlike you, we don’t believe in significantly rising interest rates - The remaining debt after 10 years is such that we could manage it even with a higher interest rate - We believe that we can save significantly more than the bank allowed us as the maximum rate, and the likelihood that we will receive gifts/inheritances in the next 10 years is still there. This further reduces the risk for the follow-up financing.

For us, it's simply the KFW 124 variant, for you probably one with energy efficiency and therefore the grant? The arguments are plausible and a good point. Regarding interest rates, no one knows for sure.