Far too many words for my much too small head but @ccf. A chart with the value development of the respective scenarios in comparison would have been nice. For me, no scenario would come into question, because the lump risk, the expensive and long-tied financing and the lack of flexibility are a thorn in my side. Maybe it's also because I find debt very unpleasant and I don't want to feel like I'm working for a bank. But today's world also demands more and more flexibility and is becoming more fast-paced and uncertain. If I would get a lot of money by a lucky coincidence and let's say I would go into financing with 60%+ equity, I would find that much more pleasant, because the repayment period would be much shorter and I could invest the rest (minus reserves for maintenance costs). But maybe I'm missing something.
•
33
•
@KapriolenSonne Thank you. I may provide a chart later. If necessary in a separate contribution. Let's see. The scenarios are already something for you, because you would then simply be the tenant 😁 The high equity sounds logical at first, but with the assumed parameters - purely rational - is actually counterproductive. The higher the equity ratio, the better off the tenant is in the end (at least as long as the assumptions do not change significantly). This is also discussed again in the third part, but from a purely psychological point of view, I can certainly understand the idea of aiming for a higher equity ratio and thus incurring fewer debts.
•
11
•@DonkeyInvestor Who knows, maybe I'll get a camper and go all digital nomad. The real estate/land and commodity prices are just stupidly high. I'm earning relatively well in my early 20s and would have plenty of time ahead of me, but still, real estate would be almost impossible to afford. But I also don't want to make a landlord even richer, I don't know.
•
11
•@KapriolenSonne make a hermit with a hut in the forest 😁
••