For banks and savings banks, the “best agers” are usually considered to be particularly creditworthy. Your credit rating is very good on the income side. Because their income with pension, pension and private supplementary insurance is guaranteed, it is “safe”. This is the case at the latest, since former Harry Potter formulated the legendary sentence “The pensions are safe”. This is more true today than ever, although the amount of pensions leaves much to be desired.
No pensioner needs to worry about the monthly pension being credited to the checking account on the last working day during the morning. But that’s just one side of the coin, namely the one for the running livelihood. On the other hand, older generations also have the need or the need to finance a property or to invest in the existing property. For this they need a real estate financing of their house bank. In the future this will be much more difficult or impossible, even though the creditworthiness of the loan seeker has not changed.
The polluter is the European Union. The EU Parliament stipulated with its guideline no. 17 of 2014 on the subject of “Residential Real Estate Credit Agreements for Consumers as well as an amendment to the Residential Property Credit Directive” that these provisions should be transposed into national, ie German, legislation by the end of March 2016. In addition, for the German credit market, “the lender’s obligation to provide advice is provided for cases in which the borrower’s account is permanently and significantly overdrawn”.
What sounds harmless, has serious consequences
This specification sounds as logical as conclusive. The lender’s credit rating usually includes, but is not limited to, checking the revenue side, but also the spending behavior. The decisive change is that the discretion of the individual credit institution within its own lending guidelines is significantly reduced. From the previous discretion to a yes, no or to a Jein on the lending is now often a clear, not to circumvent No. What is behind it?
EU takes consequences from the 2008 financial crisis
The pan-European financial crisis of the past decade was partly a real estate crisis. Once secure financings were shaky through prudent revenue or by a careless spending behavior of the real estate owners to priceless. This resulted in so-called “bad loans”. The real estate had to be sold and auctioned. In each case the real estate financiers were the losers. They had to cancel their claims. The formerly lucrative, interest-earning real estate loan turned into billions of euros in losses. That should not be repeated. In the future, a possible real estate crisis should be pre-built in advance, as it were preventively. Legislators start where loans are made and where lending is made, namely with credit institutions. So far, they could, now they may no longer lend real estate loans, if the income is secured, but the private management of the loan seeker is not right.
Payment seniors get into the negative pull
Property ownership is one thing, liquidity for debt service is the other. Bitter is this new restrictive attitude for seniors who need to invest in their property, for example, for reasons of barrier. They have to widen doors, make the sanitary area completely barrier-free, install a stairlift, redesign the entrance to the building at ground level and more. That quickly costs tens of thousands of euros. The money is not there, it has to be financed.
Nothing can be done without the house bank loan. If the no says, in the future must say, then the physical Gehandicapte is literally at the end. The EU, the federal government and the states start with this new provision where the risk is the most latent. This is not the revenue, but the output side. Affected by this are not only 60plus generations, but also younger workers, white-collar workers and even civil servants aged 50+. They bring home a decent income month after month. With the “investment in concrete gold”, that is to say in the property they want to make provision for old age. First nationwide experiences show that in many cases they also become victims of their rigidly decisive house bank.
In conclusion, it can be stated that the legislation certainly can not capture every individual case and regulate it individually. However, the current, under-differentiated attitude of the banks and savings banks not only leads to injustice but also to serious disadvantages. Only a few build or buy a luxury villa for the elderly. They want to take precautions, or they have to respond to new life’s vicissitudes. To deny them much-needed assistance in this situation, even though they have the creditworthy income, is difficult or even impossible to explain to those affected.