Let’s say you buy a house worth 1 million, with a mortgage of 800k. Now the market collapses by 50%, so the house is only worth 500k. To get back to the 80% mortgage, you need to pay back 400k to the bank.
Not true; the house would belong to the bank (margin Call) and you still owe the bank 300k (or whatever the difference when they liquidate it).
Why do they need to liquidate it? Let’s assume, I want to keep the house and pay the bank 400k to get the mortgage back to 80%, would this not work?
1 Like
Yes, that is the additional funds @Giff was refering to.
In this case you have:
- a house worth 500k
- outstanding debt 400k
- downpayment 600k (200k at the beginning, 400k additional capital)
That’s exactly what I tried to explain to @Eluc
1 Like
Ok I got it, that’s why I would not consider getting a mortgage on 80%, maybe 60-50%, to reduce this risk. And anyway our income would not grant us a mortgage with much less down payment. Unless my wife just get a job at 100% for a few months just to get the mortgage and then she quit but I don’t think it’s a good idea.
On the other side I would not buy such expensive house, even if I can afford, if I don’t think it’s a in a high demand area. So I’m maybe good renting another 5 to 10 years until either I have enough founds to invest in a house with 50-60% down-payment (or more) or that the housing market crash deep enough to make it worth taking the risk. At least I’m no more having remorse spending money on rent now that I know it doesn’t change much in the end regarding the situation.
I don’t know where you live, but I live in a rural area and something halfway decent for a family here starts at 850k, below you only get crap houses or crap location.
2 Likes
Totally agree with your conservative approach. Many don’t fully realise the risk they are taking.
To add my two cents on risk, we had several arguments with my S.O. on the rent vs. buy topic, my main point pro-rent (being a very risk adverse person) is the lack of leverage, freedom of change anytime and lack of opportunity cost. Also the market is a complete bubble where we live.
Don’t take me wrong, I’d love to have a property where to live, but as much as that is desirable, the feeling of being very limited in your options of movement and financial freedom for 5-10y at least seems a bit risky to me.
She, on the other hand, due to family background craves for ownership and “building equity” in something concrete (and emotionally meaningful, after all).
We settled on a compromise, which is looking for an apartment vs. a full house, and a property that could be financed by either one of us in case life takes a turn for the worst. Most likely I will need to support with a bit of equity for downpayment, this can be done prior to discussion with the banks, but otherwise she can get a mortgage entirely on her own relatively comfortably, and I would pay rent afterwards.
Option to consider.
3 Likes
Would you buy a row-house that has only a 3.5% gross rental yield (near Basel)?
The yield is poor, but this kind of smallish house doesn’t come up for sale very often. The idea would be to rent it out for the next 10 years and then maybe downsize into it.
1 Like
Is it connected to Basel Public Transports?
I saw what friends payed for a row house in Basel. I think when the price is good an financing available I think I would buy it.
1 Like
Yes it is on 2 bus lines. What did friends pay and how big were the houses?
only if my RE allocation would not shoot too high in comparison to the rest as a consequence
1 Like
The only other thing that worries me is any potential downturn in the economy which reduces demand for housing e.g. Basel is somewhat dominated by big pharma who seem to be making continual cuts and off-shoring and with OECD tax changes and Trump trade moves, it seems that this probably goes only in the same direction.
Difficult to predict overall RE market. But row house especially when you own the full house are valuable, I believe a small fraction <15% are single family house in Basel city.
moreover you have more opportunists to further develop the property: extended terrace, nice garden, put a sauna or gym in the garden….
I can see the argument for a detached single family house. But by row house, I mean a terraced house, so one which is joined by neighbours on each side. Like this:
I assumed Swiss planning permissions were quite strict (and neighbours interfering) so would be surprised if you can develop a gym/sauna in the garden!
2 Likes
I think 1.5mio. It is one of these classic basel old (1930+\-)row houses, like you see in the Hirtzbrunnen. Narrow and 3 stories high. front yard almost not enough for 4 bikes and backyard not much bigger.
except the roof all was really old, they had to redo windows, kitchen, piping, electricity, kitchen, Bath. Wouldnt suprise me if they ended up 1.8-2.0 Mio
Purchase was made from a friends familiy, no bidding war.
Holy moly. I guess Hirtzburnnen is much more desirable. I saw something similar but much smaller (only 2 stories high) a few years back near St Johann and that was maybe 800k but in need of severe renovation.
The one I’m looking at is only 2 stories high but at least has a decent sized back garden.
I think Tram connection beats bus connection.
But also I am convinced that houses with a bit garden will have a pro argument for families. Another couple bought in Aesch, newer build but bad access with car to the house and only few m2 outside area. also narrow and 3 stories, strange floor plan (no place for warderobe for example) 1.2 -1.3mio
Yes, this is the major disadvantage of the narrow row houses, the rooms are narrow and thin so hard to make good use of the limited space available.