I assume this bank has given a valuation which is favourable to the developer.
If another bank would give a more favourable valuation then I do not doubt for 1 second that the developer would request buyers use that bank instead
Secondly here are the published SARON rates for Raiffeisen Genève Rive Gauche (which is independent from Raiffeisen Genève Rhone). Bank margin on Saron is lower - suggest OP asks them why
Hi,
I am reviving this thread since I might look at buying a house. Nothing Mustachian, just lifestyle inflation compared to the rent.
House price is 1.04 MCHF (listed - I hope to get some wiggle room since there are some stuff to renew. I will for sure not go above). I can easily afford the 35% via taxable accounts. I want to put the 35% down immediately so that I just need one mortgage.
Right now, I have about 610k in taxable ETFs, 125 k in 3a (also ETFs) and about 110k in the 2nd pillar (I assume I could take the Altersguthaben out for buying). Another 10k are in my rainy day which I do not want to touch.
Questions is:
I can cover the whole first mortgage with taxable assets easily. Should I bring in the pension capital (potential lower return, but tax on paying out, low risk and no wealth tax) or should I only go with taxable (sacrificing opportunity, reducing my risk profile)?
I would leave my 3a as is since it is the best of both worlds : not taxable, not much of opportunity cost compared to taxable assets.
Did I miss other options ?
If I may piggyback: there’s this article by MP about direct vs. indirect amortization.
In the table “Comparison of direct or indirect amortization of a mortgage”, I don’t understand how he got the value for direct. For indirect, it’s clear, it’s simply the four rows above added together. But how did he get to 335’346 for direct?
I might be wrong, but I thought that I don’t need to amortize anymore since I already put the 35% down.
In my case this would therefore not be appliable.
That’s the crux here. I would say if you absolutely want to pay more than the minimum, you should use your second pillar. You will have more taxable wealth going forward, but liquidating stocks holding to save on mortgage comes with too high opportunity cost, I think.
I mean, if the choice is between withdrawing the second pillar or selling stocks, the answer is clearly the first option.
Firstly using pension is a bit of a hassle, but if we ignore that, it is simply do you want to reduce stocks or pension to buy the house. This is something of a personal choice, but it might be useful to look at your stock/bond allocation and see whether it is where you want it to be. If you are over-allocated to stocks, then selling stocks to fund the house purchase might be a way to bring this back into balance.
Personally, my risk tolerance has been decreasing, so I’ve been selling stocks to make extra payments into the pension for the last 2 years and in 2 years, my pension pot will be full. So I’m hoping stocks will go up for the next 2 years and then crash when I can then start buying stocks again at lower prices 
I am leaning into selling of stock because I am not believing into these high valuations right now.
But yeah, in the end no right or wrong, just a personal preference about risk.
Until now, I am full equity except for the pension part.
So basically from high valuations to concentrated giga high valuations (real estate in Switzerland)?
good point 
on the other hand, I see the house not really as an investment vehicle but rather a pricey necessity (housing) where I will allow myself some lifestyle-inflation (it will be for sure more expensive than where I am living now).
Well actually not totally, since it comes with an Einliegerwohnung, so some little income will be generated, which might offset the housing price, but not the opportunity cost.
