You obviously have to pay back the remaining debt, but this makes it super smooth to either pay off all debt in one go or refinance.
Anything after the 10-year-period comes without any kind of penalty.
Getting out of the contract earlier is possible, but comes with a penalty called Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung — it boils down to the bank demanding the interest payments you would have paid if you‘d stayed in the contract for the whole 10 years.
However, afaik, if you also had an agreement on „Sondertilgungen“, that is, if the contract allows to pay x% of additional down payment every year, the bank must assume you had paid this for the remaining years in the contract.
No financial advice.
You're essentially paying to originate a new mortgage (with the same originator as your previous or anyone else).
Proceeds pay off previous mortgage, and no one can really tell you no.
I'm not sure if any US mortgage can have prepayment penalties and be compliant? (for resale of the mortgage debt)
Worst I've seen is "If you pay fully before X date, we'll charge you the closing fees we comp'd you originally."
If not, I assume someone would have written a 3/1 ARM with predatory early repayment provisions, so I'm guessing there's probably a conformant mortgage guideline (e.g. from *Mac) that prevents clauses like that.
The concept is that you are taking out a loan to pay off an earlier loan.
If you borrowed at 8% and rates dropped to 2%, you could refinance even if your house price dropped, and it would still make sense, as you borrowed what you borrowed, and still owe it.
Now, if you are trying to refinance and take some money out from equity, sure, that relies on having greater equity than the loan value.
so whoever lent you at 8% would take a loss if you could just abandon that rate and went with someone else's 2% rate. Therefore, it can't be this simple - somebody must be eating a loss. I suspect that 'somebody' is Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae , which is a quasi-gov't corporation and therefore, they might be able to take the loss without worrying about profitability.
Why would they? If I lend you $100 at 8% interest and for simplicity let's say it's an interest only loan so you only pay the interest I get $8/yr for my trouble. Then you refinance with someone else at 2% and I get my $100 back. All good, now it's available to me to loan back out. The only thing I've "lost" is future profits but you also could have just paid off the loan entirely in cash to the same effect.
but this is a real loss, since the original loan contract was for 8% p/a for X years.
In a different country like australia, a fixed term loan cannot be paid off without the expected interest. This is why i am confused as to what makes refinancing work - who eats the loss?
This is of course stupid on the part of everyone involved but especially the person who currently owns your loan. Lowering the interest rate for a person with an underwater mortgage can only increase the security of it as a financial asset. If they default it's pure loss. But a new bank doesn't want to take on an underwater mortgage and even at the institution that owns your loan the left hand originating mortgages doesn't know what the right hand is doing servicing them.
The bank can sieze the property and sell it, but by definition they will lose money.