> When wealthy people from abroad buy multiple apartment buildings in desirable cities, and then proceed to keep living elsewhere (probably in a different residence in another desirable city) they create a problem that in no way resembles the result of buying stock in a company.
I agree that buying housing stock and leaving it empty is an issue. But they're not the cause of all the housing issues, in most cases they're a tiny fraction of the problem. Most cities have vacancy rates of just a couple percent. Given the average person in a big city moves every 4 years and a home is empty for 1 month inbetween tenants/owners, you'd already have 2% permanent vacancy rates. Most cities have vacancy rates of 3-4%, Lisbon has 5%. It's definitely stupid to allow high vacancy rates and most cities have laws against them (here in Amsterdam you get fined for leaving your house empty), but even shaving off 1 or 2% off the vacancy rates isn't solving the housing problem. It very often features in newspaper articles because it's a clickbait story: rich person buys home and leaves it empty. Again, it's stupid and we should expand laws against it, but solving it still keeps 99% of the issues with housing which have nothing to do with this phenomenon.
And this phenomenon is limited precisely because housing is a market, and from a financial perspective it's a stupid idea to buy an asset and forgo its use or its returns.
Beyond that, nothing that I noted about assets has a disconnect because everyone else owning housing simply rents it out at the market rate, which is both the most expensive but also the cheapest marginal price to provide an extra unit of housing, which is the same for any asset and there's no real disconnect here.
I agree that buying housing stock and leaving it empty is an issue. But they're not the cause of all the housing issues, in most cases they're a tiny fraction of the problem. Most cities have vacancy rates of just a couple percent. Given the average person in a big city moves every 4 years and a home is empty for 1 month inbetween tenants/owners, you'd already have 2% permanent vacancy rates. Most cities have vacancy rates of 3-4%, Lisbon has 5%. It's definitely stupid to allow high vacancy rates and most cities have laws against them (here in Amsterdam you get fined for leaving your house empty), but even shaving off 1 or 2% off the vacancy rates isn't solving the housing problem. It very often features in newspaper articles because it's a clickbait story: rich person buys home and leaves it empty. Again, it's stupid and we should expand laws against it, but solving it still keeps 99% of the issues with housing which have nothing to do with this phenomenon.
And this phenomenon is limited precisely because housing is a market, and from a financial perspective it's a stupid idea to buy an asset and forgo its use or its returns.
Beyond that, nothing that I noted about assets has a disconnect because everyone else owning housing simply rents it out at the market rate, which is both the most expensive but also the cheapest marginal price to provide an extra unit of housing, which is the same for any asset and there's no real disconnect here.