When a government closes a golden visa program citing housing prices, they are communicating one thing that buyers should hear: part of the current price level originates from capital flows generated by the program itself.
What Just Happened
Spain closed its golden visa program on 03/04/2025. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez cited housing affordability as the reason, backed by data: non-EU nationals purchased approximately 27,000 properties in 2023, mostly for short-term rental.
Portugal removed the real estate route from its golden visa in October 2023 for the same reason. Rental prices in Lisbon and Porto rose 40 to 60% during 2020–2025.
Greece did not close its program but made three moves: raised price thresholds by region, created a tiered structure ranging from approximately €250,000 in heritage zones to €800,000 in high-demand areas, and banned short-term rentals for properties used to qualify for golden visa residency.
Three countries, three responses, one underlying cause.
The Mechanism Is Simpler Than It Appears
The golden visa program creates a group of buyers insensitive to price in the way conventional homebuyers are price-sensitive.
A homebuyer compares price to personal income. A visa buyer compares price to the value of residency. If the program threshold is €500,000, a property at €500,000 and one at €400,000 are not two choices—only the first qualifies.
Result: prices cluster around the program's threshold, and properties near that threshold are priced by visa demand rather than by use value.
Three Risks for Buyers
Risk one: buying at an artificially high point created by the program. If part of the current price stems from visa-driven demand, that portion evaporates when the program closes or tightens. Buyers who entered earlier keep their residency status but may lose price appreciation.
Risk two: illiquidity when you need to sell. Programs require holding the asset for years. When the holding period ends and you want to exit, the pool of potential buyers has shrunk—because the program has closed.
Risk three: new restrictions eliminate your exit strategy. Greece's Airbnb ban is a clear example. Buyers who factored short-term rental income into their model lose that option, and long-term rental yields are typically much lower.
This Does Not Mean You Should Not Buy
Two separate questions exist, and conflating them is the source of most poor decisions:
Question one: Is residency valuable to my family? University tuition, healthcare access, travel rights, a second home base—these have real value and do not depend on property price appreciation.
Question two: Is this real estate a sound investment?
If question one is yes, and you view the capital as primarily the cost of obtaining residency status—acceptable even if prices do not appreciate—your decision stands on solid ground.
If your decision rests on the assumption that prices will rise, you are making a real estate investment bet in a foreign market where you do not live, lack local knowledge, and where prices are visibly influenced by a policy that can change.
How to Validate the Reality
Compare to the non-program market. Research prices for similar properties below the program threshold in the same area. The gap tells you what portion of the price is driven by visa demand.
Look at long-term rental yields, not short-term. Restrictions can change; long-term yields are a more conservative figure.
Ask who will buy it back. If the answer is mostly "the next visa buyer," your exit liquidity depends on the program continuing.
Consider non-real-estate routes. Many programs offer fund or government bond options. They carry distinct risks but avoid concentration risk in a single asset in a policy-driven market.
We do not sell real estate and receive no commissions from projects. This piece lists risks instead of projects, and that is the entire reason.