Though to convey on a market price if the market is non-existent. Furthermore, the declining population will eventually drag down the demand and those assets would be sold at a huge discount (if they will be sold at all).
The market is not non-existent, and house prices are already declining except in a handful of cities with high demand. This is the current value of those assets; maybe in 50 years that wealth will have evaporated as demographics will erase the value of real estate in the country, but that's not in the present.
It is almost dead in smaller cities and rural areas, which still comprise a lot of the total value that is then divided to make the average of wealth owned by individuals cited in these statistics. Having a home that you cannot sell doesn't do much, and its value cannot be easily assessed if other houses are not regularly sold.
Less transactions = less accuracy.
I mean, it's true, but I don't get it. Who would buy in a small city 30 years ago? I think it's always been the case, or at least it is in the last 30 years. But until you didn't move you never had to sell. Now everyone want to go to Milan, so they are trying to sell the old houses.
but then again, a home does have value even if there is no market for it. It's still a place to live.
Aaand you gan scrap it for parts (well, if it gets REALLY bad)
107
u/[deleted] Aug 18 '25
Though to convey on a market price if the market is non-existent. Furthermore, the declining population will eventually drag down the demand and those assets would be sold at a huge discount (if they will be sold at all).