Technically if it was about shifting asset values and hot-spots, then it would have the equivalent decrease in asset values of assets not in those hot spots. Eg

Technically if it was about shifting asset values and hot-spots, then it would have the equivalent decrease in asset values of assets not in those hot spots. Eg, increase in Manhattan apartments and a decrease in mid-western farms. That would cause asset prices to remain in sync with GDP as the worker would increase goods trade by producing more value in the hot spot. To me, this is probably caused by two things: foreign direct investment in property from China and oil princes which increases the demand for assets and boosts prices, along with slower than inflation wage growth allowing for more investment in assets instead of labor. Foreigner investment is obvious, but for the wage issue: if a business pays less of total profit towards workers, the business has more money to spend on assets. The GDP would be pushed down and the asset price would be pushed up. I'm no economist though. There might be other reasons that are more valid.