This is the correct answer. Mortgages work differently in the fastest-rising areas of the US than most anywhere else, in that a borrower can have no equity or

This is the correct answer. Mortgages work differently in the fastest-rising areas of the US than most anywhere else, in that a borrower can have no equity or negative equity in the home… and just hand back the keys. In the UK this involves a complex and lengthy bankruptcy proceeding. Honestly I think the US way is objectively better, but it massively changes the outcomes of how long someone will stay in a home that’s become a bad investment. The article is also looking at the wrong numbers for rents. How much rents have risen is far less relevant than how many rent starts there are over mortgage starts. The first statistic tells you how much people are having to pay to live, the second tells you if there’s really a shortage of homes or not. Some countries have implemented additional taxes on non-primary homes since the crash, but to my knowledge they’re not particularly punitive. I think this tax really is the solution (e.g. 5% value of the home in landlord tax per year).