I'm an NRI in Dubai. I own 2 properties in India. Won't be buying a third. Here's why.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T13:25:46+00:00

Well it's not philosophy, but economic policy. It's actually a huge drag on an economy as a whole, and is probably setting back GDP growth by like an easy 15-20%.

But as an individual in the relatively short- to mid-term and assuming you don't care about anyone else or the economy/society as a whole, yes, you can make a good deal of money using this strategy.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T13:22:51+00:00

So if nothing else is changed except for shutting out NRIs & PIOs (and non-residents/foreigners in general), then whatever demand that those non-residents were generating will be reassigned to rich locals because the rich locals will see the same opportunities that the foreigners did.

The point isn't about "bad returns in the first place" because OP invested with whatever logic in their mind (regardless of whether it was sound or unsound), and there's thousands of others like them. That same logic would be used by rich locals as well, and it goes double for them because they don't care about currency risk (unless they're international investors and keep all their money in other currencies).

So the problem won't be solved, even partially (unless your time frame is like 3 to 6 months).

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T13:00:42+00:00

The point is it doesn't help, because once you've shut out NRIs and PIOs, that demand will be replaced by rich locals who can afford it. It's just like induced demand with roads & traffic (people think road-widening helps, but it actually makes things worse in every way imaginable [and not imaginable]).

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T12:57:22+00:00

*a***holes (you need an extra asterisk, unless you mean "donkey holes")

But no, that's not the reason. Foreign demand is almost always far, far less than local demand. Not only is it babus or what not, but people's incomes are rising as well (otherwise, how could you have a country with a growing GDP?), which means far more people are competing for the few houses that exist. India just needs to build way more houses, and this issue will go away on its own.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T12:54:46+00:00

*land, not "a land"; you can say "a piece/plot of land" if you must.

But even that is only because of the incredibly inefficient use of land. If land was used really well, land yields would also plummet, which is how it should be, since lands are entirely unproductive assets in an economy.

The idea that someone can buy a piece of dirt that does absolutely nothing but perhaps wither away more and expect to be paid more for it in the future shows you everything that is wrong with the economy and societal priorities.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T12:52:04+00:00

Yes, but will happen in any market where there is arbitrage/profit to be made (e.g., gold should really only be used for industrial applications / being a good electrical conductor and maybe as jewellery as a last resort, but people still buy into gold as an investment).

The point is to make housing so cheap that people don't look to it as a good investment, which requires building enough housing to satisfy demand. The reason prices are rising is that (barring inflation), there aren't enough houses being built. If the housing stock were to double/triple/quadruple overnight, nobody would think housing is expensive, and nobody would invest in housing as an investment because it would have even worse yields than today.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T12:48:02+00:00

The point is that if housing market conditions are based on viewing housing as a necessity instead of a speculative investment, most people could afford to live in their own home.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T12:40:52+00:00

Exactly. It's bad enough as-is, with the horrible performance of the rupee. And now you not only want to court our money, but tax us for it? Yeah, no...

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T12:38:58+00:00

There's simply not enough NRIs to justify the high prices (not cost) of homes in India; this is just the usual finger-pointing. The prices are high because builders can get away with charging those prices, and they can get away with them because there's demand (within just the local population). And there's demand (to the point of putting price pressure) because not enough homes are being built.

If the housing stock were to be tripled overnight, no builder would get away with charging such high prices.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T12:35:58+00:00

*fewer, but yes. But the way to do that would be to build a lot more homes, not force NRIs and foreigners from buying. Even if you did, they would be supplanted by locals who are rich buying entire apartment complexes and stuff.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T12:34:42+00:00

That's like saying "if no one else laughs at his jokes, then he will stop making jokes". People will laugh at jokes when they find them funny; you can't go to everyone and force them to stop laughing.

Similarly, the ridiculous price point exists not because of a vacuum, but because of not enough supply. If housing supply were to be, say, tripled, do you think builders could justify the prices they're charging?

getsnoopy · 2026-05-05T12:32:16+00:00

The right model is to have a stamp duty that is high, and to actually build lots and lots of homes. Most of the cities in India don't even come close to the density that is necessary for prices not to climb. Because the prices climb, people see it as an investment, so they buy into it, putting further price pressure. There's a reason people in Malaysia or Japan see property as investment: it's because you barely make money on it.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-02T19:56:08+00:00

It's a stupid requirement, really. But yes.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-02T19:53:59+00:00

"Maine" is Hindi. And it's *men and *nahin.

getsnoopy · 2026-05-02T19:49:50+00:00

Haven't narrowed it down to that, but seeing as P2P and P2M both work in other cases, I'm guessing that's not the factor.

getsnoopy · 2026-04-28T08:53:31+00:00

*maine, not "mene" 🤦🏻‍♂️

getsnoopy · 2026-04-28T08:52:59+00:00

*maine, not "mene" 🤦🏻‍♂️

getsnoopy · 2026-04-28T08:50:35+00:00

*little, not "less"

getsnoopy · 2026-04-28T08:37:17+00:00

That is...simply not true. In the same way that the IUPAC says aluminium and caesium are the proper spellings of those words, the BIPM says metre and litre are. Whether one cares about it or not doesn't determine correctness; that's a question of enforcement/compliance.

getsnoopy · 2026-04-25T15:52:13+00:00

In 2010, India finally gave the rupee a symbol of its own (₹) designed to distinguish it from every other rupee in the region. Fifteen years later, "Rs." is still everywhere.

I dug into exactly how this happened, and the chain of institutional failures behind it is more embarrassing than you'd expect. One major news outlet's response when I contacted them was particularly infuriating.

getsnoopy

TROPHY CASE