China’s Ghost Cities Are a Problem for Europe’s Luxury Brands, Too
Chinese consumers watching the value of their homes fall are losing the confidence to spend on designer goods
Chinese consumers watching the value of their homes fall are losing the confidence to spend on designer goods
How closely is demand for $3,000 handbags tied to home prices in China? Quite closely, it turns out, which is unfortunate for luxury brands.
Europe’s luxury stocks fell in early trading Tuesday after China’s economic planning agency failed to announce additional measures to kickstart growth that some investors had hoped for. The sector is still up 10% on average since Beijing launched its initial stimulus plans late last month.
Beijing hopes a cut to mortgage rates, and lower down-payment requirements for buyers of second homes, will jump-start the country’s troubled housing market. A package of loans to brokers and insurers to buy Chinese shares has had initial success at lifting the stock market.

Luxury spending in China has traditionally been more correlated with its home prices than with the financial markets or overall economic growth. Around 60% of net household wealth was tied up in property before prices peaked in 2021. Barclays estimates that falling home prices have destroyed about $18 trillion in household wealth since then, which is equivalent to roughly $60,000 per family.
This, along with worries about the wider economy, is hurting consumer confidence. Retail sales rose just 2.1% in August compared with the same month last year, according to data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics. When global luxury brands start to report their third-quarter results next week, Chinese demand is expected to have slowed since they last updated investors.
Flagging sales come at an unhelpful time for Europe’s luxury companies, which rely on Chinese consumers for a third of global luxury spending. After several bumpy years during the pandemic, luxury brands and their investors hoped that a comeback in Chinese spending would compensate for a slowdown among Europeans and Americans.

This looks increasingly unlikely. Luxury sales to Chinese shoppers are expected to shrink 7% in 2024 and by 3% next year, according to UBS estimates. As luxury brands have high fixed costs, including the most expensive retail rents in the world, a slowdown with such key customers could have an outsize impact on profit margins.
The last time the luxury industry went through such a rocky patch in China, barring the pandemic, was between 2014 and 2016 when Beijing was cracking down on corruption, including officials who were gifting Louis Vuitton handbags and Rolex watches in exchange for political favours. The global luxury industry barely grew for two years during China’s anticorruption drive, which also coincided with a property-market correction in the country. It didn’t help that shoppers in other markets were also tiring of logos back then.
Europe’s luxury stocks look expensive today compared with that time. As a multiple of expected earnings, listed brands’ shares now trade at a roughly 40% premium to their 2014 to 2016 average.
To justify the higher price tag, Beijing’s housing and wider economic stimulus would need to indirectly lift luxury demand. Measures rolled out so far may not be enough to slow the slide in home prices. China’s housing market is oversupplied by around 60 million units, according to Bloomberg Economics estimates.
New incentives to kick-start consumption are expected soon but will probably target mass-market products like white goods. China already rolled out trade-in subsidies for home appliances earlier this year and a range of consumption coupons.
None of this is very helpful for sellers of expensive luxury goods. For brands to see a recovery, Chinese consumers that spend anywhere from $7,000 to $43,000 a year on luxury products would need to feel much better about their finances than they currently do. Spending by this group has fallen 17% so far this year compared with the same period of 2023, according to a report by Boston Consulting Group.
Half-finished, abandoned housing estates are a big headache for China’s government, and are also on the mind of executives in Paris and Milan. Though the fortunes of luxury bosses likely isn’t high on Chinese officials’ priority list, their fates may be intertwined.
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
Limited to 630 units, Lamborghini’s latest Urus Capsule pushes personalisation further than ever, blending hybrid performance with over 70 bespoke design combinations.
As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.
For decades, Australia has leaned into its reputation as the lucky country. But luck, as it turns out, is not an economic strategy.
What once looked like resilience now appears increasingly fragile. Beneath the surface of rising property values and steady headline growth, the Australian economy is showing signs of strain that can no longer be ignored.
Recent data paints a sobering picture. Australia has recorded one of the largest declines in real household disposable income per capita among advanced economies.
Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, meaning many Australians are working harder for less. On a per capita basis, income growth has stalled and, at times, reversed.
And yet, on paper, things still look relatively solid. GDP is growing. Unemployment remains low. But that growth is increasingly being driven by population expansion rather than productivity.
More people are contributing to output, but not necessarily improving living standards.
That distinction matters.
For years, Australia’s economic success rested on a powerful combination: a once-in-a-generation mining boom, a credit-fuelled housing market, strong migration and a property sector that rarely faltered. Between 1991 and 2020, the country avoided recession entirely, building enormous wealth in the process.
But much of that wealth is tied to property. Around two-thirds of household wealth sits in real estate, inflated by leverage and sustained by demand. It has worked, until now.
The problem is the supply side of the economy has not kept up.
Housing supply is falling behind population growth. Rental vacancies are near record lows.
Construction firms are collapsing at an elevated rate. At the same time, massive infrastructure pipelines are competing with residential projects for labour and materials, pushing costs higher and delaying delivery.
The result is a system under pressure from all angles.
Despite near full employment, productivity growth has stagnated for years. In simple terms, Australians are putting in more hours without generating more output per hour. The economy is running faster, butgoing nowhere.
Meanwhile, government spending continues to expand. Public debt is approaching $1 trillion, with spending now accounting for a record share of GDP.
The gap between spending and revenue has been filled by borrowing for decades, adding further pressure to an already stretched system.
This is where the uncomfortable question emerges.
Has Australia become too reliant on a model driven by rising property values, expanding credit and population growth?
As asset prices rise, households feel wealthier and borrow more. Banks lend more. Governments collect more revenue. Migration fuels demand. The cycle reinforces itself.
But when productivity stalls and debt outpaces real income, the system begins to depend on constant expansion just to stay stable.
It is not a collapse scenario. But it is not particularly stable either.
Nowhere is this more evident than in housing.
The National Housing Accord targets 1.2 million new homes over five years, yet current completion rates are well below that pace. With approvals falling and construction costs rising, the gap between supply and demand is widening, not narrowing.
Housing is also one of the largest contributors to inflation, with costs rising sharply across rents, construction and utilities. Yet the private sector, from small investors to major developers, is struggling to make projects stack up in the current environment.
This brings the policy debate into sharper focus.
Tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains concessions have undoubtedly boosted demand over the past two decades. But they have also supported supply. Removing them may ease prices briefly, but risks deepening the supply shortage over time.
That is the paradox.
Policies designed to make housing more affordable can, in practice, make the shortage worse if they discourage development. The optics may appeal, but the economics are far less forgiving.
It is also worth remembering that most property investors are not institutional players. The majority own just one investment property. They are, in many cases, ordinary Australians using real estate as their primary wealth-building tool.
Undermining that system without replacing it with a viable alternative risks unintended consequences, from reduced supply to higher rents and increased inflation.
So where does that leave Australia?
At a crossroads.
The country can continue to rely on population growth and rising asset prices to drive economic activity. Or it can shift towards a model built on productivity, innovation and sustainable growth.
The latter is harder. It requires structural reform, long-term thinking and political discipline.
But it is also the only path that leads to genuine, lasting prosperity.
The question is no longer whether Australia has been lucky.
It is whether it can evolve before that luck runs out.
Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.
Warmer minimalism, tactile materials and wellness focused layouts are redefining luxury interiors as homeowners design for comfort, connection and lasting appeal.
Here’s how they are looking at artificial intelligence, interest rates and economic pressures.