Greece has taken a different approach to Portugal.

Portugal decided that its property-based Golden Visa had become politically difficult to defend. Greece has decided to keep its property programme, but it has also recognised that the old €250,000 model could not continue unchanged in every part of the country.

The result is a more sophisticated, geographically differentiated market. In the most sought-after areas, the minimum investment has risen dramatically. Elsewhere, lower thresholds remain available, while certain property conversions and historic buildings continue to qualify at €250,000.

This is more than a pricing change. It is an experiment in whether investment migration can survive by becoming more selective.

Greece Became Europe’s Property Alternative

As Portugal moved away from residential property, Greece became increasingly important to international investors.

The reasons were obvious. Greece offered European Union residence, a major tourism economy, an extensive real estate market and a wide range of locations. For many years, the €250,000 threshold was also considerably more accessible than competing European programmes.

The programme became particularly popular with investors from outside Europe looking for a European residence option without having to make the much larger capital commitments required elsewhere.

The result was predictable. Capital flowed into Greek property.

As I wrote previously in Greece: The New European Golden Visa Leader?, Greece was increasingly positioning itself as the principal European alternative for investors who wanted residence through real estate.

That success, however, created a new problem.

Success Created a Problem

The problem with successful investment migration programmes is that success can eventually undermine the original proposition.

More investors mean more demand. More demand can mean higher prices. Higher prices can make the programme less attractive to future investors, but more importantly, they can make the programme politically controversial.

This is what began happening in Greece.

Athens became a major focus of international property demand. Mykonos and Santorini were already established international markets, while Thessaloniki was also attracting significant foreign interest. The government therefore faced a choice: close the programme, or change it.

Greece chose the second option.

The €500,000 Threshold Was Only the Beginning

From August 2023, Greece had already doubled the minimum property investment from €250,000 to €500,000 in specified high-demand areas, while retaining the €250,000 threshold elsewhere. Enterprise Greece reported at the time that the €500,000 threshold applied to selected areas and that the programme had already generated more than €5 billion of investment, mainly in real estate, since its launch.

But by the time this article was published in May 2024, even that regime had already changed.

From March 31, 2024, the minimum property investment rose to €800,000 in greater Athens, greater Thessaloniki, Mykonos, Santorini and certain other islands with populations above 3,100. In other areas, the threshold became €400,000. A €250,000 route remained for certain commercial or industrial properties converted into residences and for certain historic buildings. The new rules also imposed a minimum size of 120 square metres on qualifying residential property in the €800,000 and €400,000 categories and prohibited its use for short-term rentals.

The Greek government had therefore moved considerably further than simply raising the threshold to €500,000.

There was no longer one Greek Golden Visa property market.

There were several.

Why Not Close the Programme?

The Greek government has a strong reason not to follow Portugal.

Investment migration has brought significant foreign capital into the Greek economy. Greece spent years rebuilding after its financial crisis, and foreign investment remains important to the country’s economic development. Tourism matters. Construction matters. Property development matters. International capital matters.

Closing the programme would remove a source of that capital.

Increasing the threshold, by contrast, allows Greece to retain the programme while attempting to reduce some of the pressure in the most concentrated markets.

That is a fundamentally different strategy from Portugal’s.

Portugal has effectively separated its Golden Visa from residential property, as discussed in Portugal’s Golden Visa Without Property. Greece is trying to preserve the property model while changing the price, geography and nature of the qualifying assets.

But Is a Higher Threshold Enough?

This is the critical question.

If the problem is that foreign investment is contributing to property inflation, doubling or tripling the minimum investment does not fundamentally change the mechanism. The investor still buys property. The investor still competes in the property market. The difference is that the investor must now spend substantially more.

This may reduce the number of investors.

But it does not necessarily eliminate the underlying problem.

Indeed, a higher threshold can create a different problem. If qualifying property becomes scarce, the value of the immigration benefit may become capitalised into the price of the qualifying asset. Investors may end up paying more not because the underlying property has become more valuable, but because the property provides access to a residence programme.

That distinction matters.

The Geography Matters

The Greek approach is nevertheless more sophisticated than simply raising the threshold everywhere.

The government has effectively recognised that not every Greek property market has the same problem.

Athens is not rural Greece. Mykonos is not Thessaly. Santorini is not northern Greece. Property markets are local, and investment migration policy can therefore also be geographically targeted.

The new rules reflect that logic. The highest threshold applies to the markets where international demand is most concentrated, while lower thresholds remain available elsewhere.

That is an important lesson for other governments.

A national investment migration programme does not necessarily have to produce a uniform economic effect across an entire country.

The Lower-Threshold Market Could Become More Interesting

There is also an unintended consequence.

The higher thresholds in Athens, Thessaloniki and the major islands may make less-developed Greek regions more attractive to investors seeking a lower qualifying investment.

An investor who wants the lowest available property threshold may increasingly look beyond the traditional international markets.

In theory, this could direct capital towards areas that have not experienced the same concentration of foreign property demand.

The question is whether those markets have sufficient liquidity and investment depth to absorb substantial foreign capital.

For a sophisticated investor, a €400,000 property in a secondary market is not automatically more attractive than an €800,000 property in Athens. The immigration qualification may be cheaper, but the investment characteristics could be very different.

This is precisely why investment migration should not be reduced to the qualifying threshold.

Property Is Still Property

There is another issue.

The Golden Visa investor is not necessarily a conventional property investor.

The investment decision is being influenced by immigration. That can distort the normal investment calculation.

An investor may accept a lower yield because the residence benefit has value. He may accept a less liquid property because the immigration benefit is important. He may accept a higher price because qualifying property is scarce.

This makes the Golden Visa property market fundamentally different from the normal property market.

The investor is not buying an asset alone.

He is buying an asset plus an immigration benefit.

The Investment Has Two Returns

The investor is effectively looking for two forms of return.

The first is financial: rental income, capital appreciation and potential resale value.

The second is non-financial: residence, mobility, family access and optionality.

The second return can be extremely valuable.

But it creates a problem.

The immigration benefit depends upon government policy.

The property investment does not.

If the government changes the rules, the investor is left with the underlying asset.

That is why investment migration requires careful separation between the immigration benefit and the investment itself.

The question should never simply be whether an asset qualifies for residence.

The question should be whether the asset makes sense without the residence benefit.

Portugal Offers the Alternative

This is where the Greek and Portuguese models become particularly interesting.

Portugal has moved towards investment funds. Greece remains substantially property based.

Both countries want foreign capital. They simply have different ideas about how that capital should enter the economy.

Portugal is effectively saying:

Invest in the economy.

Greece is saying:

Invest in property, but be more selective about where and how much.

The divergence is part of a broader European shift. As discussed in Why Investment Funds Are Replacing Real Estate in Migration Programmes, investment migration programmes increasingly have to justify not merely the amount of capital they attract, but the economic purpose of that capital.

It is too early to know which model will ultimately prove more successful.

Greece Has an Advantage

Greece has something Portugal does not have to the same extent: a huge and diverse property market.

There are major cities, islands, tourism destinations, secondary cities, coastal areas and mountain regions. There is residential property, commercial property, hospitality and development land.

This gives the government considerable flexibility.

It can modify the rules geographically. It can attempt to channel demand away from the most constrained markets. It can preserve a property-based programme without necessarily concentrating all foreign investment in the same handful of locations.

Portugal’s experience demonstrates what can happen when the political pressure becomes too great. As discussed in The European War on Golden Visas, European governments are increasingly questioning whether residential property is an appropriate mechanism for attracting foreign capital.

Greece is attempting to answer that criticism without abandoning the product altogether.

The Investor Is Also Changing

The international investor is becoming more sophisticated.

The question is no longer simply:

Where can I get a Golden Visa?

It is:

Where can I obtain residence while making a sensible investment?

That distinction is important.

Investors are increasingly comparing Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Malta, Cyprus, the UAE, Switzerland, Monaco and other international destinations.

Residence is becoming part of a broader wealth strategy rather than a standalone immigration decision.

As I argued in Investment Migration Is No Longer Just About a Passport, the value of an investment migration programme increasingly lies in what it does for the investor’s wider financial, family and geographic strategy.

Greece Is Competing for Wealth

This means Greece should not think of the Golden Visa purely as an immigration programme.

It is competing for internationally mobile capital.

That capital can go elsewhere.

If Greece becomes too expensive, investors have alternatives. If the process becomes too complicated, investors have alternatives. If the investment opportunities are poor, investors have alternatives.

The real competition is therefore not simply with Portugal.

It is with the entire international wealth-management market.

For Greece, the Golden Visa is ultimately a capital-attraction product with an immigration component.

That distinction will become increasingly important.

The Fund Question Will Return

Eventually, Greece may face the same question Portugal faced.

Can property remain the principal qualifying investment?

Or should Greece introduce additional investment routes?

A fund route could potentially direct capital into Greek businesses, infrastructure, renewable energy, tourism, technology, healthcare, private equity or venture capital.

That would give the government another policy tool.

It could retain the property route while also offering investors the ability to participate directly in the Greek economy.

This would also allow Greece to compete for a different category of investor.

This Would Be a Stronger Product

A diversified programme could broaden the investor base.

Some investors want property.

Others do not.

A wealthy family that already owns several European properties may have little interest in purchasing another apartment. But it may be interested in investing €500,000 or more into a professionally managed Greek investment vehicle.

That investor could bring a different kind of capital: longer-term capital, professional capital and potentially institutional capital.

The advantage would be that Greece would no longer be competing exclusively for people who want to purchase residential property.

It could compete for investors who want exposure to the Greek economy itself.

Greece Should Think Beyond the Apartment

This is the opportunity.

Greece has already demonstrated that it can attract international capital. The next question is what it does with that success.

Does it simply continue selling property?

Or does it use the Golden Visa as a platform for broader investment?

The second option is potentially much more powerful.

The government could create a framework in which foreign investors become participants in the Greek economy rather than simply purchasers of Greek real estate.

That would make the programme more resilient because its economic justification would no longer depend primarily on property transactions.

The Political Argument

There is also a political advantage.

It is easier for a government to defend an investment programme if it can demonstrate that the money is financing companies, creating jobs, building infrastructure, supporting tourism, funding innovation or developing renewable energy rather than simply purchasing homes.

This is particularly important as European governments become increasingly sensitive to housing affordability and the political consequences of foreign demand in residential markets.

The evolution of the Greek programme reflects that tension. The government’s own policy changes were presented as a response to strong property demand and the need to better channel foreign interest in Greek real estate.

Greece Has Bought Time

The higher thresholds give Greece time.

They reduce the number of investors able to participate in the most expensive markets, preserve lower thresholds in other parts of the country, and create incentives for investment into certain types of property that might otherwise remain underutilised.

The March 2024 changes also demonstrate that the government is prepared to adjust the programme again when economic and political circumstances require it. The new Migration Code entered into force on March 31, 2024.

That is sensible policy.

But it is not necessarily a permanent solution.

The fundamental question remains:

Is residential property the best way to attract international investment?

The Answer May Be Different by Location

Perhaps the answer is yes in some places.

Greece has regions where foreign capital can genuinely contribute to development: a new hotel, a tourism project, a redevelopment, a commercial property project or a new business can generate an economic impact that is very different from the purchase of an existing apartment in a supply-constrained urban market.

Investment migration policy therefore needs to distinguish between markets.

The same €500,000 or €800,000 of foreign capital can have very different economic consequences depending upon where it is invested and what it finances.

The Golden Visa Is Becoming More Expensive

There is also a broader European trend.

The old €250,000 Golden Visa is becoming increasingly difficult to find in the most attractive European markets.

Portugal has removed its property route. Greece has progressively raised the threshold in selected locations. Other European programmes have been restricted or closed.

This means the investor increasingly has to commit more capital.

But that does not necessarily mean the investment is better.

A higher minimum investment is not the same thing as a better investment.

Indeed, the opposite can sometimes be true. The more an investor is required to commit, the more important it becomes to analyse the underlying asset independently of the immigration benefit.

The Investor Should Ignore the Visa First

The correct approach is almost the reverse.

Look at the investment.

Analyse the asset.

Consider the return.

Understand the liquidity.

Assess the downside.

Then consider the immigration benefit.

The Golden Visa should be the additional advantage, not the reason to ignore a bad investment.

That principle becomes particularly important as qualifying thresholds move from €250,000 to €400,000 and €800,000. At those levels, the investor is making a substantial capital allocation. The immigration benefit should enhance the investment proposition, not disguise its weaknesses.

The €500,000 Investor

The €500,000 investor is an interesting category, even though Greece’s principal threshold in the most sought-after markets has already moved beyond that level.

At that level of capital, an individual is wealthy enough to have alternatives. He may have access to private banking, a diversified portfolio, property elsewhere, or a family office and professional advisers.

He therefore does not necessarily need another apartment.

He wants a strategic reason to put substantial capital into Greece.

That creates an opportunity for the country.

The next generation of investment migration products should be designed for precisely this investor: someone who does not need a Golden Visa at any price, but who will invest when the underlying opportunity makes sense.

Greece Has a Window

Greece currently has something valuable.

Demand.

A recognisable investment migration product.

A large property market.

A recovering and increasingly diversified economy.

A major tourism sector.

And an international profile.

But these advantages should not be taken for granted.

Investment migration is highly competitive.

Portugal’s withdrawal from property has already demonstrated how quickly a major market can change. Investors adapt. Capital moves. Governments change policies.

The countries that ultimately succeed will be those that understand that wealthy investors are choosing among competing jurisdictions, asset classes and wealth-management strategies.

The Next Stage

The Greek Golden Visa has therefore entered a new phase.

The €250,000 era has effectively ended in the country’s most sought-after markets. The €500,000 era has already been overtaken by the €800,000 and €400,000 structure introduced in March 2024, while targeted €250,000 routes remain for specific types of property.

But the more important question is what comes after that.

If Greece continues to rely almost entirely on residential property, it may eventually face the same political pressures that led Portugal to abandon its property route.

If it broadens the programme into genuine investment, it could create something considerably more durable.

Greece Has a Choice

The country can remain Europe’s major property Golden Visa market.

Or it can become something more ambitious: a European investment platform and a destination for international capital where wealthy investors can obtain residence while participating in businesses, funds, infrastructure and other productive assets.

The second proposition is considerably more powerful.

It also fits the direction in which European investment migration is moving.

The property Golden Visa is not necessarily disappearing overnight.

But it is changing.

Portugal has moved away from it.

Greece has raised the price and differentiated the market geographically.

The next step may be to change the investment itself.

The future of the Greek Golden Visa will not be determined by whether investors are willing to spend €250,000, €500,000 or €800,000.

It will be determined by whether Greece can persuade international investors that their capital belongs in Greece for reasons beyond the residence permit.