In the ever-changing global investment immigration environment in recent years, regulations on “investment for residency” or “investment for citizenship” have become increasingly stringent in Europe, North America, and Asia, particularly regarding the real estate route. For investors from China and broader Asia, the motivations for obtaining overseas citizenship are often very clear—future planning, family education, diversified asset allocation, tax arrangements, and global mobility. However, in practice, the three most common investment pathways—property purchase, fund investment, and bank deposits/certificates of deposit—are confusing due to policy changes, differences in returns, risk structures, and approval logic.
Property purchase seems the most straightforward, but it is no longer the mainstream channel in most countries; the fund route is on the rise, but compliance reviews are more stringent; bank deposits/certificates of deposit are low-cost and low-risk, but the application threshold and the value of the citizenship are often limited. Different methods not only determine the amount of investment and risk but also affect whether tax residency requirements can be met, children’s education planning, and the potential timeline for citizenship.
Therefore, when choosing an investment channel, the key for Chinese/Asian investors is not “which is the most popular,” but rather the investment attributes, residency pathway, risk tolerance, timeline, stability in the face of regulatory changes, and whether it matches the actual needs of the family. The following analysis will examine the characteristics of three methods—property purchase, funds, and deposits—and finally provide overall advice suitable for Asian investors.
Property Purchase: Visible, but with Rising Barriers
For many Chinese and Asian investors, “overseas property purchase” is the most familiar and intuitive investment method—it provides tangible assets, controllable value, rental potential, and the possibility of appreciation. However, property purchase is undergoing significant changes in investment immigration policies, primarily in three aspects:
First, regulations are tightening. Many European countries are canceling or restricting residency pathways through real estate investment, primarily due to factors such as rising property prices and increased social pressure. Therefore, property purchase is no longer a stable residency pathway, and future policy risks remain high.
Second, lower liquidity. Property holding periods are often long, and disposal costs are high. For those who need flexible fund allocation or may plan to move to other countries in the future, real estate may not be an ideal option.
Third, real estate remains attractive to families with long-term living plans.
If a family plans to reside permanently in the country, for their children’s education, or to pursue citizenship through genuine residency, then real estate still possesses “living scenario value.” Such investors can still consider purchasing property, provided national policies allow.
Real estate purchases are suitable for investors who understand the real estate market, are willing to hold long-term, and value the overseas living experience.
Funds: A Mainstream Choice Under Compliance Trends
With real estate investment becoming increasingly restricted, fund investment (private equity, venture capital funds, government-designated funds, etc.) is becoming a key option in major countries. Its advantages include:
High policy acceptance
For many European countries, fund investment is considered a “healthier way to attract capital,” better at promoting employment and driving economic growth; therefore, its policy stability is higher than that of real estate.
Clear risk structure and professional management
Funds have clear fundraising documents, custody mechanisms, and regulatory frameworks, making them more transparent and easier to understand for Asian investors unfamiliar with the local real estate market.
Relatively high liquidity
Although funds also have lock-up periods, their overall liquidity is better than real estate, with lower exit costs, and the risk of individual investments can be reduced through portfolio diversification.
Of course, the disadvantages of funds are:
-There is a possibility of investment losses;
-It requires reading legal documents and having a basic understanding of investment risks;
-There are usually no tangible assets.
However, overall, funds are currently the most policy-friendly and suitable channel for investors who do not want to manage real estate and prefer a more stable and compliant approach.
Deposits/Certificates of Deposit: Low risk, but limited value of the investment certificate
Some countries offer bank deposits or certificates of deposit (CDs) as an investment method. This method is naturally attractive to many Asian investors because:
First: Almost zero risk
Deposits are essentially close to “principal protection,” making them ideal for risk-averse investors.
Second: Simple process and intuitive operation.
No need to research real estate or deeply understand fund terms, making it very friendly to first-time overseas investors.
Third: Controllable funds and easy liquidity.
Funds can be withdrawn after the lock-up period, with a clear exit mechanism.
However, the problems are also obvious:
– Few countries offer this pathway, and most are not high-value countries;
-The status usually does not quickly lead to citizenship or higher-level long-term status;
– In terms of procedures, immigration benefits, and international recognition, it is often inferior to funds or high-value investment schemes.
Therefore: Deposits/certificates of deposit are suitable for investors with extremely low risk who only seek basic overseas status rather than in-depth planning.
For Chinese/Asian investors, “buying property vs. funds vs. deposits” is not a simple three-way choice, but a combination judgment based on future plans, risk appetite, and status goals. Buying property is a direct and valuable way to maintain a lifestyle, but in an increasingly strict policy environment, it lacks stability and liquidity; funds are currently the most welcomed by national policies and the most compliant path, providing a relatively stable residency channel and avoiding the hassle of property management; deposits/certificates of deposit are the safest and lowest-threshold method, but applicable to limited countries, and the status value is relatively low, making them more suitable for those who are not in a hurry to live abroad or pursue long-term status transformation. If ranked from the perspective of “suitability for Asian investors,” the general order is as follows: For those seeking long-term development/with future plans for citizenship or residency: prioritize funds, followed by real estate.
For those seeking only residency, not high returns, and requiring significant risk aversion: savings accounts/certificates of deposit.For those needing to balance asset allocation and lifestyle possibilities: a combination of funds and a small amount of real estate.The final choice should be centered on family planning, children’s education, tax strategy, and the need for asset preservation and growth, rather than the short-term appeal of a single country or investment method.
