trying to buy a condo under 1000000

[moontang]

38 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Stocks are liquid enough even when it crashes... RE is called an illiquid asset for a reason...

Yep, all the people that owned World Com, Sears, Kodak, Bethlehem Steel, GE, "forever" can easily sell and take pennies on the Dollar, or simply zero. 

[beautifulthailand99]

16 hours ago, fhickson said:

a portfolio is at least under personal control. it can be held or sold immediately.

 

a condo you may not be able to sell. it relys on a willing buyer which is not under your control.

Or the market may just die.

 

https://www.redfin.com/MI/Detroit/12522-Dresden-St-48205/home/98412872

[Leaver]

On 11/14/2019 at 8:47 PM, madmen said:

So mr Buffet your portfolio only goes up never down? All stock market gurus are living the high life in Thailand if you believe all the gun trader posts lol why not Manoca ?

 

What happens when your stock <deleted>ts itslef ? you sell at a big loss or wait praying it doesn't fall further and sell through panic at a much much bigger loss?

 

 

Of course a share portfolio goes up and down, but it's in a balanced fund.

 

I have nothing against real estate.  I own some properties in my home country that also provide income. 

[moontang]

3 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Or the market may just die.

 

https://www.redfin.com/MI/Detroit/12522-Dresden-St-48205/home/98412872

This one was built about the same year.. Mid 1920s..smaller house, smaller lot.. about 100 wah... going for a million.  Lady next doors uncle, paid 6500 in 1958, she inherited and it was valued at 179k in 1986..she wouldn't take one million. 

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1327-Carlotta-Ave-Berkeley-CA-94703/24843122_zpid/

[RoadWarrior371]

4 hours ago, Leaver said:

Of course a share portfolio goes up and down, but it's in a balanced fund.

 

I have nothing against real estate.  I own some properties in my home country that also provide income. 

There are those that are wealthy enough to own portfolios and real estate in multiple countries.  You need to be careful not to assume your personal financial constraints are shared by all.  Frankly, your so called financial advice is only useful for you.

[Leaver]

12 hours ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

There are those that are wealthy enough to own portfolios and real estate in multiple countries.  You need to be careful not to assume your personal financial constraints are shared by all.  Frankly, your so called financial advice is only useful for you.

I'm not offering my circumstances as financial advice to anyone.

 

There's a combination of reasons for why I would not buy property in Thailand, and these reasons extend way past the foreign ownership of land debate, but that is a big factor.  Another big factor is there is no pathway to permanent residency here.  Yes, I know it exists, but is extremely difficult to obtain.  We all reside here at the whim of visa law changes out of Bangkok.

 

Put the above two together, and you basically have no right to reside in a property you do not 100% own, freehold.  (yes, that includes the land a condo sit on)

 

Then, you have the poor construction methods and materials used.  Zero planning laws here, so, yes, a nightclub could open up next door.  The massive oversupply effecting resale value.  Decaying infrastructure, due to corruption and mass tourism.  Changing demographic of inhabitants and tourists.  

 

To a lessor degree, there is the higher cost of living here, particularly for all things enjoyed by farang.  The ridiculous tax on wine is a prime example.  Exchange rates, with an over valued baht.  I also read about many problems with condo management, and misappropriation of funds.

 

All the above said, rents a very affordable, probably due to oversupply, but where owners are the victim of this, tenants are the beneficiary. 

 

For someone considering buying, I would really like to hear the case for buying over renting. 

 

    

[newnative]

1 hour ago, Leaver said:

I'm not offering my circumstances as financial advice to anyone.

 

There's a combination of reasons for why I would not buy property in Thailand, and these reasons extend way past the foreign ownership of land debate, but that is a big factor.  Another big factor is there is no pathway to permanent residency here.  Yes, I know it exists, but is extremely difficult to obtain.  We all reside here at the whim of visa law changes out of Bangkok.

 

Put the above two together, and you basically have no right to reside in a property you do not 100% own, freehold.  (yes, that includes the land a condo sit on)

 

Then, you have the poor construction methods and materials used.  Zero planning laws here, so, yes, a nightclub could open up next door.  The massive oversupply effecting resale value.  Decaying infrastructure, due to corruption and mass tourism.  Changing demographic of inhabitants and tourists.  

 

To a lessor degree, there is the higher cost of living here, particularly for all things enjoyed by farang.  The ridiculous tax on wine is a prime example.  Exchange rates, with an over valued baht.  I also read about many problems with condo management, and misappropriation of funds.

 

All the above said, rents a very affordable, probably due to oversupply, but where owners are the victim of this, tenants are the beneficiary. 

 

For someone considering buying, I would really like to hear the case for buying over renting. 

 

    

     I don't have a 'case for buying' but I've stated in other threads why I prefer to own rather than rent--no matter what country I am living in and no matter if I might lose some money owning.   So far it has all worked out well and I will continue to own.  Life is short.  But, that's me.  If one prefers renting, great.  Really, whatever works best.

     One slight clarification regarding your condo freehold statement.  If a foreigner owns a condo in a freehold condo project--a project where the condo owns the land rather than leases it--a foreigner has the same land ownership rights as a Thai owner regarding the land the condo sits on.  Should, for example, the condo owners agree to sell the project to a developer who wants the land to build something else, a foreign owner would receive the same amount of money as a Thai owner with the same condo ownership percentage.  

[Leaver]

5 hours ago, newnative said:

     I don't have a 'case for buying' but I've stated in other threads why I prefer to own rather than rent--no matter what country I am living in and no matter if I might lose some money owning.   So far it has all worked out well and I will continue to own.  Life is short.  But, that's me.  If one prefers renting, great.  Really, whatever works best.

     One slight clarification regarding your condo freehold statement.  If a foreigner owns a condo in a freehold condo project--a project where the condo owns the land rather than leases it--a foreigner has the same land ownership rights as a Thai owner regarding the land the condo sits on.  Should, for example, the condo owners agree to sell the project to a developer who wants the land to build something else, a foreign owner would receive the same amount of money as a Thai owner with the same condo ownership percentage.  

I agree.  Buy versus Rent is an individual preference.  I do not have a problem with either.

 

I looked into buying some time ago.  I stopped researching when I reached the point that I decided buying wasn't for me.  Thus, I do not claim to be very knowledgeable on the subject.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is, 51% of condo's must be Thai owned, and 49% are allowed to be foreign owned.  Is this correct? If so, the second part of your post is a little misleading.

 

Given that a developer may keep their 51%, foreigners do not get an equal vote and / or equal land ownership, do they?

 

In smaller projects, I have heard of the developer selling off the 49%, keeping some percent for himself, and then selling some percent to family, so once again, the 49% is in the minority of voting rights as the family vote together.

 

The leasing of the land is where it gets very interesting, especially as the lease nears 30 years.  The 30 X 30 X 30 can not be enforced at Thai law, so it's only the original 30 years that can be relied up.  Who knows what could happen after the original 30 year lease.

 

Of another concern, is if more than 49% of condo's are foreign owned in the block.  Who knows what could happen if they have a "crackdown" on this. 

 

I agree if the majority vote to sell a condo block for demolition, and the land is owned, a foreign owner would receive an equal amount, but once again, all foreign votes can only equal 49%, so they are already in a voting minority before votes are even cast for selling or staying.  

 

Given the above, even with ownership, the voting rights are not equal for foreigners here. 

[newnative]

3 hours ago, Leaver said:

I agree.  Buy versus Rent is an individual preference.  I do not have a problem with either.

 

I looked into buying some time ago.  I stopped researching when I reached the point that I decided buying wasn't for me.  Thus, I do not claim to be very knowledgeable on the subject.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is, 51% of condo's must be Thai owned, and 49% are allowed to be foreign owned.  Is this correct? If so, the second part of your post is a little misleading.

 

Given that a developer may keep their 51%, foreigners do not get an equal vote and / or equal land ownership, do they?

 

In smaller projects, I have heard of the developer selling off the 49%, keeping some percent for himself, and then selling some percent to family, so once again, the 49% is in the minority of voting rights as the family vote together.

 

The leasing of the land is where it gets very interesting, especially as the lease nears 30 years.  The 30 X 30 X 30 can not be enforced at Thai law, so it's only the original 30 years that can be relied up.  Who knows what could happen after the original 30 year lease.

 

Of another concern, is if more than 49% of condo's are foreign owned in the block.  Who knows what could happen if they have a "crackdown" on this. 

 

I agree if the majority vote to sell a condo block for demolition, and the land is owned, a foreign owner would receive an equal amount, but once again, all foreign votes can only equal 49%, so they are already in a voting minority before votes are even cast for selling or staying.  

 

Given the above, even with ownership, the voting rights are not equal for foreigners here. 

     I don't believe I posted anything that was misleading.  You are correct that 49% of a condo can be in foreign quota.  You are incorrect that the other 51% must be Thai owned.  The 51% can be both Thai owned and company owned (owned by a foreigner who has set up a company to buy the condo).

     It is possible--especially in Pattaya--for a condo to have a majority of foreign and company owners, with Thai owners in the minority.  With foreigner owners allowed 49%, it wouldn't take many foreign company owners to secure a majority over the Thai owners.  Whichever is in the majority, your post seems to suggest that foreign owners and Thai owners would be working at cross purposes and foreign owners would be at a disadvantage but I have not found that to be the case. 

    I don't know of any condos in Pattaya on leased land so that is not really a factor for Pattaya condos.  I would never buy a condo on leased land so it isn't a factor for me, either.  With all your concerns I think you have made a wise decision to rent.

     

     

[parafareno]

so for example condo i am interested to buy is leased....it does not own the land?

[bmanly]

15 hours ago, Leaver said:

All the above said, rents a very affordable, probably due to oversupply, but where owners are the victim of this, tenants are the beneficiary. 

I come to Pattaya every year for a few Months and you are correct. Entry level for a small Thai style room is 3k a Month and studio condos start at 7k a Month. Even at the relatively cheap price of 1 Million Baht to buy a condo I wouldn't do it. $50,000 AUD that is. I can put that money in an ETF or a Peer To Peer lending facility in my own country and pick up minimum 5% a year in income and that more than covers all my rent. No risk in a country where I have no rights.

[jastheace]

On 11/12/2019 at 3:19 AM, Leaver said:

I will never buy a property in Thailand.  The rents are so cheap, there's just no need. 

 

I have no property fees, taxes, maintenance and repairs to pay for, and I can leave tomorrow.  For some reason, the rent has not increased since I have been here, which is great.

 

FWIW. I know that although purchase prices have 'upped', rental prices seem to be stagnant. what I rented in 2010 (near equivalent) in 2019 remains the same price. buy to invest doesn't make sense. imo anyways. in my situation, I rented , and it worked for me, I never planned to stay in LOS 'til death. rents are cheap, flexible and yes , forget about the deposit, consider it a bonus if you get it back (I did get it back once with 6 rentals, no biggy though).

[jastheace]

2 hours ago, parafareno said:

so for example condo i am interested to buy is leased....it does not own the land?

YOU do not OWN the land. you rent the land over your property. you own the bricks and blocks to 4 sides (usually, 1 being the floor I think) there is a landowner/s, that will not be you. ever

[jacko45k]

16 hours ago, newnative said:

Should, for example, the condo owners agree to sell the project to a developer who wants the land to build something else, a foreign owner would receive the same amount of money as a Thai owner with the same condo ownership percentage.  

But still kicked out on his ass even against his will? In such a circumstance how is the decision taken 'the condo owners agree to sell'...... Call me a cynic, but I can never believe a foreigner would have the same rights as a local here under any circumstance. Even including if a legal expert, who of course can only be Thai, was telling me so, while trying to hawk his services. 

[newnative]

2 hours ago, jacko45k said:

But still kicked out on his ass even against his will? In such a circumstance how is the decision taken 'the condo owners agree to sell'...... Call me a cynic, but I can never believe a foreigner would have the same rights as a local here under any circumstance. Even including if a legal expert, who of course can only be Thai, was telling me so, while trying to hawk his services. 

     I believe there are 3 ways a condo project can be dissolved under Thai condo law: 

      1.  By a public entity taking the property due to something public being built, such as a highway, railroad, airport, etc.   Foreign and Thai owners alike would be 'kicked out'. 

      2.  The condo is destroyed by a fire, earthquake, etc. and the condo owners choose not to rebuild.  Again, Thai and foreign owners have both lost their homes due to something beyond their control. 

      3.  The owners agree to sell the condo project.  100% of the owners need to agree to sell, according to Thai condo law.  If a foreign owner doesn't want to be 'kicked out', he can vote no on the sale.  With 100% needed, the deal would likely have to be truly stupendous to get 100% of Thai or foreign owners to say yes--and even then you might get 1 cranky owner saying no.  This being Thailand, there might be ways around the 100% rule but it's just as likely that you could have Thais voting no and foreigners voting yes, let's take the money and run. 

      In any case, not something I lose any sleep over.  It is certainly nice that, I assume, confirmed renters such as you, Leaver, and others take such an active interest in the well-being of us condo owners.  Thank you, indeed, for your concern.  

    

[newnative]

7 hours ago, parafareno said:

so for example condo i am interested to buy is leased....it does not own the land?

Check with the developer or Juristic office to see if the condo is 'freehold'.  See my earlier post regarding the land a condo sits on and foreigner owner rights being the same as a Thai owner rights regarding the land with freehold condos.

[Leaver]

12 hours ago, newnative said:

     I don't believe I posted anything that was misleading.  You are correct that 49% of a condo can be in foreign quota.  You are incorrect that the other 51% must be Thai owned.  The 51% can be both Thai owned and company owned (owned by a foreigner who has set up a company to buy the condo).

     It is possible--especially in Pattaya--for a condo to have a majority of foreign and company owners, with Thai owners in the minority.  With foreigner owners allowed 49%, it wouldn't take many foreign company owners to secure a majority over the Thai owners.  Whichever is in the majority, your post seems to suggest that foreign owners and Thai owners would be working at cross purposes and foreign owners would be at a disadvantage but I have not found that to be the case. 

    I don't know of any condos in Pattaya on leased land so that is not really a factor for Pattaya condos.  I would never buy a condo on leased land so it isn't a factor for me, either.  With all your concerns I think you have made a wise decision to rent.

     

     

The part of your previous post that I found to be a little misleading is foreign property ownership being equal when compared to Thai's.  I know what you were trying to say, and that is, basically, all condo owners get a vote, and those votes are equal to each other, but as I pointed out, if the developer holds onto 51%, either individually, or with family, then foreigners effectively have no vote at all. 

 

This post is interesting to me.

 

Firstly, I am under the belief that it is illegal to set up a Thai Company solely for the purpose of property ownership.  

 

Secondly, those that set up Thai Companies for property ownership can only hold 49% of the ownership of the company. 

 

It's my understanding many single people use their lawyer and accountant, or similar, to basically hold 25.5% each of the company, with the foreigner holding the allowed 49% ownership of the company, and therefore, the property. 

 

I understand that once this company has been set up this way, the accountant and lawyer officially resign from the company, and are never replaced, thus, no risk of the lawyer and accountant colluding against the owner.  

 

I understand people with partners give their spouse a percentage in the company, rather than their lawyer, or accountant, but usually not the full 51%, for obvious reasons. 

 

Is the above wrong?  If it is wrong, please feel free to correct my ignorance. 

 

If it is correct, and some people own property this way here, do you agree that, legally, the foreigner only owns 49% of the the Thai Company, that owns a property?  

 

Now, This Is Thailand, so what is illegal, but not enforced, tends to offer some people security, but not myself, particularly in relation to property, hence, renting was the decision I made some time ago.

 

You made an interesting comment about Thai and foreign owners working at cross purposes.  Obviously, a good deal is a good deal, and Thai's would accept, as would foreigners, and vote accordingly. 

 

However, given illegal Thai Company structures set up for the purpose of owning property, and no more than 49% of condo's can be owned by foreigners, would you agree that a few phones calls made by Thai owners who may be unhappy with a voting decision, and there's some big problems for some foreign condo owners in the block. 

 

These Thai Company condo owners are in fact exposed to legal proceedings.  Should this happen, there could be some individual condo owners, that is, owned in their name, not a Thai Company name, that may be caught up in a mess, through no fault of their own. 

 

Once again, I only researched to a point where I was not comfortable to own, and decided to rent, and this research was done a long time ago.  Please feel free to point out if, or where, I am wrong with any of the above.

[Leaver]

8 hours ago, bmanly said:

I come to Pattaya every year for a few Months and you are correct. Entry level for a small Thai style room is 3k a Month and studio condos start at 7k a Month. Even at the relatively cheap price of 1 Million Baht to buy a condo I wouldn't do it. $50,000 AUD that is. I can put that money in an ETF or a Peer To Peer lending facility in my own country and pick up minimum 5% a year in income and that more than covers all my rent. No risk in a country where I have no rights.

 

Yes, and no taxes, fees, and maintenance to worry about. 

[Leaver]

6 hours ago, jastheace said:

FWIW. I know that although purchase prices have 'upped', rental prices seem to be stagnant. what I rented in 2010 (near equivalent) in 2019 remains the same price. buy to invest doesn't make sense. imo anyways. in my situation, I rented , and it worked for me, I never planned to stay in LOS 'til death. rents are cheap, flexible and yes , forget about the deposit, consider it a bonus if you get it back (I did get it back once with 6 rentals, no biggy though).

I have not had an increase in rent for several years.  I consider myself a good tenant, but I am surprised there are no rent reviews and subsequent increases. 

 

If rents are going to be that stable, the longer you rent here, the better off you are. 

[moontang]

52 minutes ago, Leaver said:

I have not had an increase in rent for several years.  I consider myself a good tenant, but I am surprised there are no rent reviews and subsequent increases. 

 

If rents are going to be that stable, the longer you rent here, the better off you are. 

How much has your home currency weakened in those several years?  If your currency has lost 20% in three years, your rent has increased by 25%..if it is the same amount in THB.

[scubascuba3]

9 hours ago, bmanly said:

I can put that money in an ETF or a Peer To Peer lending facility in my own country and pick up minimum 5% a year in income and that more than covers all my rent. No risk in a country where I have no rights.

Another one ignoring the downside of investments which can go down as well as up, or is your ETF guaranteed to go up? and the peer to peer lending guaranteed money back plus 5% a year minimum?

[bmanly]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

Another one ignoring the downside of investments which can go down as well as up, or is your ETF guaranteed to go up? and the peer to peer lending guaranteed money back plus 5% a year minimum?

Another one ignoring the risks of Thailand which far out weighs the risks in Australia. I'll keep my money in Australia buddy, you can keep yours in Thailand, that's exactly where I stand on the issue, nothing in life is guaranteed especially in Thailand.

[moontang]

3 hours ago, Leaver said:

The part of your previous post that I found to be a little misleading is foreign property ownership being equal when compared to Thai's.  I know what you were trying to say, and that is, basically, all condo owners get a vote, and those votes are equal to each other, but as I pointed out, if the developer holds onto 51%, either individually, or with family, then foreigners effectively have no vote at all. 

 

This post is interesting to me.

 

Firstly, I am under the belief that it is illegal to set up a Thai Company solely for the purpose of property ownership.  

 

Secondly, those that set up Thai Companies for property ownership can only hold 49% of the ownership of the company. 

 

It's my understanding many single people use their lawyer and accountant, or similar, to basically hold 25.5% each of the company, with the foreigner holding the allowed 49% ownership of the company, and therefore, the property. 

 

I understand that once this company has been set up this way, the accountant and lawyer officially resign from the company, and are never replaced, thus, no risk of the lawyer and accountant colluding against the owner.  

 

I understand people with partners give their spouse a percentage in the company, rather than their lawyer, or accountant, but usually not the full 51%, for obvious reasons. 

 

Is the above wrong?  If it is wrong, please feel free to correct my ignorance. 

 

If it is correct, and some people own property this way here, do you agree that, legally, the foreigner only owns 49% of the the Thai Company, that owns a property?  

 

Now, This Is Thailand, so what is illegal, but not enforced, tends to offer some people security, but not myself, particularly in relation to property, hence, renting was the decision I made some time ago.

 

You made an interesting comment about Thai and foreign owners working at cross purposes.  Obviously, a good deal is a good deal, and Thai's would accept, as would foreigners, and vote accordingly. 

 

However, given illegal Thai Company structures set up for the purpose of owning property, and no more than 49% of condo's can be owned by foreigners, would you agree that a few phones calls made by Thai owners who may be unhappy with a voting decision, and there's some big problems for some foreign condo owners in the block. 

 

These Thai Company condo owners are in fact exposed to legal proceedings.  Should this happen, there could be some individual condo owners, that is, owned in their name, not a Thai Company name, that may be caught up in a mess, through no fault of their own. 

 

Once again, I only researched to a point where I was not comfortable to own, and decided to rent, and this research was done a long time ago.  Please feel free to point out if, or where, I am wrong with any of the above.

Setting up a company to circumvent laws restricting foreign ownership is illegal.  It is a grey area, at best.  I looked at a new development recently, and they told me company ownership was not allowed, period, except for the first floor commercial spaces. I bought a house with an attorney in 2006, and would never do it again, although it was a success..especially for a first timer.  A friend from high school set up a company and built 13 homes,,and he tried his best to always be legal, but it was set up more as a developer, than a way to own a home.  He bought three rai at Takiab for 5000 per wah...700m from the beach.  Said if he had just let it sit, he would have made even more money, as the price per wah goes up with size.  Now worth 30K per wah, 15 years later.

[jacko45k]

7 hours ago, newnative said:

In any case, not something I lose any sleep over.  It is certainly nice that, I assume, confirmed renters such as you, Leaver, and others take such an active interest in the well-being of us condo owners.  Thank you, indeed, for your concern.  

I live in a house I own..... not my best decision.

[xylophone]

6 hours ago, Leaver said:

The part of your previous post that I found to be a little misleading is foreign property ownership being equal when compared to Thai's.  I know what you were trying to say, and that is, basically, all condo owners get a vote, and those votes are equal to each other, but as I pointed out, if the developer holds onto 51%, either individually, or with family, then foreigners effectively have no vote at all. 

 

This post is interesting to me.

 

Firstly, I am under the belief that it is illegal to set up a Thai Company solely for the purpose of property ownership.  

 

Secondly, those that set up Thai Companies for property ownership can only hold 49% of the ownership of the company. 

 

It's my understanding many single people use their lawyer and accountant, or similar, to basically hold 25.5% each of the company, with the foreigner holding the allowed 49% ownership of the company, and therefore, the property. 

 

I understand that once this company has been set up this way, the accountant and lawyer officially resign from the company, and are never replaced, thus, no risk of the lawyer and accountant colluding against the owner.  

 

I understand people with partners give their spouse a percentage in the company, rather than their lawyer, or accountant, but usually not the full 51%, for obvious reasons. 

 

Is the above wrong?  If it is wrong, please feel free to correct my ignorance. 

 

If it is correct, and some people own property this way here, do you agree that, legally, the foreigner only owns 49% of the the Thai Company, that owns a property?  

 

Now, This Is Thailand, so what is illegal, but not enforced, tends to offer some people security, but not myself, particularly in relation to property, hence, renting was the decision I made some time ago.

 

You made an interesting comment about Thai and foreign owners working at cross purposes.  Obviously, a good deal is a good deal, and Thai's would accept, as would foreigners, and vote accordingly. 

 

However, given illegal Thai Company structures set up for the purpose of owning property, and no more than 49% of condo's can be owned by foreigners, would you agree that a few phones calls made by Thai owners who may be unhappy with a voting decision, and there's some big problems for some foreign condo owners in the block. 

 

These Thai Company condo owners are in fact exposed to legal proceedings.  Should this happen, there could be some individual condo owners, that is, owned in their name, not a Thai Company name, that may be caught up in a mess, through no fault of their own. 

 

Once again, I only researched to a point where I was not comfortable to own, and decided to rent, and this research was done a long time ago.  Please feel free to point out if, or where, I am wrong with any of the above.

You make some excellent points with regards to the formation of a company through which to "own" property and I have argued many of these points on threads here over the past years.

 

However there are still those out there who have found rather circuitous ways in which to "own" the land/property upon which they live, and they are convinced that they are safe from any action which might deem their "setups" illegal.....of course, until they aren't.

[newnative]

6 hours ago, Leaver said:

The part of your previous post that I found to be a little misleading is foreign property ownership being equal when compared to Thai's.  I know what you were trying to say, and that is, basically, all condo owners get a vote, and those votes are equal to each other, but as I pointed out, if the developer holds onto 51%, either individually, or with family, then foreigners effectively have no vote at all. 

 

This post is interesting to me.

 

Firstly, I am under the belief that it is illegal to set up a Thai Company solely for the purpose of property ownership.  

 

Secondly, those that set up Thai Companies for property ownership can only hold 49% of the ownership of the company. 

 

It's my understanding many single people use their lawyer and accountant, or similar, to basically hold 25.5% each of the company, with the foreigner holding the allowed 49% ownership of the company, and therefore, the property. 

 

I understand that once this company has been set up this way, the accountant and lawyer officially resign from the company, and are never replaced, thus, no risk of the lawyer and accountant colluding against the owner.  

 

I understand people with partners give their spouse a percentage in the company, rather than their lawyer, or accountant, but usually not the full 51%, for obvious reasons. 

 

Is the above wrong?  If it is wrong, please feel free to correct my ignorance. 

 

If it is correct, and some people own property this way here, do you agree that, legally, the foreigner only owns 49% of the the Thai Company, that owns a property?  

 

Now, This Is Thailand, so what is illegal, but not enforced, tends to offer some people security, but not myself, particularly in relation to property, hence, renting was the decision I made some time ago.

 

You made an interesting comment about Thai and foreign owners working at cross purposes.  Obviously, a good deal is a good deal, and Thai's would accept, as would foreigners, and vote accordingly. 

 

However, given illegal Thai Company structures set up for the purpose of owning property, and no more than 49% of condo's can be owned by foreigners, would you agree that a few phones calls made by Thai owners who may be unhappy with a voting decision, and there's some big problems for some foreign condo owners in the block. 

 

These Thai Company condo owners are in fact exposed to legal proceedings.  Should this happen, there could be some individual condo owners, that is, owned in their name, not a Thai Company name, that may be caught up in a mess, through no fault of their own. 

 

Once again, I only researched to a point where I was not comfortable to own, and decided to rent, and this research was done a long time ago.  Please feel free to point out if, or where, I am wrong with any of the above.

     If a developer owns 51% he can outvote both foreign and Thai owners in the project--so no difference there.  I never buy in company name but I think the foreign owner has control of the company and has the condo voting rights in most cases despite what the company paperwork might say.  

     It seems clear that you will never be buying a condo in foreign name, Thai name, or company name but, instead, seem to be worrying inordinately about all the various things that you can dream up that might possibly befall those of us who have bought--none of which is worrying me.   Why not relax, pat yourself on the back for being a smart renter, and enjoy the rest of your weekend.  

[Leaver]

On 11/17/2019 at 3:41 PM, moontang said:

How much has your home currency weakened in those several years?  If your currency has lost 20% in three years, your rent has increased by 25%..if it is the same amount in THB.

I agree.  My currency has decreased in value to the Thai baht, making my rent more expensive.  However, this is offset but the fact I have not put millions of baht into a property here, and those millions of baht are earning me around 6%, and is on call, rather than being spent on something that costs me maintenance, fees, and taxes, that I can basically never sell, because now the property is 20% to 25% more expensive for prospective buyers.

 

Many will argue they have no intention of selling, so they are ahead now, or will be in the future.  Many say that upon their demise, they are leaving the property to a Thai spouse.  I have no problem with that, but given the Thai spouse returns to her family, what are you actually leaving?  I would suggest the property is not the windfall that many think because property is hard to liquidate here.  

 

One thing I would add is, whilst I have not had an increase in rent here, the properties I own in the west have had several rent reviews, usually resulting in rent increases.  Those rent increase also offset the rent I pay here, and the lower exchange rate.

[Leaver]

On 11/17/2019 at 3:46 PM, scubascuba3 said:

Another one ignoring the downside of investments which can go down as well as up, or is your ETF guaranteed to go up? and the peer to peer lending guaranteed money back plus 5% a year minimum?

I am well aware investments go up and down.  I just see property in Thailand as a bigger risk than investing the purchase money another way.

 

I actually see paying rent here as a pseudo monthly insurance policy against Thailand's instability for foreigners. 

 

Many have the attitude "rent is dead money" but many forget that the lump some that would be used to purchase a property here is working elsewhere. 

 

Yes, the returns go up and down, but for me, that monthly "dead money" payment is a safeguard against many possible issues here.  

[Leaver]

On 11/17/2019 at 5:59 PM, moontang said:

Setting up a company to circumvent laws restricting foreign ownership is illegal.  It is a grey area, at best. 

Thailand is not a country where you want to be in, or around, a grey area.  

[Leaver]

On 11/17/2019 at 8:56 PM, xylophone said:

You make some excellent points with regards to the formation of a company through which to "own" property and I have argued many of these points on threads here over the past years.

 

However there are still those out there who have found rather circuitous ways in which to "own" the land/property upon which they live, and they are convinced that they are safe from any action which might deem their "setups" illegal.....of course, until they aren't.

It was sometime ago, so I forget the finer details, but one of the more interesting methods I discovered was a foreigner who set up a Thai Company.  That Thai Company paid his Thai wife a salary way over the menial work she did in their business, and most probably more than the daily profits of the business, however, that large salary allowed her to eventually go to a bank and get a loan for a house they liked. 

 

She bought the house in her name, and they both lived in it together.

 

At any stage, if she decided to end the marriage because she now had a house in her name, the foreigner husband, through the Thai Company, fires her, so she loses the big salary, so then she could not make the mortgage repayments, and she loses the house. 

 

I suppose you could say the interest he was paying was his insurance policy against being scammed.  ????