new2here

My opinion only, locations that on a pre-pandemic basis were “good” locations and now, during or post-pandemic are still seen as good, will retain their value and I’d fully expect to continue to rise.

Its the places that perhaps were more speculative on a pre-pandemic basis that I might see as being more at-risk for either losses post-pandemic or very very marginal rates of increased value going forward.

I think the whole pandemic HAS made some fairly drastic changes in how things operate and as such the underlying value of some assets… but … I also think that in the larger picture, things that were “value” before covid started are still going to be value post-covid… that i don’t think will change all that radically.

I guess i could see why this kind of bond might sell fast at the retail level.

Thailand’s sovereign rating appears to be BBB+ which puts it well within the “investment grade” class … and it appears to be a “General Obligation” or GO type, which then means the government has nearly unilateral ability to tax or raise fees to cover said debt (as opposed to special purpose bonds whose repayment funds might be restricted to one or a handful of sources.

Based on what the BoTs website shows, it looks like the bonds priced at a yield of around 1.59 or so..

To me, in THIS overall interest rate market, 1.6 yield to maturity, on a investment grade GO-types bond seems to be quite good for people on the fixed income market. 

To me, how the proposed B300 fee “goes over” and any impact will depend- (IMHO) on LARGE part to how/when/where it’s collected.

To me, the best way is to “bake” it into the ticket price— like how VAY is largely handled by most shops now.

Also, the benefit for the RTG is that since it will be baked into every ticket, effectively “high tide rises all boats” so all tickets will still outwardly appear to be the same as before … plus.. on a relative basis, a tickets price can easily swing by FAR more than B300… so I myself think this is largely a non-story if you will.

Now IF the collect it AT ARRIVAL.. then that’s different… Now you have a visceral, physical reminder of the fee… and that will never be a good thing… the upside is that now the RTG can filter out who pays it and who doesn’t … but now you create a physical event that everyone can focus on - and focus on a negative .. so if it were me, i wouldn’t go this route… It’s a negative psychological…. Also, if they collect in person at arrival, the RTG has to eat the collection costs.. by baking it into ticket prices, they effector shift the tax collection burden upline to the seller… 

So, i agree with those that say in the larger scope a B300 tax/fee or whatever you choose to fall it, will lost likely have a measurable zero impact on their numbers..  but i think if they choose to do an in-person/upon arrival collection, then now you create a visual reminder — and that to me is something i’d try to avoid.

You want someone to pay the tax, but it’s best for you (the taxing authority) if you don’t highlight the fact that they are paying it. 

6 hours ago, Chivas said:

Only way to stop this utter insanity is a mandatory death sentence upon proven guilty

I wouldnt levy that only on truck drivers either

I agree…. however, i don’t know that i’d endorse capital punishment (ie death) as that, IMHO only, should really be reserved for the ultimate “worst-of-the-worst” convictions.. while these crimes are coming close.. I don’t know that I’d frame them as the worst-of-the-worst… but that’s just me and easy to say when the victims aren’t my family etc..

What I WOULD wholly support is *mandatory* periods of incarceration such as 20 years or more… and, in addition, the term of incarceration is not subject to Royal pardons, parole, or other forms of state-backed clemency.

I ALSO think that the scope of potential criminal accountability needs to be expanded.

For example, were there other parties, whose actions or inactions added to the commission of the crime?

This might be looking into the employer - as a corporate entity, as well as specific individuals….  did the employer or any specific employee  of the convicted driver know or should they have reasonably known that the person was drunk and therefore a safety risk?  If so, then I support an “accessory-to” type of charge being laid by the prosecutor.

What I don’t like when it comes to this - or any type of government regulation if you will, is lack of clarity and specificity..

I don’t want “recommended that…. suggested to…” things like such… in government regs I want terms such as “it is mandatory that …” or a person/business may not..   this way it’s far more clear what is and is not permitted and therefore an entities compliance can better be determined. 

The Currency Act BE 2501, does not, as I recall, have any language that mandates a private business accept paper or coin forms of currency for the payment of goods or settlement of debts.  

As such, unless the Ministry of Commerce has something within their scope of regulation, I suspect the answer is that any privately run business may choose to accept Thai cash (paper/coin) as they see fit and are not mandated to do so.

On 1/10/2022 at 6:43 AM, GinBoy2 said:

Well we've been around and around on this one for years.

 

Tourist visas for single Thai women are notoriously hard.

 

The dirty rotten truth, often forgotten, is that the US is home to the largest Thai expat population, many of which come here on tourist or temporary work visas then never leave.

 

That very fact colors the CO's thinking when he/she is presented with an applicant.

 

I wish I knew what the triggers are, but none of us do for sure. 

 

Years ago my wife, then long time gf applied for a tourist visa to visit my daughter who had just had a baby. 

 

We're close in age, professional woman, letter from company granting leave, property, money in bank. I thought we checked all the boxes. Denied of course!

 

I rationalized it, that the CO thinking was that when we got to the US we'd marry then try to do an adjustment of status to bypass the normal immigrant process.

 

So no real constructive advice, since none of us really can advise, but many of us can appreciate the frustration.

I agree.. and add to the fact that, rightly or wrongly, the way the Immigration law in this matter is written is that all applicants are viewed as intended IMMIGRANTS until and unless they can prove otherwise (ie that they are non-immigrants or just visitors etc) 

so that’s the first hurdle to clear…

the second (and to me more understandable) one is that the local COs have very wide discretion as to what constitutes proof of NOT being an immigrant.  This  me makes sense as what each country has as far as documentation, the local law/customs etc can vary - so a local CO would know best what would it wouldn’t be reasonable proof from an applicant in ABC country versus someone applying in DEF country. 

I do agree that perhaps giving the applicant more time to make their case might be advantageous-  but the embassy processes a lot of people so they kind of have to make decisions in quick order 

Here’s my thoughts… and they are more from a realists point of view.

I wholly agree that the insurers themselves largely created this problem vis-a-vis their willingness to write C19 policies and at the premium levels they chose … that’s the perils of insurance ..: there’s a risk one assumes when underwriting…. so I agree that this is their (the insurance companies) problem

THAT SAID…

i ALSO think allowing a large private insurer to effectively go bankrupt would be even MORE detrimental to the larger insurance system in the long game….   I’m not sure of Thai law, but IF an insurer effectively goes insolvent, then one of two things would happen …

Either future claims would go unpaid or become unsecured liabilities during some form a bankruptcy/restructuring process … with either a massively delayed payout date or a haircut for all claims….

or

The government would have to step in and either backstop them, guarantee the claims or take some kind of equity/debt position in the failing insurer, to ensure minimum operating liquidity.

If an insurer is simply allowed to go into liquidation the economic pain inflicted by a raft of legitimate but unpaid claims would be massive …  but it’s going to be unpopular for a government “bailout” as well.

but.. to me… I don’t see there’s many options here …. letting an insurer go under and leaving policy holders with unpaid claims and either a massive waiting time for payment or taking a hair cut on their claim would be hugely detrimental to the stability of the larger domestic insurance market…. but the government stepping in backstopping or taking a equity/debt position to add liquidity would also come with political costs to bear…

but I don’t think there’s a choice here.. the larger insurance market HAS TO survive and a part of that is the perception of prospective policyholders of its stability and long term financial viability… while not all insurers will face this potential claims-liquidity crisis, the industry might come under extreme pressure and that, to me, doesn’t bode well for a service that, while privatized, is really a essential service. 

On 12/21/2021 at 1:50 PM, stubuzz said:

Has anybody renewed an expired license?

A teacher at my institution tried to “renew” a 5yr that had been expired for 7 months (she returned to her home country to help care for an end-of-life parent) and was denied after trying to renew. She had to apply as new license- which was subsequently approved with no apparent problem. 

This was however just before TCTs transition from their former all-paper application process, to todays online-only process — not sure if it matters, but adds some context. 

I guess for me, the issues i have are that (since I can recall) “medicine” now appears to be viewed as a commerical activity and not just as “medicine”….

and, for the most part, the whole Covid issue is now so heavily politicized and polarized. 

Yes, medicine has largely always been a commerical activity - drug companies, for-profit hospitals— yes, they have all existed for quite some time..: but… IMHO, today it just “feels” like medicine is first viewed through the lens of a for-profit narrative and no traditional medicine 

The other part is the politicization and polarization that it’s taken.  I’ve effectively “lost” some people that pre-covid, i would call “friends” — sure, not super close friends, but friends… however, today the two of us are just not able to “agree-to-disagree” but have morphed into personal vitriol, and worse….   So, for me, this would be one of the largest parts of the whole Covid issue that has really “hit home” for me:

I kind of don’t think anyone is really going to say this “new normal” is/was better than the normal pre-covid… but for me at least, this is where we are - like it or not…. what i wonder is what is it going to take in order for society as a whole, to get back closer to what was reality pre-covid— AND if that’s even possible today given the level of mistrust, politicization and control. 

I haven’t really followed this case closely, but from the on-and-off-again media interest it takes, my own opinion is that it seems to be “too far gone” — be that time and the number of “side tracks” it’s undergone… for any real investigation to be done by any “domestic” entity AND have it be widely accepted as credible.

I just think it’s been too long… taken too many questionable turns, that even IF a resolution comes to be, i’ll bet that whatever that outcome is, jr won’t be widely accepted and viewed with suspicion or distrust.

My guess, at this point, the only real way you could move forward AND have the process and results be accepted is to let a wholly external (ie non-Thai) disinterested entity do the investigation … right now, pretty much every entity who has “touched” the case, has/had some level of accountability to it.. so their actions or inactions could easily be seen through the lens of a self-interest move and not one based on law and facts… that’s why i think the only way you’ll even have a shot at getting to the real facts is to let a purely independent, purely disinterested party do it..

but that to me is the catch… be careful asking the question as you might not like the answer. 

31 minutes ago, cauldlad said:

DLT Smart Queue is the app to use for non Thais although the list of DLT offices are in Thai so you will need a translater.

 

I booked an appointment for Banglamung DLT in September and the earliest date I could get was 1st Eebruary.

I think this is a YMMV situation as i did have an e-queue (based on my 13 digit from MP) but was told at the office that as a non-Thai, i’m not eligible… so… 

Im not sure what the official answer is, as i’ve not seen anything that definitively says one way or the other. 

in the end, the office staff did “take care of me “ in that they gave me an appointment the very next Friday (i’m free on Friday’s) despite the foreigners queue list being 100% full. 

I went to the Sukhumvit office (next to BTS Bang Chak) and it’s fully open..

but… all DL issues are “by appointment” only.. they don’t do walk-ups 

Thais use the DLT E-QUEUE app, but foreigners must make an appointment manually with the office.  Even though you may have a 13 digit # (be there via pink card, or more recently via Mor Phrom) they don’t accept those for the e-queue.

(I made an e-queue booking using my Morh Phrom and it was rejected at the DLT, but they nicely gave me a foreigners appointment for the very next week despite the list being full…. because i had already waited for about one month already via the e-queue platform)

As noted, appointments at Sukhumvit are fully booked for MONTHS out — I recall that late March was the first days i saw with openings readily available.

To me, IF there is a proper court order / judgement, then the insurer should pay as per the court order… now that said, IF the insurer wants to (or if relevant law allows) to file an appeal with a relevant court AND if by doing so this filing also stops any judgments from being implemented- then that’s their right under law as well.

To me, the fact that insurer has now apparently filed some type of complaint against one of the parties involved does not then translate into the insurer not complying with an order of the court which was pre-existing.. IF the COURT decides that the mere act of filing a police complaint warrants freezing the existing settlement payment - then that’s what it is.. but i don’t think the insurer can or should be allowed to largely act as the see fit - especially as there appears to already be a proper court order in existence. 

i do agree that it’s not unheard of for an insurer to use the legal process to recoup some/all of the settlement money they paid to their policyholders or other parties … so, to that end, i can see what MIGHT be going on.. but again… i think who gets paid what, by whom and when should be matters for the judiciary to decide and not left to one of the parties to the suit and one who has a vested financial interest on any action or judgment 

JMT is JMT Network Services and are a fairly large firm that is an collection agency specializing in certain sectors - retail banking among them. A few of the major banks use them - Krungsri among them.

So, to that end, JMT is real… 
 

The legalities of the debt, any statutory relief a debtor may have and the rights or the creditor to pursue any actions would be something you’d want to get clear knowledge of.

As a collection agency, JMTs collection activities ultimately fall under the Bank of Thailand’s jurisdiction.

I am not aware of any a

language in the relevant consumer banking law nor language in the AMLO regulations that explicitly establishes a hard-cap for deposits made into accounts. 

What the banks DO have to do is essentially “know your customer” which is the current mantra publicly put forth by the BoT and to a degree, AMLO.

So, while there is no stated hard cap, i am quite sure that the bank does monitor - via programmatic means- your accounts and will manually review any transactions or series of transactions that the banks systems flag OR that the BoT or AMLO, deem worthy of a further review.

AMLO sets forth a wide range of transaction types, account ownership forms, etc that all have some varying degree of regulatory requirements… but i don’t see anything that in and of itself sets a cap on deposits alone.

8 hours ago, alyx said:

Less competition implies a hike in prices

normally i tend to favor less regulation … however .. when it comes to a service like mobile phone/data, and the impact it has on so many aspects of life and commerce, i would be a bit more cautious and would want a exhaustive review of the proposed merger and it’s realistic short and long term impacts on consumers.

I can’t say if it’s a good thing of bad thing… and i can’t say that mergers, in and of it self, are bad.. only that i think a fair review of its impact on both the competitive landscape and consumer is warranted.

25 minutes ago, slsmith38 said:

I was told AZ+AZ in Thailand is minimum 8 weeks between doses. I needed to travel urgently before my 12 week AZ  second dose was scheduled and Phyathai 2 said they could bring it forward to 8 weeks.

That’s exactly what I was told too when i got my AZ #1…. and based on that 8wk number, i was able to get my #2 exactly at the start of week #8

7 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Apparently nobody cared enough about the place to support it when open.  You can only lose for so long.  

If the mall generates money into Chula, that's always a good thing, as one of the best Uni & hospitals Thailand has to offer.

Better smarter med students and high tech hospital is more important than a dilapidated building nobody visited or seemed to care about.

IMHO

I agree..  I think there’s a balance to be struck here..  i agree that the principle goal or mission of PMCU (Property Management Chulalongkorn University) should be to: 1) manage their real estate portfolio of CU in such a manner that maximizes the present financial returns, and 2) helps to ensure the long term financial stability of the university …. BUT I also think #1 and #2 can and SHOULD be done through the “value lens” of Chulalongkorn not acting purely as a private for-profit enterprise, but principally as a PUBLIC entity charged with operating in the best interest of not only current and future students but also the kingdom as a whole.