newnative

I like your posts; I just don't find your few statistics to be very relevant in the real World, where there is more than just financial gain in play in the equation of renting vs. buying. If I rent and invest the supposed savings each month, 30 years down the road I will maybe earn more than I would buying a home. Ok, all fine and good. But, there's more to it than just an investment. More to it than comparing the return on the buying of a stock vs. buying, say, gold. You don't live in either of those. We're talking about where you'll spend a good part of your life--in the home you own or someone else's you rent. That's important, at least to me. But, hard to assign a value. I would question your statement that most people don't 'do better' in real estate. As opposed to what? Religiously sending that $900 off each month to the index fund? Providing they actually do that? Yes, perhaps a bigger return there but that's disregarding all other factors. I never found owning a home to be restrictive and where is the housing market 'terrible'? This whole thread is about the housing price 'explosion'. But, even if one market is actually terrible does that mean don't buy anywhere? Despite your gloom and doom regarding a home purchase, about three-fourths of Americans are happy they purchased a home, 'anchor' or not. By the way, I also liked your father's story--you dodged all my questions about it, though. I wonder if he counted himself among the three-quarters who were happy they purchased a home. If yes, how do you figure in that happiness when you're calculating his home profit when he sold?

Women actually now earn 85 cents to every dollar a man earns in the US so the gap is finally closing. Women do spend-- going to the grocery store and buying food to feed the family, buying clothes for the kids, spending on the kids at the doctor and the dentist, buying underwear for hubby who is too lazy to shop for himself, buying the Christmas and birthday presents for the family and relatives, taking and paying for hubby's suits at the dry cleaners, buying housewares and whatnot to keep the house running . . . Yes, spend, spend, spend. Shameful.

I'm not claiming anything, just stating a fact that 50% of marriages do not end in divorce. I would dispute your claim that 'most women contribute nothing'. I don't think that's the case these days, with so many married women working. Over 72% in the US in 2019, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In any case, whether a married couple has invested in a home or an S&P index fund, if they divorce the assets will be split, by various formulas that some will view as fair or unfair.

In my case, there was not a big difference between what I was paying in rent and what my monthly condo expense was with the small condo I bought. They were about equal, even without the mortgage tax advantages figured in. That's how I knew I could afford to buy if I could just scrape up the down payment--I would be spending about the same each month. Back then, I wouldn't have had an extra $900 to invest each month. In your father's case, did he have a mortgage? If so, did you figure in his tax savings over the life of the mortgage? How about the satisfaction of home ownership that 74% of Americans strive for? What's the value of that? For me, it's high. I know it was for my parents, and is for my 5 siblings. Perhaps it was for your father, as well. In any case, he did end up with a chunk of money, even if some of it went to taxes. Could he have made more as a renter? Maybe. Would he have been happier renting all those years? It's not always just about the money. One can always make a case for doing something and getting better results. Invest that $900 each month and reap the rewards. That's assuming people have the discipline and the $900 actually gets invested each month and not spent on some bright bauble of the moment, instead. Big assumption. That's also assuming past investment returns will continue at the same pace in the future. Looks good on paper but we don't live life on paper, although some end up living in cardboard boxes--a fate I didn't want. Having to keep a roof over my head was my discipline to not fritter away my money but to keep focused on making the monthly mortgage payments, the best investment with my poor financials at the time.

Yes, and 50% of marriages don't end in divorce. And, not all divorces end with the wife getting the house. Nine states in the US split assets 50/50 with a divorce. With just a 50% chance of success, why do people invest in a marriage in the first place? My goodness, it's sooo simple. Stay single and invest in that S&P index fund the other poster mentioned. Easy peasy. Except, it's not. It's life, which is not simple or easy. Or cut and dried. In any case, it's difficult to predict the future with any investment and there are so many variables and considerations in play. Which sort of makes my point with my previous point--there's more involved than just a few statistics.

I thought your post was a bit simplistic because it only referenced a few statistics. People's financial decisions are not explained in a few statistics. Renting vs. home ownership is also a lot more than a few statistics. I could cite a statistic that home ownership is still the American Dream of 74% of Americans, despite other investments perhaps offering a better return. The personal stories I referenced were used to illustrate that more than just statistics enter into the equation. I'm sure many other home owners have their own stories. I don't think, by the way, that borrowing money from a relative automatically puts one in the 'privileged class'. The lender may or may not be in that class but if someone needs to borrow money, he probably isn't. And, lending and borrowing $10,000 is not exactly high finance either, come to think of it. What I find most curious in your first post, and this one, is you make a special point of mentioning the high interest rates of the 1980s and how this prevented some people from buying a home. But, your first post was all about how buying a home is a bad investment. So, if we follow your logic, those people shut out in the 1980's were actually done a huge favor because they were prevented from buying a property which would 'only' likely double in price in 30 years. Or, might have not even doubled. Or, might have lost money. And, those taxes. Phew! Lucky them! Dodged a bullet! I imagine they all invested in that S&P index fund you mentioned and tripled their money, instead. Happy ending. But, suppose, like me, you aren't of the privileged class. How do you invest in that S&P index fund if you don't have a big chunk of money to invest in the first place? Yes, you could send a little money each month--if you had a little money left each month after paying all the monthly expenses, including the rent, which in my case went up at least 5% every year, while my paycheck didn't. Most months I was just breaking even, with no savings. Little or nothing left to send to the index fund. So, we're back to the question of how do you create a little wealth for yourself if you're not of the privileged class, while still having the big monthly expense of keeping a roof over your head. For me, a huge part of my monthly take home pay in expensive northern Virginia was going to rent, which, as I said, increased each year. That chunk of monthly rent money was the biggest amount, and really the only amount, for me to work with in terms of any investment. But, always looming, I still had to keep a roof over my head and not be homeless. So, I chose to invest in me, rather than the landlord. Something I could invest my rent money in that might only double in 30 years was better for me than a zero investment in something that would triple in value.

It's the same thing on Pattaya Beach Road. The city foolishly decided to allow parking on the beach side. So, 3 lanes of traffic were reduced to 2 lanes. But--surprise, surprise--people's behaviors did not change. Drivers were used to stopping their vehicles in the left traffic lane and using it for parking as there were still 2 traffic lanes available. So, delivery drivers parked in the traffic lane. People running into 7-11 or other stores parked in the traffic lane. Taxis waiting for customers, tour buses . . . And, they still selfishly do--no change in behavior. They'll park in the traffic lane even when a parking space is available a short distance away. No, they must stop right in front of the store. They cannot walk any extra steps. What was 3 lanes of traffic is often now at busy times down to just 1 lane--which often itself gets bogged down with drivers trying to parallel park or waiting for a car to leave on the beach side parking.

I disagree with your assessment, which seems a bit simplistic and fails to consider any of the many factors that go into most people's investment decisions. Perhaps some houses may have 'only' doubled in value over 30 years but there's more to home ownership than just that. I doubt there are very many people who regret buying property in the West. One of my older sisters bought her house--which she still owns--in the high interest 1980's you mention. The interest rates were, indeed, sky high but she wanted to be a homeowner and wanted a particular historic house that came on the market at that time. No regrets for her. Lots of factors go into financial decisions. Here's another example. My father retired from the US Dept. of Defense at the age of 58 in 1972. Having lived all over the World with his job, the family returned to Chambersburg, PA, where he and my Mom had grown up. He and Mom bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood for $45,000, with a 20-year mortgage. In 1992, the mortgage was paid off. He and Mom continued to live in the house another 17 years, mortgage-free, with just utilities and low taxes to pay. The thing about rent is it's forever; a mortgage isn't. With the money he was saving not having a mortgage or rent to pay--and all the kids finally out of college, Dad started investing in stocks more seriously--he always had but now he had more money. He always felt guilty about moving us six kids around so much when we were growing up and he hoped to leave each of us $100,000 after he and Mom passed away. When he died in 2009 his stock portfolio actually was about $600,000. But, Mom was still alive so nothing was sold and the stock dividends helped pay for her nursing home care. (She had Alzheimer's. ) We sold their home for $150,000 and the proceeds also helped offset the nursing care expenses. Even in a fairly out-of-the-way place like Chambersburg, the house did increase in value. Had they rented those 37 retirement years it would have been a lot of money out the window and no $150,000 at the end of the road. My Mom passed away in 2019, age 101. From 2009 to 2019 we kept almost all of Dad's original stock portfolio, mostly blue chip dividend stocks Dad had bought to assist with Mom's expenses, figuring, correctly, that he would likely go first. We were fortunate to have this income, and Mom still got half of Dad's retirement. With those funds, and with the house money, we had enough to pay for Mom's care. The stock portfolio more than tripled in value, perhaps a good example of 'buy and hold'. In my case, I worked at a low-paying state job in expensive northern Virginia for 30 years. Loved my job but never made more than $35,000 a year. For 5 years I also worked a part-time job, as well, to make ends meet. Hated living pay check to pay check praying something major and/or expensive didn't break. The smartest thing I ever did was ask my Dad for a loan to help me make the down payment on a small condo to buy. With the tax benefits, buying would cost about as much each month as what I was paying in rent. I would be paying myself, not a landlord. The first condo got me in the door but it wasn't my dream place. Fixed it up and sold it at a profit, which began a semi-second career. A half-dozen condos later and I finally had some money in the bank--and the condo I wanted on a lake. One thing I always find amusing is posters often say, if you had done THIS rather than THAT, your return would have been much better. More often than not it's a comparison of buying property rather than investing the money in something else. It's almost always couched as do one or the other. In reality, one can do both. We're allowed to walk and chew gum at the same time. However, there is also the other reality of not having a big chunk of money to invest either way. 'If only you had taken that money you spent on property . . . ' Uhh, what money? In my case, I had $10,000 for a down payment on a condo. Not a lot to invest in the stock market--and I still needed to budget money to keep a roof over my head. So, not much for stocks but enough to get me a property I could fix up--while keeping that roof over my head at the same time. Live in it for awhile, then sell at a profit, while saving on rent and benefitting from tax deductions. Which eventually led to having enough money to both buy the next property and invest in some stocks.

Yes it would likely stimulate the economy if the monetary requirement was reasonable and sane--say, maybe a minimum of 5 million baht. 40 million is unreasonable and insane. Don't stand on the corner, dude, waiting to see the economy stimulate with this proposal. Not going to happen.

I don't think there is a 'one size fits all' answer. Nor, should there be. It wouldn't be good value for me because I don't need or want an Elite visa. Nor do I want to live in that particular area. Nor do I want to buy a 1 bedroom condo to live in. Nor am I looking to buy a 1 bedroom condo as an investment to rent out. For someone else with a different set of wants and needs, perhaps it might be.

Absolutely. Just because one hotel is doing badly, it doesn't mean that all are. And, it doesn't necessarily mean an area is doing badly. Some people scratched their heads when Grande Centre Point started a massive new Pattaya project--Centre Point Space--with covid raging. They already had a large hotel on top of Terminal 21. Why would they build another massive hotel right across the street? Especially with some other older hotels in the same area shuttered for lack of business? That rundown, small older hotel with little in the way of appeal or amenities might be lacking customers but Centre Point was attracting enough customers to warrant another hotel nearby. Ditto for the Amari Group building both a large, new addition and the Ozo Hotel next door.

It's always fun to look.

One of the projects in your post, recently finished, had pre-construction pricing of 180,000 baht a sqm. I remember posting at the time that I couldn't make the numbers work. Ideally, you want to buy low with pre-construction and hope the price rises after the project is finished. For example, we bought pre-construction at The Base for about 89,000 baht a sqm. We rented the condo for a year at 25,000 baht a month and then sold it, getting about 121,000 baht a sqm. Buy low, hopefully sell higher. With the project in your post, buyers were buying very high and hoping the price would go even higher. That doesn't seem to be the case, at least for now. Hipflat has the current average price dropping from 180,000 to 159,000 a sqm. I do think the pricing on some of the new projects is way too high--certainly too high to interest me. Were I looking, I'd rather buy a seaview condo in a well-managed older project, with a smaller number of larger-sized units, in a prime location. I'd likely be in a project with more resident-owners ( a good thing), more long-term rather than short-term renters (also good), and far fewer illegal daily renters (great).

And nothing wrong with that. That's how international business works. The revenue from Disneyland Paris goes 'straight into' American pockets. So, why would France want Disneyland Paris? Why would America want a BMW factory when the revenue goes 'straight into' German pockets? Easy answer. Jobs.

It was nice of Lextsy to answer but if you are actually a serious buyer these are the things, among others, you should be investigating for yourself, in person, at any condo project you are interested in. Once you zero in on a project, make multiple visits at different times. Yes, indeed, how IS the pool? Big enough for the number of units? How IS the seating around the pool? Enough lounge chairs? Is the pool itself sparkling clear each time you visit? How IS the parking? Covered and enough spaces? How ARE the elevators? Nicely maintained and enough for the residents? Or, too few and too crowded. How's the general appearance of the building? The hallways? The grounds? How's the gym? Clean and equipment well-maintained? Enough equipment for the number of residents? Air-conditioned? Do the same checking for any other amenities the condo might have. How's the security and other staffing? How's the location for your needs? If possible, try to check the Minutes of the latest annual meeting. That will give you good information on the financials and the owner comments can sometimes be helpful. Buying a condo should not be done in haste and with little investigation, or on the reliance on others. Properly done, you need to do the work.

It's important to have an adequate condo fee. Sometimes it's hard to get enough owners to agree to raise the fees. Kudos that your condo was able to raise them! It's a strong positive for your project in my book.

I think it's incorrect to say that '...the fee is so expensive compared to other condos...'. 43 baht is actually about average. Most new condos have a fee of around 50 baht. A more expensive fee might be what my partner and I paid at one of our condos--7,700 baht a month, 92,400 a year. But, it was for a 3 bedroom/3 bath 124 sqm condo and it came with weekly maid service. 7,700 baht equals a condo fee of 62 baht. Still a bargain and we were happy to pay it. Of course, there are condos with lower fees. This usually equates to economies of scale. The massive View Talay projects, with few amenities to maintain, have low fees. Lumpini Park Beach Jomtien has 1800 units. When we owned there the condo fee was 20 baht if I am remembering correctly. So, you have 1800 owners paying for the guy at the front gate vs. the 245 owners at Pattaya Hill. Or, the less than 40 owners at the place we owned with the 62 baht fee. But, also 1800 potential pool and sauna users vs. 245. Having lived at several massive projects, I prefer a smaller project with fewer units and fewer illegal daily renters. If that means a higher condo fee, it is worth it to me. The important thing for me is that the condo fee is sufficient to properly maintain the project--and my investment. The last condo we owned had a condo fee of 45 baht--about average. However, with less than 200 units it was not enough to maintain the condo to the standard the owners were accustomed to, which included a doorman, pool/gym attendant, parking garage staff, multiple staff at the front gate to assist with exiting, good front desk staff, etc. So, there was a yearly special assessment to make up the difference. This brought the fee to around 60 baht. Again, a bargain in my book and happy to pay it.

Very reasonable condo fee--whether it's 55sqm or 100sqm. Nice dining set!

High? That's only 2,334 baht a month. About $64. Bargain in my book. I was paying $500 a month condo fee for a 500 square foot (not meter) studio condo in Virginia 11 years ago. Did include all the utilities and it was right on a lake but, still. . . Love the very reasonable monthly maintenance fees here.

I think we try to be fair with our pricing, while making a profit. We'd rather have something sell than have it sit for years. The condo we sold last week was at a nice project with an average square meter price of 116,456 baht, according to Hipflat. The condo we sold went for 113,924 baht a sqm. We possibly got slightly less because it was not in foreign quota and foreign quota was full. I agree with you that some of the pricing is ridiculous. Hipflat has a 62sqm condo at a new central Pattaya condo project for 13.5MB, almost 219,000 a sqm. Sorry, no condo in Pattaya is worth 219,000 baht a sqm, in my opinion. Walk right next door to a slightly older project by the same developer and you can get 62 sqm for about half that. Same location, location, location.

In a nutshell, if a condo owner is delinquent in paying maintenance fees, the condo project can take the owner to court to force payment. Still delinquent, the court can order the sale of the condo to pay for delinquent fees. Nothing is demolished. Condo projects have the responsibility of collecting fees and dealing with delinquent owners. Some do a better job of it than others. This seems to be a big concern for you. If so, I suggest checking the delinquency rate at any condo project you might be interested in. You can also check the current condo fee, financials, and the sinking fund--the money held in reserve to help cover non-routine expenses.

Nonsense. My partner and I have sold two properties this year, a house on the Darkside and a seaview Pattaya condo, both at a nice profit. The condo, by the way, was on Beach Road. There are plenty of buyers for quality properties. As Ezzra has said, seaview condos go for a premium. We've sold about 20 of them, all at a profit.

As Big Star has said, who cares. The question you should be asking is what is the project's delinquency rate for condo fees. Many condos that may seem abandoned are actually owned by absentee owners. Lumpini Park Beach in Jomtien has tons of absentee Bangkok owners. 1800 units, with a high percentage sold, and when my partner and I lived there we often had the pool to ourselves, with sometimes one or two others, during the week. If a condo has been abandoned and has delinquent maintenance fees, the project should follow the legal process for these abandoned units, as, apparently your project did.

Thank goodness I didn't follow that rule.

Sad.