gentlemanjackdarby

1 hour ago, eppic said:

US FDIC guarantee is currently US$250k per customer/ institution or $500K for a joint account.

 

Singapore insures only up to SG$75k (US$55k, THB 1.7million) per customer per institution.

 

So Thailand currently at THB5 million or about US$160k, which is actually quite generous.  Honestly, given the relative wealth of the countries it's no surprise that Thailand would reduce the number, and in fact 1 million (US$32k) still seems pretty reasonable in comparison.

Just to add a bit and to draw a sharper distinction between the U.S. and the rest:

In the U.S., a husband and wife could have up to USD 1 million in an institution insured by the FDIC - USD 500K for their joint account and USD 250K for each of their individual accounts. It could be even more if the husband and wife each have joint account(s) with their kid(s) and, of course, they could have accounts at other institutions, etc.

5 hours ago, VBF said:

Presumably, it's 1 mil per institution ie 1 mil with SCB + 1 mil with Kasikorn etc.? If so possible to mitigate some risk that way.

 

Sorry for Thai people who have no choice, but really any foreigner who keeps lots of dosh in what is still, essentially a 3rd world banking system isn't very smart. Having seen the pitiful security, both personal and electronic practised in Thailand I don't think I'd keep any more than essential even if i did live there.

 

Especially seeing how easy it is today to transfer from a better-protected account Eg UK is  £85K per institution - approx 3,655,000 Baht. I presume the interest rates in Thailand are as pathetically low as other countries - I haven't bothered to look as it doesn't affect me.

I doubt that most Thais care since I read somewhere awhile back that the average balance for all Thai banks accounts was something like the equivalent of about USD 3,900

Of course, being an average amount rather than a median amount, it's likely that a relatively few accounts have a boatload and most have what could charitably be called just a pittance. A median would have been much more helpful and interesting to me, but I suppose it's a number that the well-heeled would rather not have floating about.

I suppose that very wealthy Thais have a fat rainy day fund squirreled away outside Thailand, given the ease with which money can be moved around in an instant these days

7 hours ago, ukrules said:

I believe this has been delayed.

 

It's deposit insurance. If they go bankrupt then you get a maximum of 1 million Baht back via the insurance scheme.

 

If you have a balance of 10 million then you get 1 million, it's as simple as that.

 

Why have they been reducing this coverage in stages over the years is the real question here......?

Not much of a question, really

I went a few rounds with one of the broke <deleted> e-begging Youtubers over this a couple of years ago:

It all boils down to the strength of the country's banking system - strong banking systems, such as the U.S., in conjunctions with their central banks, will do what is necessary to ensure that their depositors and other market participants don't lose faith in the markets and that they continue to participate, with most knowing that their assets are ultimately safe if they don't make bone-headed plays

If that means setting the amount of FDIC deposit insurance above the usual USD 250K (about THB 7.9 million) to no limit, as was done in the wake of the 2008 instability, then it will be done; as well, if it means making a market in securities when other primary market makers can't or won't (such as was done earlier this year in U.S. Treasuries market when the Wu-Flu Panic grabbed too many people by the short-and-curlies), it will be done

The end result is that (much) sooner, as in the case of the Wu-Flu Panic, in which their were no financial system structural distortions to eliminate, or later, as in the case of the 2008 instability in which structural distortions had to be eliminated, the markets right themselves, some folks make money and some folks lose money, and life goes on

On 10/10/2019 at 3:59 PM, BritTim said:

There is a rule that the airline that brought you to Thailand is responsible for your removal. He arrived on British Airways. I doubt BA has flights from Bangkok to Vietnam, so that would not have been an option.

The reason that Thailand immigration, or the immigration authority of any country, and an airline generally send one back to one's "home country" is because one is guaranteed entry into one's home (passport) country

For example, if one tries to enter Thailand, or any country, by air and one is denied, the airline isn't likely to go along with allowing one to go to, for example, Vietnam, because, unless one planned to visit Vietnam and has a visa, Vietnam would deny entry and the airline would be in the same position as it was when one was denied entry to Thailand.

Now if one holds a visa which allows residency in another country, for example, a Philippines Special Resident Retiree Visa (SRRV), one could likely convince the airline to allow one to buy a ticket to Manila because an SRRV holder is not very likely to be denied entry.

Or, likely simpler and less expensive for most folks, is to get a visa for a neighboring country prior to leaving one's home country; not terribly expensive and having that would give one a chance to convince an airline to allow one to buy a ticket for that country rather than having to go to the greater expense and long flight of going back home.

At the end of the day, airlines don't want the uncertainty of shuttling a passenger to-and-fro trying to find a country that will allow them to enter - just ship him back home and be done with him

I would be very cautious about placing a high degree of reliance on any of this channel's videos which address things of a technical nature, such as healthcare, especially for retirement-age folks, finance and banking, visas, etc.

At the end of the day, this channel is selling a very narrowly defined narrative and state of mind and facts and experiences which run counter to the narrative or which offer a more complete picture of a specific issue are neither tolerated nor even acknowledged.

While I understand that at the end of the day, YouTube (as is Thaivisa) is a private property and channel owners have no obligation to allow 'free speech', or any speech at all, to their viewers, it would seem to me that a channel whose stated objective is to 'help people' would welcome input from those viewers who make the effort to present additional information which helps to complete the available knowledge of a particular subject. 

While I don't particularly care for the sometimes caustic and, to be charitable, rough-and-tumble debate that happens on Thaivisa and I sometimes wish the volume of information on the forum was better curated, I think that this forum (as well as others) is the best place from which to get complete information, both pro and especially con, on most Thailand-related issues and it's worth putting in the time to separate the wheat from the chaff

In the interest of complete disclosure, I am not a 'Youtuber', have no association with or interest in this forum, nor do I know, to the best of my knowledge, any of the people who own or run this forum.

8 hours ago, Moonlover said:

Thanks for that. Yes, you could be right, but I'm not going to bother chasing the details on such a small matter.

 

Same applies of course. The old lady was not kicked out by immigration as suggested by @nickmondo

 

BTW, yours is the first post I've read that is so blunt regarding the true nature of the, now defunct. income affidavits.

 

Thanks for reading my post and taking the time to reply

As for the term 'liar's letter', I'm generally in favor of plain speaking except when speaking of spades for fear I might be made to use one! ????

Although I'd love to take credit for coining the phrase, I really can't; it's a term that came to prominence during the U.S. sub-prime housing crisis a decade or so back. Everyone involved in the mortgage game knew that an awful lot of people were lying about an awful lot of things, a musical chair of fraud, if you will, but most everyone involved moved to the music until the fiddler stopped playing. And then, just as now regarding embassy income statements, there was (is) much wailing and gnashing of teeth and loud cries of "unfair"

8 hours ago, Moonlover said:

 

That is not correct. If you can find it, go back and read it again.

 

The old lady was not kicked out at all. She had been granted a retirement extension using the 800k method. It was the family, chiefly her daughter who made the decision to move her mother to the Philippines.

As I recall, the mother was on a retirement extension based on monthly income method, not the 800k method.

I bring it up not to nitpick your post, but to make a few points:

Based upon what the daughter was quoted as saying in the press reports, the daughter had obtained an income verification (liar's letter) from the U.S. embassy by affirming that her mother had the required income based upon the fact that the daughter was paying the cost of the mother's care, i.e., the daughter tried to recharacterize "support" as "income", likely because it was "easier" to get a liar's letter rather than to get the mother an extension as the daughter's dependent, which she clearly was since the daughter was paying for her care

In the TV thread, several posters pointed out that the mother would have been able to get an extension as a dependent of the daughter.

From what I read, and I read several press reports as well as most of the thread, the daughter jumped without understanding all of the options and then tried to paint "Thailand" as the bad guy

On 4/16/2019 at 8:43 AM, Kenchamp said:

Think you might find mass immigration of muslims and blacks had something to do with it too

Gave you a 'like' on this and couldn't agree more, but the 'Baby Boomers' can't be given all the blame on this - the 'groundwork' for a lot of America's problems, which started to 'sprout' in the mid 60s through the '70s and hit full-flower in the '90s, was started by the generation before; the earlier baby boomers only came of an age to begin filling senior policy and 'thought' positions around the late '80s (first baby boomers were born in 1946)

As a 'late Boomer'; it saddens me that my end of the Boom, (early '60s) has, and seems to want to, continue(d) the well-intentioned but misguided thinking of the so-called 'greatest generation'

18 hours ago, lkv said:

He said verified examples, not posts from users that joined "yesterday" or joined 2 months ago and have +0 community rating.

And exactly how is that 'verification' supposed to happen - Are the witnesses to the event supposed to come forward and 'swear' that it happened?

I would expect there to be MORE posts from folks who joined recently simply because those are exactly the folks most likely to get bitten in the ass by the new 'procedures', not ones who have been TV members for a long while, who jump in and contribute, and who pay attention to the words of wisdom on here

Generally I agree with you that posts by those who have recently joined and with low or no posts should should be viewed with a high degree of skepticism, but there are just too folks reporting 'difficulties' with Immigration to arrogantly dismiss them out of hand  

29 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's financially stable. Whether it is politically stable is a horse of an entirely different color. Irrespective of our length of time here, we are still on one year's notice at best.

Under those circumstances, having 800,000 baht plus living expenses here is OK. Having all my assets here would qualify me for admission to a mental hospital.

I think that Thailand if financially stable right now, but it's impossible to have a financially stable country long-term without long-term political stability.

In my view, Thailand doesn't look politically stable for the long-term, so your advice about having anything more than the required fixed deposit and monthly living expenses is gold. 

1 hour ago, Thailand Outcast said:

Cut and pasted from a post of mine in another thread. 

 

The figures speak for themselves.  It's basically a 45,900 baht a year visa, and you lose control of your money.  

 

Also, the money in your account is not for emergencies.  It is not back up.  You can only use 400k of it for 5 months of the year, or you don't get next year's visa. 

 

 

Firstly, the 800k is tied up for 5 months.  400k is tied up forever.  Of course, you can withdraw any or all of it, but you will not receive next year's visa, so that's as good as 400k you will never see again, for as long as you wish to live in Thailand. 

 

You will get between 6% to 8% return if your 800k is in a diversified, non aggressive, managed fund, in your home country.  Let's just pick the average of 7% for this example.

 

You get 1.5% from a Thai bank for your 800k.

 

Here's the maths.

 

800,000 baht x 7% = 56,000 baht per year.  (return from a fund)

 

800,000 baht x 1.5% = 12,000 baht per year.  (return from a Thai bank)

 

56,000 baht - 12,000 baht = 44,000 baht.  (this is what you are forced to "lose" under the 800k method)

 

44,000 baht + 1900 baht (visa fee) = 45,900 baht.  (this is the total cost to an expat using the 800k method, and they have lost the use of their money through seasoning and have to deal with all the paperwork)

 

45,900 baht / 12 months = 3.825 baht. (visa cost per month to live in Thailand under the 800k method)

 

versus

 

20,000 baht / 12 = 1,666 baht.  (visa cost per month to live in Thailand if you use an agent, and there is no seasoning to worry about, and you maintain control of your finances, which are left in a safe western country, and no paperwork to do)

 

3,825 baht - 1,666 baht = 2,159 baht.  This is the extra cost to people using the 800k method, or, what people using the agents save, per month.

 

Remember, we are talking about the same "product."  Not an inferior visa class.  

 

Of course, there are other issues to think about, like how your beneficiaries get the money if it's in a Thai bank etc, but the above shows the loss / savings over one method versus the other method.

 

I am lucky, I have some time to sit back and see what happens after the 90 days, with those who have used an agent. 

 

To sum up, the 800k runs at a continual loss for the expat, as it doesn't even keep up with inflation.  

 

You say I don't see the 20,000 baht ever again, but you don't see the 44,000 baht in losses, that you will never earn each year, from being forced to lodge 800k into a Thai bank, at 1.5%, with 400k of it you can never use again.    

 

Now, compare the 800k method to the visas offered in nearby countries, and you can see what a lousy deal this is.   

Your maths look good and I don't disagree with you

As well, I'm a 'put it to work' kind of guy, but I think one thing the 'put it to work' crowd forgets is that no one should ever put all of their net worth 'to work' - one must have a pool of cash (for example in a purchased money fund) that is readily available to finance one's life for a significant period of time, in my case for one year, to ride out the inevitable declines in my 'put it to work' money that arise from, for example, a rise in interest rates (a decline in the value of bonds) or sabre-rattling about trade tariffs (a decline in the value of equities)

Of course, with a net worth of only the equivalent of USD 31,000, other riskier ways to put one's net worth to 'to work', such as options and other derivatives or forex trading are clearly not an option.

51 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

I guess if 800k represents 80% of your total wealth, then you would understandably want to put it to work and maximise your return.
But if it only constitutes 10% of my wealth, then I’m more than happy to put it into a FD paying me 2.4% pa as I’m a firm believer in having a diversified portfolio which includes cash in bank.
So essentially, the Thai visa only costs me Thb1,900 pa and with my saved agent fees of 15-20k, I can treat myself to quite a few sumptuous meals.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Not sure what you mean by 'putting it to work', but if 80% of one's wealth Is THB 800,000, the arithmetic works out to a total net worth of THB 1 million, which is about USD 31,000; not a lot of money considering the risks, especially for a retiree, of living in Thailand such as major health care costs or possibly needing to 'go home' or relocate to another country if Thailand decides they're no longer wanted

If that's one's entire net worth and 'putting it to work' means investing in equities or even (a conservative) bond fund, unless one has enough of a monthly income to cover normal living expenses plus emergencies, 'putting it to work' is courting disaster since both bonds and equities always have the risk of a decline in value (paper loss) or an actual loss (real dollars) if one sells 'a loser'

If one's total net worth is in the neighborhood of THB 1 million, it's likely best to stick with low-interest, boring things like a time deposit or a purchased money fund

7 minutes ago, Cat ji said:

Or, in effect, "confiscate" retirement funds/investments.  ...And when Reserve Banks are "nationalised", the rest would soon collapse anyway.
(Why parking 800K baht or more in a bank in Thailand can be a good option for some people.)

?

'Reserve' banks (U.S. Federal Reserve) are already 'nationalized' in the U.S. and, in effect, the U.S. Federal Reserve already exercises control over 'private' banks by tools such as the federal funds rate.

A government wouldn't need to to 'charge up the bloody hill' of 'confiscating' retirement and investment accounts - the government would simply tax the gains or distributions, as it does now, just at much higher rates. If the rate was high enough, it wouldn't take long for someone living off the account to be forced to 'spend down' everything in the account; the end result is the same.

Or, for example, the U.S. government might bring back the old 'net wealth' tax in which a tax is levied upon the financial instruments one holds, such as stocks or bonds, or simply on one's total 'net wealth' or 'net worth'. That's not the same as an income tax since an income tax exists only when 'something' happens, i.e., income is earned; with a wealth tax, one owes a tax on what one owns even if one does nothing.

6 hours ago, RocketDog said:

No offense intended, but I find it almost comical that you are discussing bank interest and it's impact on your estate value. I say comical because bank rates around the globe are just a sorry joke. 

 

For that to be even remotely relevant you must have one huge pile of money in the bank!

 

Of course you will earn the best of the atrociously pathetic rates with timed deposit products like CDs. Talk about having your money tied up! 

 

If I had that kind of money in a bank I'd be deeply concerned about more likely threats like bail-ins or outright confiscation as sovereign debt reaches an inevitable breaking point. 

 

Personally, I'm getting out of fiat currencies and more into tangible assets like real estate, metals, and collectibles.

 

And NO, I don't trust banks as far as I can throw them, and I'm a 97 lb weakling!

Bank rates aren't necessarily a joke everywhere in the world - I have some cash in a savings (demand deposit) account at a large credit union (about USD 10 billion in assets) that's paying over 2%;

I also have some money in a purchased money fund (Charles Schwab - SWVXX) that's paying 2.3%

Now those rates look very poor when compared to returns on equities over the last 10 or so years, but those interest rates are about par with inflation (depending on one's situation and the measure of inflation one chooses), meaning one's principal is maintaining its purchasing power. And there's no risk to principal

Shares in the purchased money fund can be sold and settled the next day, so no tie-up there

I also have a small position in a high-yield bond fund (PHYZX) with a current 30 day SEC yield of 6.58% - Of course, there is risk in that type of investment from a rise in interest rates (not likely for the foreseeable future) and from the bond holders inability to service their debt (not much of a risk currently since corporate debt levels aren't that great and most issuers are servicing their debt), but the risks are not as great as holding equities.

Speaking of outright confiscations, real estate and precious metals are prime candidates for confiscation when a particular country's economy goes down the tubes - don't forget the 'nationalization' of entire companies that happened in Latin America in the '60s or, in the 1930s, President Roosevelt's outright ban of the private ownership of gold.

As for collectibles, if one owns anything of note, such as pictures, sculptures, porcelain, etc, it would be quite easy for a government to in effect confiscate them by simply heavily taxing sales by auction houses, dealers, etc.

2 minutes ago, Cat ji said:

 

I wish there was some sort of "one-stop shop" that would provide most of that information.

I agree

However, I think that would be very difficult since there are a lot of subtleties to each country's visa that would be pretty much impossible one person, or even a group of people, to keep up with.

For example, I had moved the PI to the bottom of my list until the recent changes in the retirement visa situation in Thailand and a comment someone made on here about the O-A visa in that context caused the penny to drop: I realized if I get a PI SRRV, which grants residency status in the PI, I could get an O-A in Manila rather than travel all the way back to the U.S. and spend extended time in Thailand in smaller chunks

Another example is Indonesia: At first glance, I thought that was an easy choice, except for the fact that if one holds a retirement visa there, one must also hire a maid.

Simple, right?

Pay her to not show up and clean my condo myself - however, one must report and pay social security benefits

At least for Thailand and the PI, there are several good forums that go into detail on retirement visas - other countries have forums but, likely because there are fewer expats in general and even fewer retirees, there isn't as much in the way of detailed discussions. However, in those countries, especially Latin and South America, the official sites tend to be helpful.

10 hours ago, Thailand Outcast said:

A balanced, and well managed, non aggressive fund, will return about 6% to 8%. 

 

Factor those losses into the cost of your visa, by keeping 800k in a Thai bank. 

 

What do you think the Thai banks do with your 800k?

A balanced fund, because it's balanced, is holding some percentage of the asset mix in bonds and some percentage in equities (among other possibilities), both of which entail the risk of loss of principal, the bonds primarily from a rise in interest rates and the equities from a variety of factors, so it's extremely unlikely that one will get a consistent 6% - 8% return year in and year out; over a time horizon of, say, 10 years it might average that, but there will be good years and bad years.

And all those rosy returns that mutual funds and the press like to talk about require the good luck of good timing - it's not very likely that someone jumping into equities today will see anything like the stellar returns of the last ten years in the next ten tears; more likely it will be longer and there will be a few 'fire sales' (crashes) of equities along the way and it takes a strong stomach to buy when stocks are on sale

The key to surviving the bad years is to be holding a couple of years of living expenses in cash and cash equivalents so that one doesn't have to touch one's principal during the bad years

And the THB 800K held in a fixed deposit in Thailand can't, by any stretch of the imagination and contrary to what a somewhat popular Thailand Youtuber recently said, be called an investment; at best, the low interest rate one earns while the money is on deposit can be thought of as the cost of doing business.

As the great American humorist Will Rogers is said to have once said: 'I'm not so much concerned with the return ON my as the return OF my money' and THAT should be a concern for anyone making the fixed deposit, if he has heirs outside Thailand

7 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

You must transfer at least 65,000 into your THAI bank account EVERY month or have money in your bank account plus and amount transferred in each month so that together they meet the combo method or deposit 800,000 in a Thai bank so that it will be there two months before and three months after your extension and then never be drawn down to less than 40,000.

Incidentally, O-A visas can only be issued in your home country.

Also, you seem to believe that money in your Aus banks can certify retirement income.  Only money in a Thai bank can do that.

O-A visas can be issued in a country in which one has resident status, e.g., if one holds a visa that is a residence visa or in a country for which one holds a valid passport, which presumes residency

That's what makes a Philippines SRRV Expanded Courtesy so valuable to U.S. vets - it obviates the need to fly all the way back to the U.S.

17 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Typically yes - an itinerary with a different return routing would be an open jaws ticket and usually costs a lot more. Cheapest way to accomplish the above would be LAX-KUL return, with two inexpensive hops KUL-BKK and back. Another alternative is three one way flights with the final one being BKK-LAX.

 

However, the OP mentioned earlier he'd been denied entry after flying in on business class so I doubt money would be the issue. Also, this hypothetical risk of having to fly back for an emergency is unlikely to occur very often - I've only had to do this once during 22 years in Asia. 

Thanks!

14 hours ago, ShortTimed said:

 Yes I now understand what you are saying and it is very knowledgable and excellent advice but if a traveller has a R/T LAX-BKK then he can change the return date easily and may even get the change fee waived.

 

On the other hand, if he has a ticket R/T LAX-KUL and receives the news of family emergency while in Thailand then he basically gives up the return leg of this ticket and is forced to buy a last minute ticket BKK-LAX which are often higher priced last minute fares.

 

Many US carriers no longer offer bereavement fares and no discount for other related emergencies.

 

This is what I see when I apply your suggestion to my own circumstances. Yes, it is a workaround and possibly the only one available but it does have shortcomings to consider.

 

I am in the OPs shoes and really thinking the old Thailand that was a great budget travel destination friendly to expats is a thing of the past. For me looking at this place with fresh eyes, I see greater opportunity for the years ahead is nearby countries.

 

I would take the experience of the OP and use it as a motivator to visit other countries as a Plan B.

 

 

I think I'm missing something here, so please let me know if I am

If the OP is planning to return to LAX after his time in Thailand, why would he not just book his flights as:

Out:   LAX - KUL - BKK

Return: BKK - LAX

Is  a two-way ticket that much cheaper if the route is the same both ways?

6 hours ago, Dmitry2222 said:

Maybe it's because of the election, so many announced changes... I guess guys who plan to retire in the future will take in attention instability of immigration rules.

I know I sure am

It seems that every time I look, there is a change or some sort of proposed change, which is part of life and so to be expected, but at least as far as Thailand is concerned, there never seems to be concrete, and most times no, details on how the change will be accomplished.

FOR EXAMPLE, and I'm just throwing it out there because I read it on the TV news feed yesterday (SO IT MUST BE TRUE ????), one of the powers-that-be was proposing that the fine for accommodation owners not reporting foreigners staying in their hotel, etc. be more strictly enforced.

The fine, as I recall is THB 10,000 and, besides momentary thoughts of xenophobia and movie scene flashbacks of Cold-War era eastern European men in trench coats and fedoras with turned down brims demanding 'papers please', I figure any fines not imposed directly on foreigner property owners will likely still somehow find their way out of foreigners pockets.

I've pretty much crossed Thailand off my list of places in which to base myself in retirement and will likely just visit for extended periods using an O-A, since that seems at this point to be the easiest way