KSwr7UDHyn

15 minutes ago, Why Me said:

I have $40k in my CU doing nothing. And $1.4mil in the market working their butts off for my well-being. 40k is less than 3% of my capital as a hedge for the 7% annual return.

 

Incidentally, that $1.4mil came from 250k I had saved before moving here in 2005. If I had a rush of blood say in 2007 to buy a condo for $150,000 (5 mil b. then) which I almost did I would be worth less than half I am now, not that it's a lot but at this time I can afford to buy a 10mil b. place which gives me a nice uppity buzz. But I won't:-)

Congrats and I don't mean this to sound insulting but you would have been an idiot to spend $150K of your $250K net worth on a condo back in 2005.  That would have been 60% of your net worth tied up in one asset which is just bad investing to begin with. 

But, I don't think that's necessarily what people are suggesting either.  I don't see people talking about sinking half their net worth into a condo. 

Like, someone buying a 3 or 4 million baht condo out in Issan or Pattaya or Chiang Mai or ?? that has $1.4 million in the market, isn't crazy.  I mean, you could lose more than $100,000 (3 million baht) in a market correction. 

If that gives them comfort, and they feel like they can live on $1,500 a month, rather than $2,200 a month with rent, and they can just live off that SS money and let their portfolio keep rolling, well, great for them. 

It seems like this thread has a lot of straw men being set up.  People seem to construct these arguments trying to win arguments against situations nobody is actually proposing. 

Like, even this, conversation is really just the extension of me trying to remind someone that you can't just assume that because the market has historically returned 7%, that your returns are going to be 7% every year, and how to look at sequencing of returns as a better way of thinking about market returns. 

1 minute ago, Number 6 said:

But what's the gain upside and the risk on the downside? Really at the end of the cycle.

I guess I could rephrase that in terms of, how much money have they lost since 2010 or 2011 when we came out of the last recession?  

Let's just say that, your budget is $3K USD a month, or $36K a year.  No need for anybody to start crying about the fact that they live on $1,500, the general math works out the same.  

So, $36K x 2 years = $72K sitting in cash (or cash equivalents like money market)

In the time between Jan 1, 2011 until today, they gave up an average annual rate of return of 10.5% and your investment would have increased in value 141% over that time period.  

So, they've given up $101,520 waiting for a recession.  

And that's not even including dividends.  With dividend reinvestment, they lost $133,200.  

Like I said, doesn't matter if it's $3K a month or $1K a month, the important part is the 141% return over that period.  

Back in the US, people have been talking about the housing market being too frothy and set for a major crash since, oh, 2014 or so.  I bought a house in 2014, sold it in 2019 and it increased in value over 30%.  

So, is it really the end of a cycle?  It seemed like the end of a cycle in 2014 too.  If I had waited to buy a house, I would have lost six-figures in appreciation.  

That doesn't mean that I'm some eternal optimist.  I think we're near the end of a cycle too.  I'm just not willing to try to time the market.  

1 hour ago, Why Me said:

Again look at the data. An average recession lasts 11 months. Even the 2007-2008 Great recession lasted only 18. So, have the cash to tide over max 2 years till the markets back even and then you're riding the upswing again (and don't forget to replenish the cash bucket in the bull years). No need to drop expenses as you suggest.

 

That's my strategy at any rate. I have cash in my credit union to see me through 2 years. People screw up when then bail out from fear at a market bottom or starting raiding their principal.

So, you have two year's worth of cash sitting in a money market account or CD earning next to nothing? 

I think you're simply presenting another side if the same coin.  You're forgoing stock market returns as a hedge against a recession.  So, you are paying (via lost returns) for peace of mind. 

15 minutes ago, GarryP said:

Rather disingenuous. I would say that the vast majority of foreigners do not live in houses like those posted on that website. Even if they were back in their home countries they would not be living in the European/US equivalent.  Many are living in 2 or 3 bedroom 2-storey houses or bungalows. Normal houses that middle class Thai would be living in. These are real houses.  

Many of the homes on that website would be $1 million+ almost anywhere in the US. 

3 minutes ago, Airalee said:

Everybody has their own tolerance for risk.  However, it’s a bit disingenuous of the owners on this board to go on and on and on about their paper profits on a condo purchased 15 years ago.  Currently, the P/E ratio for condos here is absolutely in favor of renting.  It’s always about the P/E ratio.

 

I also say this as someone who is currently in the market to buy.  I don’t consider hypotheticals (rising rents, rising purchase prices).  It’s purely an emotional decision.  From an investment standpoint, it would be completely irrational to buy.

If that is the case, then it seems like you're throwing arguments at me, which I did not make, nor was I even responding to. 

I was responding to someone that said that if they had a choice of paying 20,000 baht a month rent or paying 6 million for a condo, they could invest the 6 million and basically just pay their rent with the investment returns. 

Without advocating for or against owning, I simply pointed out that this was flawed logic and that if the market tanked early into this person's experiment, they may not even live long enough to get back to 7% annualized ROI, if it's possible at all. 

That shouldn't even be controversial.  It's a fact and can easily be proved with simple math. 

It doesn't mean that it will happen, but it does mean that you can't treat stock market returns like a 7% yielding savings account.  It doesn't work like that. 

So, I haven't a clue why you're talking to me about disingenuous owners and paper profits.  I never said anything about that.

16 minutes ago, Airalee said:

Then perhaps this article should be about the plight of renters instead of listening to owner sob stories.

Why?  This forum is about real estate.  If you want to have a thread about renters, start one.  The OP seems to be, quite obviously, talking to and about owners. 

21 minutes ago, Airalee said:

The rent for the original unit I leased is lower now than it was 8 years ago.  The condo I’m in now rents for less too.

Good for you.  There are a lot of factors that might cause that to be true. 

But, I think a lot of farangs that rent or buy in Thailand, do so hoping to retire or live here for an extended period of time.  So, getting priced out of the rental market or having to downgrade their lifestyle because rents went up might be something that they want to hedge against. 

And hedges, in general, tend to cost you something.  So, people that want to hedge, hedge.  People that don't want to hedge, don't hedge.  That's up to you. 

BTW, if you purchased AT&T stock when it first spiked to around 22'ish on your chart, which seems to be around the late 1990's, it appears that that it would have taken you nearly two decades for the stock to simply get back to the price you paid for it.  And for a good part of that time, it was worth half of what you paid for it. 

And don't try to play both sides where you say, "Well, at least you got part of that back in dividends."  In theory, you're living off (or paying your rent from) the dividends so your brokerage balance isn't holding all of those dividend payments, it's simply 50% less than what you had before. 

It's not a bond where you're going to get your money back in 10 or 20 years.  AT&T could sink into the toilet and get bought out by some other telecom who slashes the dividend.  Maybe you buy in at 30 and drops to 10 over the next 5 years, but you're getting your dividend, so who cares, right?  

But then they get a buy-out offer at 15 a share from AZ&Z, which they are forced to accept, and post buy-out AZ&Z slashes the dividend to $0 in order to turn the company around. 

Now, you're down 50% on your investment and you have to try to put that into another dividend stock but with half of your original money so . . . bye, bye income. 

I don't want to debate a specific stock but it's apparent that it's unrealistic to think that you can just post a screen grab from some dividend stock and declare, "Ta-da!  Case closed." 

I'm happy for you if that's the path you've chosen and you're happy with your decision.  I actually don't think it's a bad move, but I don't think what you've presented works for everyone, and their are all sorts of risks that you haven't explored, so it's not some magic investment formula. 

Remember the old saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."  Dividend stocks have their own risks and trade offs. 

5 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

I don’t understand ur calculations Because  very seldom properties in Thailand go up in value after being sold to the first buyer in-fact they loose value similar to a used car. Only new properties at launch go up in asking prices. So Capital gains aren’t there for consumers. Market can grow but not for your existing property because its second hand . Developers only can increase asking prices of New real estate!!!

Fyi some clowns here will now post how much profit they made on their last wonderful property deals here  but as long as they dont proof that with documents then simply ignore their fairytales!!

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say either because I didn't talk about the price of the property increasing. 

What I said is that if you do the math and figure out that rent is 4% of the purchase price and thinking that because the market returns 7%, you're automatically golden, you misunderstand how investing works because your stock portfolio is not going to go up 7% every year.  It will go up 7% ON AVERAGE given a long enough time frame but one year it could be up 30% and the next year down 40%.  In what order those up and down years happen can make it difficult (or impossible) to get that 7% return. 

Just saying the math is not as simple as saying, "Oh, the market returns 7% a year, on average, so if I invest this money and use the proceeds to pay rent, I come out way ahead."  There are other variables that can dramatically lower your chances of earning a 7% return. 

5 hours ago, Airalee said:

$200k (฿6,000,000) invested with a 5% dividend in a boring blue chip stock would bring in ฿300k (฿240k after taxes).  Plenty to pay rent without touching the capital.

 

As a renter, one doesn’t have to pay any monthly/quarterly/annual common fees.  No special assessments for ongoing maintenance which the low common fees never cover.  Don’t have to pay for the new fridge, tv, washer, furniture as it wears out.  No purchase or selling fees/commissions.  Freedom to move at any time.

And many of those dividend paying stocks could cut their dividend during a recession or other economic hard times.  Which would both drive down the price of the stock and lower your income. 

I'm not saying that you should buy real estate rather than own equities, I'm just pointing out that due to the sequence of returns issue, you can't just make some projection of earning 7% like it's interest on your savings account. 

It fluctuates and there will be up years and down years and some years you could be dipping into your principle which is going to kill your chances of hitting 7%. 

BTW, the other thing here is that the original proposal here was rent was 4% of the 6 million (i.e. 240,000 baht) which is EXACTLY your after tax amount on your blue chips paying a 5% dividend.  Even if you avoid rent hikes for 20 years, eventually you're going to pay more than you pay today and then the 240,000 and now you're dipping into principle again. 

2 hours ago, Why Me said:

Equivalent condos in the neighborhood start at 6 mil. Now, 20k x 12 / 6 mil = 4%. So essentially I am borrowing 6 mil in the form of real estate at 4% per annum. I can and do make a lot more than that in the US stock market where I am fully invested. No, I am not some brilliant/lucky trader. The opposite in fact so I have everything in staid boring index funds. The market historically grows at an average of 7%/annum recessions included.

 

The market grows at a 7%/annul rate, but it does not grow in a straight line.  That 7% is a historical average over many years.  

It also assumes that all of your money remains invested. 

So, let's say that you decide to set aside 6 million baht ($200K USD) and invest that in the market and use the proceeds to pay your rent at a rate of 4% of your principle balance. 

If the market goes up 7% every year, that's wonderful.   You will surely come out ahead and have made an excellent financial decision. 

But what happens if the market tanks 20% the first year and instead of pulling out capital gains you have to pull it out of principle? 

Your 6 million declined in value by 1.2 million baht.  Plus you're paying 20,000 baht a month (x12 months) which is another 240,000 baht gone.  So, now you're down to $4.56 million. 

Basic retirement theory says you should drop your expenses to match the new value of your portfolio value.  So, unless you're willing to give up your lease and get a place for 15,200 baht a month, you're going to have a hard time catching up to that 7% per annum rate of return because every monthly payment is eating into your principle. 

Even if the market immediately bounces back 30% the next year, you're still short of 6 million (you would be at 5,928 million).  But, that's rarely how the market works.  You are far more likely to see 15% the next year, and maybe 15% the year after.  But, since you started from a deficit, you're not just taking the rent money out of your capital gains, at least for awhile, you're pulling the returns out of principle so you're going to fall behind even further. 

Look up "sequence of returns" for more information on how what the market does in the first few years impacts your overall returns. 

51 minutes ago, DaRoadrunner said:

When China sneezes, the whole world could catch a cold.

I prefer to think of it as, When China farts, the whole world smells their <deleted>. 

I was hoping some kind souls could help me work out some blind spots. 

I have a multiple-entry, non-immigrant O visa for the purposes of visiting family (my wife - we both moved back to Thailand) that we obtained in the US.  

My first entry was 90 days.  My passport was stamped that I am admitted until Jan 6 2020.   

So, here are my questions:

1.  My wife and I intend to be up visiting some relatives for the new year and don't want to have to rush back so I can fly out of the country or take a bus trip somewhere across the border.  Plan was to leave Thailand on a border run before new years but can I get an extension in BKK and do it after we get back from our trip?  

2.  Are there any sort of TM30 reporting requirements with this visa?  If I leave Thailand and re-enter, do I have to notify my landlord (we're renting a house)?  And if there is a TM30 reporting requirement, is it going to mess with me leaving or entering Thailand when this 90 day period is up?  I'm taking a wild guess my landlord will probably not bother to report. 

3.  Similar to #2, are there any 90-day reporting requirements?  I assume, based on the fact that I have to leave every 90 days, it's sort of pointless but who knows?  Also, would I trigger a 90-day reporting requirement if I was able to extend my first entry as mentioned in #1? 

4.  Is there anything special I need to do when leaving or re-entering Thailand so as to not invalidate the visa?  I see that on a retirement or marriage visa that you need to fill out a re-entry form but I haven't seen anything like that for the non-immigrant O ME. 

5.  How many entries can I do in and out of Thailand on this visa?  Is it good until one year after issue regardless of how many times I enter or exit the country?  I know this sounds like a stupid question but I was always under the impression (which could be wrong) that the ME tourist visas were a max of two entries.  Just wanting to confirm. 

6.  I ultimately plan on converting to a marriage visa.  I understand it's best to apply 30 days from expiration of the visa.  Is that correct?  Best to use this visa to the max and then apply to convert it to a marriage visa on the last 30 days? 

Thanks in advance for the help.  New to all of this longer-term visa stuff. 

Thanks for everyone's replies.  You read all these different sites saying the same things but differently and you're wondering if you're reading things right.  So thanks for clarifying.  

My (Thai) wife and I will be moving back to Thailand after spending about 10 years in the US.  I just crossed the 50 threshold so I am eligible for a retirement visa but I, obviously, also qualify for a marriage visa as well. 

My closest consulate in the US is the Los Angeles consulate.  My plan is as follows:

1.  Apply for a 90-day Non-Imm O visa at the Los Angeles consulate

2.  Send 400K baht to my Thai bank account

3.  Enter Thailand on Non-Imm O visa

4.  After about 60 days, go to the immigration office in Bangkok and request an extension of stay

So, I have a few questions:

1.  Is it better to apply for a Non-Imm O in Los Angeles or should I just go for a SETV? 

2.  If I get the SETV, can I convert it to an O without leaving the country? 

3.  If I apply in Los Angeles, the consulate website says I need to show $1,500 in a bank account for an O.  I am assuming that would be a US bank account? 

4.  If I get the O and show the $1,500, I assume that I still have to show 400,000 in a Thai bank account for 2 months before applying for extension of stay?