Etaoin Shrdlu

7 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 Which does speak well to  the OIC's review processes....

Quite.

I would also like to know whether there were any external influences brought to bear on the decision. Personal accident policies with a "hospital cash" benefit have been around for a long time, but the payout of 100,000 baht for a positive test is very high. Something like 1,000 baht per day for each day of mandatory quarantine would have been better aligned with this market. Something does not seem right.

According to this website, only nationals of Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar can legally work as domestic help in Thailand.

https://nitipornpna.com/blog/is-your-domestic-worker-legal

But as with many things here, there may be a work-around. 

19 hours ago, wannascuba said:

I had an R5 back in the '70s and an RZ350 in the '80s.

My Thai/US children show both passports at the check-in counter and the check-in person appears to enter information from both into the computer. I think this info goes to both Thai and US immigration authorities. Thai passport is used to exit and enter Thailand and US passport to enter and leave the US.

Once Thai immigration asked to see one of my children's US passport to make sure that she had the right to enter the US as she was exiting Thailand. Usually this does not happen, but it can.

One of the most important factors that the interviewer will want to understand, but which isn't mentioned in any of the documents your wife will need to submit, is whether you have sufficiently strong ties to Thailand to overcome the suspicion that once you both get to the US you will stay.

Things that work in your favor include having a job and work permit or other proof that your ties to Thailand are strong and continuing. The interviewer may ask to see your passport to determine your visa status and how long you've been living here, so make sure she brings it with her to the interview.

When my wife successfully applied for a visa a few years ago, the interviewer showed little interest in my wife's documents, but asked about my status in Thailand, how long I had been here, whether I was working and for whom I worked. No questions about my wife's employment, assets or the like.

Apologies if you are already aware of this. 

1 hour ago, tuktuktuk said:

The problem with 10k and FBAR is that SCB will never give us monthly statements.  My documentation was my wife's hand written cryptic records.  We just stopped exceeding 10k after that.

That seems unusual.

I have access to my SCB account online through the web browsers on my computer. I download SCB's monthly statements and keep them in cloud storage (encrypted with Boxcryptor) for use in tracking balances for FBAR reporting. I can only see or download the most recent six months' statements, so I make sure to download them before they no longer appear. I do the same with Bangkok Bank, although unlike SCB I can download six months' worth of transactions in one go with BBL. Citibank keeps several years' statements available, but unfortunately Citibank is in the process of selling their business to Krungsri.

I would direct him/her to the toilet in the unused maid's room that is accessible only from outside the house.

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

But the mitigating circumstances for these people are that a large group of companies made the same mistakes. So many of them made the same mistake. That will help them and shows that it was a common error and they all used the wrong data. (or they copied eachother)

Yes, that would support the position that this is was a bad business decision that was widely taken within the industry and possibly defend against a D&O suit. I'm also thinking about the fact that the OIC approved the cover being used as a defense as well.

Another issue I've not been able to figure out is why the OIC would prohibit the insurers from cancelling mid-term if their policies' terms and conditions had cancellation clauses that allowed them to do so. I heard that some insurers sought to cancel based upon material change in risk, but the OIC kicked that back by saying they could only do so if something about the policyholder had changed, not that the over-all risk presented by the pandemic had. Perhaps these policies don't allow for cancellation by the insurer, but that's not typical. Or there may be other elements in play.

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

Your right, but John Drake wont listen, he knows best. Of course fraud will mean that someone can be held liable. But this is not fraud, its more like you said extremely bad business. Nobody benefitted from this there was no intent to defraud. 

 

Plus he was talking about holding the employees that sold the policies liable, who like you said preformed in the scope of their job and did not do any bad things. His comparison with boiler rooms was also crazy. Don't expect him to acknowledge it as he is one of those guys who hears a few things and thinks they apply in this case.

 

Its tiresome to debate with people who don't have some basic knowledge. I doubt that anyone will be held liable, they might get fired for being stupid and destroying the company where they work. There certainly was no intent to defraud or anything. 

From what I've been able to put together, I haven't been able to see any way in which this rises to the level of fraud. Bad business decisions, yes, but it is difficult to hold directors and officer liable for simply making a bad business decision, although this one appears to be at the extreme end of the spectrum.

It becomes another matter if any of the directors or officers failed to follow procedures in getting necessary approvals when taking a decision or if they did something outside the scope of their authority or had a specific lapse in their duty to advise or inform or otherwise discharge their duty. We may or may not see this play out in the public sphere.

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

i was at Axa recently about renewing my PA insurance and they mentioned for their new policy they do income checks, now it seems it may be on the back of these large scam claims

Insurers will often not provide higher amounts of insurance than the perceived economic value of the policyholder in order to avoid the moral hazard (the intention to create a loss in order to claim). You can guess the motivation of a person who earns 15,000 baht a month and has the commensurate lifestyle and modest financial obligations seeking to take out several million baht in cover. I suspect the current crisis brought on by the Covid policies is prompting greater scrutiny than in the past.

30 minutes ago, candide said:

AXA is a large international (French) company so I guess they have effective risk assessment and management procedures.

I don't think there is much to worry about with AXA Thailand. I don't think AXA offered the personal accident policies that are at the heart of this problem and I suspect AXA Thailand has done proper risk assessment and made reinsurance arrangements as necessary for its risks. Local AXA management is probably sound and under the eye of the parent.

But a discussion of international insurers' operations in Thailand is worthwhile.  Most international insurers have locally incorporated subsidiaries or joint ventures in Thailand. This means that a policyholder would only have recourse against the balance sheet of the local subsidiary. If the local subsidiary went bust, the parent company would have no obligation to step in and make good on locally issued policies. Some international insurers, when asked about the security rating of their local operations, attempt to confuse the issue by citing the Standard & Poors rating of the parent company, which has little bearing on the claims-paying ability of the subsidiary. International insurers won't provide any kind of parental guarantee or cut-through clauses in their policies. This tells me they would be prepared to walk away from a steaming hole in the ground if they were presented with a big enough one. But in spite of this, a policyholder is probably better off holding a policy issued by the local operation of an international insurer than having a policy issued by some of the Thai insurers.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

If they can't pay them, they shouldn't have sold them.

ZERO sympathy, they should go out of business.

That's right.

The insurers made the decision to market these policies without properly assessing or understanding the risks involved. They were extremely negligent in this regard and indeed bankruptcy is looming for some of them and is appropriate. The trick is to minimize the impact on the public in the face of their inability to pay claims. The OIC and the government have some work to do.

34 minutes ago, Mitkof Island said:

Thailand Pass and mandatory Covid insurance sorry zero sympathy if the insurance companies fail. Along with the banks, and hospitals the biggest criminals the world has ever known.

It isn't the mandatory Covid policies sold to tourists and returning expats that is at the center of the problem. It is the personal accident policies that paid a cash benefit on testing positive for Covid that were purchased in the millions by Thais that is causing this crisis.

6 minutes ago, thaibook said:

If everyone had to have healthcare cover from the time of birth thre would be no pre-existing conditions.  For the premiums to be affordable the range of treatements/procedures covered would be strictly defined an the cost of treatment including physician fees controlled.  In such a case there is no reason why there could not be competing providers, no need for government to run the system; it would probably simply ban everyone from leaving their house.

I agree. But now we're talking about regulating the medical community, too, and that makes the issue even more difficult. 

15 minutes ago, PremiumLane said:

Another case that highlights the need for universal healthcare. With everyone paying into it each month though a small tax. It isn't rocket science, but I guess it doesn't benefit shareholders

Commercial insurance is a poor solution for spreading the risk of high healthcare costs unless insurers are barred from excluding pre-existing conditions, congenital conditions and others, in which case the premiums rise to levels that become unaffordable for many. Universal coverage provided by the state or by a single payer under strict regulations would be preferable, but would still be costly. Any tax that was capable of addressing these costs wouldn't be small, especially if treatment in private hospitals were covered.

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

 

I think you are just trolling now. 

I am not trolling:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/17/bitcoin-morgan-stanley-is-the-first-big-us-bank-to-offer-wealthy-clients-access-to-bitcoin-funds.html

Investing in Cryptocurrency.pdf

Morgan Stanley has started to offer crypto-related investments to its clients. In order to be able to buy these securities, a client must have at least $2 million in assets invested with MS (twice the amount needed to be an accredited investor) and have a very aggressive risk tolerance based upon MS's metrics. Additionally, MS advisors are not allowed to sell crypto-related investments to their clients in excess of 2.5% of the value of their portfolios.

MS goes to great lengths to try to describe the risks associated with investing in crypto, both those specific to technical issues such as a breakdown in the computer code underlying the system as well as the fact that there is no tangible asset or revenue stream underpinning the valuation. This tells me that MS does not believe that crypto is a Ponzi scheme, but that it is an extremely risky investment and only appropriate for certain investors.

So far, crypto seems to be enduring longer than historical bubbles, but it may also be the first bubble to be able to draw upon a truly global pool of potential participants, thus extending its life compared to previous ones. But some other schemes have lasted a long time, too, such as those run by Bernie Madoff and, closer to home, Mae Chamoy Thipyaso.

Perhaps if I were thirty years younger and had time to re-coup possible losses, I'd put some money in crypto. But for me right now it carries more risk than I am prepared to accept and that's discounting the question of whether it is a bubble like the Dutch Tulip Mania or South Sea Company.

I have heard elsewhere that some banking apps don't work properly if a phone connects via wifi instead of via the phone system. No idea if this is applicable to Kasikorn.  I had a somewhat similar issue using the True website to pay my internet bill. Had to turn off the VPN on the computer.