Irene

For your information.

A unit in my building recently sold for 85,000/meter.

Nice older building in a very good location.

Good to know. It would even be nicer to know of the area and the location or, better, the name of the condo.

I also felt sad reading all those misguided information on this forum which has been written by those self-appointed lawyers who use their instincts and a long yarn of their talks as a basis of advices. They seem to be addicted to their beliefs and thought to the extent of calling others names of all sorts if the advices are at variance with theirs. They also accused those good advices as given for self-interest either accusing them as an estate agent or even calling them stupid.

This is you Irene! The obvious misinformation you as a self appointed Thai legal expert give in this thread only:

'You can put in a usufruct the conditions that it is not only limiting to a person's lifetime of inhabitation but also 50 years rights passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later'

This is beyond usufruct and is the same argument why 30+30 leases is guaranteed.

'In term of the benefits in inhabitation on a property, the grantee can sell that right of inhabitation for whatever number of years he wishes without being subject to leasing conditions'

What you can transfer will always be limited by the term of the usufruct and a cannot exceed 30 years, unless it is for life then it is for life (this could be short). You cannot extend the usufruct beyond the 30 year term or your life. What you are probably trying to say is that you can rent out the property under usufruct to a third party. In this case the lease can continue after your death. However, any lease of the property under usufruct for more than 3 to max 30 years must be registered to be enforceable and this is not a right you have as the usufructuary. You have to make a separate deal with the land owner and this is something you can't rely on.

Your remarks about Singaporean law or Scottisch law compared with Thai law: what is possible under Singaporean law or Scottish law does not mean it is possible under Thai law.

Do not be so self-confident about your knowledge, its made up by you, from other law systems, what you read on this forum or what you heard in your bar.

BL4u,

Wow! This is getting to be personal. I do not go to any bar and have normal home life in Thailand. I did not quote or refer to Singapore law or Scottish law but refer to my Singapore friend and Scottish friend to whom I helped them a few decades ago to acquire condos when the laws disallowed foreigners to buy condos.

I leave your opinion and my opinion for others to judge and would not stoop down to have a slanging match with you.

Irene

Thank you for taking so much time to reply. Yes, it was very helpful. You have given me some reassurance and also some things to check

You actually sound quite confident about your leases, so I wonder why you have turned to Usufructs. Have you added Usufructs to the Chanotes in addition to your Leases or is that for future 'acquisitions'?

Thanks

Mick

Mick,

No, you cannot add usufructs to the Chanotes in addition to leasing terms. You have to chose the route of either usufruct or leasing. However in the usufruct, you have more room to agree with your grantor whatever you and she are in agreement with.

Personally, I have no interest on this issue of "ownership" via wife's "ownership" route. I have only an emotional interest in disliking Thai wife and her family taking advantages of caucasians because of imperfection of Thai laws. I felt sad to see some expats turn into paupers. I also felt sad reading all those misguided information on this forum which has been written by those self-appointed lawyers who use their instincts and a long yarn of their talks as a basis of advices. They seem to be addicted to their beliefs and thought to the extent of calling others names of all sorts if the advices are at variance with theirs. They also accused those good advices as given for self-interest either accusing them as an estate agent or even calling them stupid. This sector of opinion has precluded many good intentioned people with legal knowledge in contributing.

I got involved in 30-year lease because I have no choice since the prime property in that prime area, Rajdamri and Rajprasong, was offered by the owners as leasing only. I have no fear of my right of possession for 30 years and know that the renewal clauses are no guarantee and are at the mercy of the landowners. I know that Thai laws do not favour landowners but favour tenants. Furthermore, I am doubly comfortable because of the reputation of these landowners.

As to usufruct, I got involved about 30 years ago when I arranged for my friends from Singapore and Scotland to "buy" condominium units, (at that time, non-Thais cannot buy condos). I forgot all about this route until having a chance to read one opinion in this forum. Then, out of curiosity, I asked my assistants to find out whether the land officials would take this route kindly even though it is a perfect route for those with Thai wives. To my surprise, the officials were friendly and even gave a standard form of usufruct for us to fill in all the conditions you like.

If I have to start the issue from day one, I would not marry a Thai until I have this usufruct arranged and concluded together with a signed mortgage loan given by me. (This should also be pre-planned for leasing route). Thereafter, I would marry her. The idea is to show that the legal arrangement made at the time when she is single is not challengeable and made at her free will. Between the two choices, I certainly pick the usufruct route because it involves the officials in recognising a real legal standing of the terms and conditions as stated in the agreement and registered with the Land Department per the requirement of the laws for public viewing. Once it is accepted and registered, the terms and conditions as stated therein would be difficult to challenge.

In the case of leasing, the role of the Land Department is similar to the role a Notary Public in UK, much like a postbox, showing the details as having registered on such date. It has no interest on the agreement between the two parties. Hence, I believe the usufruct is a gem for those expats.

That is mighty kind of you to share your insights especially the revelation of the eminent expert. ........................

Irene

I'm confused. Was this a response to my post?

I can follow the sense of what you say (I think) but cannot find any answers to my Qs so do I assume not?

Mick

mickba,

No.

I just wrote my response to your post a few minutes ago, see below:

mickba,

My comments are in bold type:

Am I allowed to be surprised that you haven't seen the notations on the Chanote and, therefore, don't know what they say? I don't need to see what is notated because I can guess that there is a notation of the existence of the owner of the title deed as a lessor and you as a lessee concluded under an official lease agreement dated..... for a tenacy period of 30 years commencing as from.....The idea is to warn the public that this Chanote is subject to a burden of a 30 year lease, any buyer of this title deed shall be subject to this burden. I don't need to care whether it is notated or not. The failure of the government official in his duty does not affect my right of possession since I rely on the official lease agreement signed by the owner of the land as a lessor and I as a lessee. That agreement has been certified by a senior official that that Chanote is subject to the lease agreement, registered with the land office and legally binding on the lessor and the lessee. It is the same if the land has been mortgaged with a bank, that fact would be stated on the Chanote.

Unless anyone can tell me then I remain concerned and I'll have to find out. You can go to the land department in the district of that land to search for a copy of that Chanote and see the notation. You may need a lawyer or a secretary to help you to contact an official.What if it says e.g. that the Lease expires upon the death of either named party? Then we have to try to enforce the Agreement re heirs etc.. and meanwhile the Chanote may be clear? Could be hard work?The failure of the official to notate what should have been notated on the Chanote does not affect your right of possession since you are relying on the official lease agreement and not the lessor's title deed. I must have got it wrong right? So if I've got it wrong someone please correct me. You are not wrong but ultra-cautious on matters that should not be of your concern. Any wrongs arisen therefrom could cause the official and the land department having to pay damages to an afflicted party who erroneously bought the land without realising the burden of 30 year lease. Your right is still not affected because of your official lease agreement.

I've read many posts and the way most are written (incl yours above) it sounds to the layman as though the Lease Agreement which has been carefully prepared and signed/witnessed will itself be registered at the Land Office. This is attached to the official lease agreement and stated under Clause 3 as the agreement dated.....as attached thereto shall be regarded as an integral part of this official agreement.

Having gone through this process, I was left with the impression that the Land Office were not in the least interested in the Lease Agreement detail other than to record on their database and on the Chanote that such a 30 Year Lease has been agreed between the named parties. Your impression is correct. They should not care less of how you two agree on the terms of the agreement. All they are concerned with are the period of lease, parties involved, location, title deed numbers and rental just for the sake of filling in on the official form correctly. Their duty is like a company registration office with leases of all over Thailand with a period of over 3 years period being in their hands and can be referred to by the public.

So, have I misunderstood what happened i.e. did they in fact take a photocopy of the Lease Agreement for their files? I think not. There are three copies of this private lease agreement stated in details, one of each attached to the official lease agreement that is for keeping of the lessor, lessee and the land registration office. They are officially stamped as being referred thereto and officially stated as forming an integral part of the official lease. The officials do not need to be concerned with how the lease is written since their legal job is like a post box receiving the registration of leases of over three years period. (Leases of over three years are not valid if they are not registered with land department). Any disputes on the lease do not involve the land department except for the land department to confirm the copies as filed with them previously.

Please can someone tell me what their notation actually says.The notation would be the existence of the burden of the lease related to the relevant title deed.

I hope I have been of help.

mickba,

My comments are in bold type:

Am I allowed to be surprised that you haven't seen the notations on the Chanote and, therefore, don't know what they say? I don't need to see what is notated because I can guess that there is a notation of the existence of the owner of the title deed as a lessor and you as a lessee concluded under an official lease agreement dated..... for a tenacy period of 30 years commencing as from.....The idea is to warn the public that this Chanote is subject to a burden of a 30 year lease, any buyer of this title deed shall be subject to this burden. I don't need to care whether it is notated or not. The failure of the government official in his duty does not affect my right of possession since I rely on the official lease agreement signed by the owner of the land as a lessor and I as a lessee. That agreement has been certified by a senior official that that Chanote is subject to the lease agreement, registered with the land office and legally binding on the lessor and the lessee. It is the same if the land has been mortgaged with a bank, that fact would be stated on the Chanote.

Unless anyone can tell me then I remain concerned and I'll have to find out. You can go to the land department in the district of that land to search for a copy of that Chanote and see the notation. You may need a lawyer or a secretary to help you to contact an official.What if it says e.g. that the Lease expires upon the death of either named party? Then we have to try to enforce the Agreement re heirs etc.. and meanwhile the Chanote may be clear? Could be hard work?The failure of the official to notate what should have been notated on the Chanote does not affect your right of possession since you are relying on the official lease agreement and not the lessor's title deed. I must have got it wrong right? So if I've got it wrong someone please correct me. You are not wrong but ultra-cautious on matters that should not be of your concern. Any wrongs arisen therefrom could cause the official and the land department having to pay damages to an afflicted party who erroneously bought the land without realising the burden of 30 year lease. Your right is still not affected because of your official lease agreement.

I've read many posts and the way most are written (incl yours above) it sounds to the layman as though the Lease Agreement which has been carefully prepared and signed/witnessed will itself be registered at the Land Office. This is attached to the official lease agreement and stated under Clause 3 as the agreement dated.....as attached thereto shall be regarded as an integral part of this official agreement.

Having gone through this process, I was left with the impression that the Land Office were not in the least interested in the Lease Agreement detail other than to record on their database and on the Chanote that such a 30 Year Lease has been agreed between the named parties. Your impression is correct. They should not care less of how you two agree on the terms of the agreement. All they are concerned with are the period of lease, parties involved, location, title deed numbers and rental just for the sake of filling in on the official form correctly. Their duty is like a company registration office with leases of all over Thailand with a period of over 3 years period being in their hands and can be referred to by the public.

So, have I misunderstood what happened i.e. did they in fact take a photocopy of the Lease Agreement for their files? I think not. There are three copies of this private lease agreement stated in details, one of each attached to the official lease agreement that is for keeping of the lessor, lessee and the land registration office. They are officially stamped as being referred thereto and officially stated as forming an integral part of the official lease. The officials do not need to be concerned with how the lease is written since their legal job is like a post box receiving the registration of leases of over three years period. (Leases of over three years are not valid if they are not registered with land department). Any disputes on the lease do not involve the land department except for the land department to confirm the copies as filed with them previously.

Please can someone tell me what their notation actually says.The notation would be the existence of the burden of the lease related to the relevant title deed.

I hope I have been of help.

That is mighty kind of you to share your insights especially the revelation of the eminent expert. There are too many who love to bury this concept just because they do not yet understand the niceties of its principle. Not that there will be a lot who will change their mind but at least for those newcomers, please do consider the issues objectively and consult those lawyers who are conversant and experienced with the practices.

I was previously pro-leasing until having read some of the threads, then I realised that I was wrong in relying on the lease since a usufruct gives those non-Thais better protection. One great thing about reading this forum is learning from and sharing your knowledge with others and never to be concerned with winning or losing your belief and always prepared to change your stance.

The rates of withholding tax vary depending on the type of income. I can think of 5% as applicable to royalty falling under the category of literary work such as use of softwares. Dividend is at 10% and interest is at 15%.

For service fees, it can be exempted if the services cannot be construed as royalty and the corporation does not have a permanent establishment in Thailand per the US/Thailand Double Taxation Agreement.

j0hnga1t,

Make sure that when she is the owner, she is not your wife yet. Then there won't be much challenges left.

It is realy good of you to share your experience with us on this route in which many have buried as not possible.

Now they will start asking are you 100% sure?

My comments are in blue:

If you have a usufruct for life the usufructs ends with your death. As I pointed out this can be 1 year or 40 years. Therefore a usufruct for life as an investment protection it is a stupid alternative. Nothing extends this period as suggested by Irene. Rights and benefits under a usufruct can be made with all sorts of conditions inclusive of the rights in naming successors that are agreeable to both grantor and grantee. Once it is registered with the Land Department, the conditions are irrevocable either by the grantor or upon the death of the grantor.

You can as a usufructuary rent out the property to a third person without permission of the owner - however, this means for short term rentals. You are not allowed to register a 3+ to 30 year lease on the title deed. To register a lease in addition to the usufruct you have to make a new deal with the owner (he has to sign) and a deal with a third person who will be the lessee….The benefits under a usufruct are not based on the concept of leasing. If you want to pass on those benefits to others during that valid period, you can do so. Originally, usufruct is used a lot among orchard and farm land in which the fruits of the land are passed by a grantor under a usufruct agreement to a grantee. The grantee has the right to sell that right of reaping the fruits to a third party for a price without requiring any permission from the grantor. Thus, in term of the benefits in inhabitation on a property, the grantee can sell that right of inhabitation for whatever number of years he wishes without being subject to leasing conditions.

What if the owner after a while is not willing to cooperate? You can't force him. It is based on trust he will cooperate. What if you get problems with the lessee? You in fact rented it out to him. Do you receive income or assessed income from the lease, tax liabilities? Building land tax? No, not so. See the above comments.

I would not like to invest money in property and get involved with this structure. You take away the benefits of a usufruct and create a complicated situation. Complications? Not so.

If you like to discuss this further start a new topic.

Isaanlawyers,

Well said, thank you!

What they did was to put in the conditions that not only limiting to a person's lifetime of inhabitation but also 50 years rights passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later. Thus the grantee can name his beneficiaries. In addition, I have also seen a usufruct agreement granting the right to the grantee a purchase of Baht 100,000 of the property should the law change allowing a non-Thai to buy a condominium unit. When there was a change, this non-Thai bought the unit for Baht 100,000.

Was that a stupid alternative?

This post is nonsense Irene, comparable to the 30+30+30 lease.

This '50 years right passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later' you mention is made up, maybe by you to sell property. This is something you can absolutely not find in Thai law. I think you do not understand the concept of usufruct.

BL4u,

I am in a position of not having to stoop so low by giving insincere advices via this forum in order to sell my property. The last time I sold my property was in 1970, since then I have never sold my land or houses or condo units. Todate, I have no intention of selling any because I don't need to do so and because of my expectation of high inflationary forces in the next few years.

The idea of having two-prong benefits under usufruct came out of one of the posts of this forum and gave me the idea and confirmed by my lawyer as possible if there is an intention agreed both by the grantor and the grantee. Again you are rude in calling me having no knowledge of the concept of usufruct when thirty years ago I arranged for my friends in Scotland and Singapore to enter usufruct agreements with one condo developer and todate this agreements are still in effect.

You really need to watch your writing in not lowering down the standard of this forum. We are here to learn from each other and not to win or lose on our contentions.

BL4u,

I wish you do not call other people's opinion stupid. Do sometimes open your window a bit to receive fresh wind.

If you read some of those who had succeeded in going through the usufruct route, you would not have called their alternatives stupid and it is not as short-sighted as you thought. What they did was to put in the conditions that not only limiting to a person's lifetime of inhabitation but also 50 years rights passing on to his beneficiaries whichever comes later. Thus the grantee can name his beneficiaries. In addition, I have also seen a usufruct agreement granting the right to the grantee a purchase of Baht 100,000 of the property should the law change allowing a non-Thai to buy a condominium unit. When there was a change, this non-Thai bought the unit for Baht 100,000.

Was that a stupid alternative?

Irene

Another rather naive question...but when one "buys" a house/land via the lease option (e.g. no Thai wife, but maybe a farang couple) in places like Bangkok or the Islands, who's name is on the freehold - does the seller retain the title? (assuming this couple does not want to form a LTD company). THere was some company trying to flog mortgages via leashold a while back where they held the title - they seem to have disappeared

thaigene2,

No, not naive at all, very sensible. Nice, short and to the point.

First, as a non-Thai couple, you have the full right to lease without requiring any Thai participation. Legally, you are above-board.

Second, if you lease a property for 30 years (assuming the price is based on a leasehold of 30 years-normally equivalent to 75% of the freehold value), the titleship of the property still remains with the lessor and on his title deed, it will be notated as subject to the burden of leasing to you for 30 years. There will be three copies of the lease prepared establishing your right of possession for thirty years plus any promises of renewal. (That promises of renewals have now been established as not certain if the lessor is dishonest). One copy of each shall be given to you and your lessor. Another copy shall be retained by the Land Department as a public record. With that, you are assured on the right of possession for 30 years and if the lessor enters your place without your permission, that can be regarded as trespassing and viewed as a criminal offence. Your uncertainty is with the promised renewal period in which your recourse could with the courts if the lessor has broken his promise.

Third, as to the mortgage of this 30-year lease, it is possible legally. However, bankers and Thais dislike taking the 30-year lease as security. That may be the reasons why the developer disappears since financing is not easily available for this type of expiry assets based on equitable rights.

Finally, titleship as an owner can never go to a lessee since he is only a possessor of the property for a stated period. The ownership will always remain with the lessor.

My point is definitely that a 30-year lease period can be ensured easily with least challenges if one has the right understanding of the law and proceeded correctly through advices of a right lawyer. Thai law favours a lessee not a lessor. From my reading of many, I was surprised of the extent of misunderstanding. I therefore thought that it is about time to state the basics in Thai laws. It is well known fact that the protection of possession for the first 30-year is supreme and hardly challengeable. I agree that the adverts in some glossy magazines in London of some property in Samui, Phuket and Pataya were somewhat fraudulent in promising 90 year lease etc. that warrants calling them as a scam. But certainly, it cannot apply to those leases of the first 30 years. However, from the reading of the opinions of others in this forum, one should also consider usufruct as an alternative. That was a thrown-in for readers to consider.

I made no assumptions of any sort but purely state my basic understanding from my experiences in dealing with leasing in all positions as a lessor in respect of private residence and a lessor and a lessee in respect of office space and having also dealt with as a lessee three 30-year leases with one private company, one public company and another one with Crown Property. So, I don't need to make any assumptions or get personal on opinions which are far off mark.

In all that three 30-year leases, I have no need to see the notations on the original title deeds since I am very well protected by the three registered leases as acknowledged as having notated on the title deeds already by the district office as open as a public record with one copy and one copy each with my family and the lessors. Todate, I have never been disturbed to my right of possession and benefits from the lessors But I am certainly at the mercy of the lessors when completed the period.

mickba,

Wow! I never wish the whole subject to become personal. I wrote because I thought that this whole subject has been misunderstood a lot. Since you questioned my credibility, I can assure you that I have been in the leasing business for more than 30 years and I have a few in-house lawyers working for me.

Believe me, my summary of the leasing law was made to help others in this forum who has been confused by bar talks, hearsays etc. My summary is a basic understanding of the Thai leasing laws. From there, you can then understand of an opportunity of picking this alternative or recognise the risks and ways to avoid this conflict of husband and wife contractual relationship. I am not interested in anyone as a person but only interested in learning others' viewpoints and contributing somethings when warranted for good standing of this forum.

As to the husband and wife relationship, it is possible to avoid that challenge by good planning. You can enter the leasing agreement before your marriage. It is at the time of the contractual relationship that counts and not thereafter. As to the choice between leasing, usufruct and a nominee company, I have come to the conclusion that usufruct is the best after reading the viewpoints and experiences of a few in this forum. (When I first started to read this topic, I thought leasing was the best until someone wrote that he did the usufruct with least cost. Through my assistant, I made an enquiry and was immensely surprised when the officials were even helpful to bring out a standard usufruct agreement for the public to use).

In summary, you can get an unchallengeable situation under the lease for a maximum period of thirty years. But why go for leasing, when usufruct offers you a chance of a lifetime "ownership" with least cost. The worse is via a company route which is unnecessarily confusing and more expensive in starting and maintaining its existence and forever against good sense.

With the above basis of understanding, you could talk with your lawyers with more senses than having these haywire understandings with no basis in law but only of someone having said so.

Wow! I thought I knew the law on leases quite well. My understanding is very simple.

First, if you rent an immovable property for a period of three years or under, no registration with the Land Department is necessary. You are well protected with your right of possession unchallengeable for the stated period so long as you have a written contract covering that period. Change of ownership of the property or death of the lessor does not affect your right of possession pursuant to the Thai Civil and Commercial Code and the right and duties of the lessor shall be passed on to the new owner. (Sub-lease is subject to the agreement with the lessor and prior approval is necessary).

Second, if the rental period is more than three years, to be effective, your lease agreement has to be registered with the Land Department and the concept as stated above of protection of the lessee's right and duties and sub-leases still remain unchanged. If the lease is not registered with the Land Department, then the period of 30 years would be reduced to a valid period of 3 years only.

Finally, from all the threads of this forum under this topic, the uncertainty is in respect of the lessor being your legal wife which could make the lease invalid because wife and husband is considered as one person. The way out is simply not to register the marriage. Another uncertainty is the effectiveness of a renewal clause which is not unchallengeable like the first period of possession and considered as a pure promise. The only right the lessee has is to take that lessor to court to enforce the promise or if the lessor is death then one can try to enforce on his successor.

I am really puzzled by all the comments which have made this simple matter as so complicated.

First, you need to a building permit from the district office and applied under your name. Normally, a contractor can arrange the whole procedure for you. Second, when the house is completed, then you can register the house under your name with the Land Department. Double check with your law

Under the Thai laws, property of a married couple is regarded as joint ownership. So, to protect both husband and wife, diversion of assets does require an acknowledgement of the other. However, in practice, in the case of buying, sometimes the Land Department can make do without that consent because they view this as an increment of wealth and beneficial to the spouse. But for selling, it is definitely a must that a consent of the other party should be there.

If you are single, then you will not be required to present that consent letter and allowed to own the property.

My girlfriend told me I should buy a house in BKK and not a condo. I know if I buy a house that I can put it in here name and have her sign over the right for me to live in the house for the rest of my life so I'm okay with buying a house, BUT with regards to condos. She tells me that they only last 10-20 years then they fall apart. Is this true? She maybe talking about the older or inexpensive ones. What is the lifespan of a condo in BKK?

I find it hard to believe that condos don't last forever, but then again I am a farang and am not familar with the quality of condos in Thailand.

Any insight would be good. I'm curious.....

ps don't laugh too hard at my naiveness

MaiChai,

I have been living in a condo for 35 years and come down to the ground two years ago. My comments are in bold type:

Renting is the smart thing to do before buying. You can learn alot and avoid all the pitfalls. Absolutely correct. I own a house up country, and have been renting an apartment in BKK for 3 years now. I have just moved to a rented house in BKK and am glad to see the back of the apartment. Here is why:

• No noisy neighbours (well they are not as close).
  
• Management telling what you can and cant do.
  
• Nosy security asking what you are doing all the time (ie if I am fiddling with my motorbike).
  
• Lifts breaking down.
  
• Less people living around me.
  
• My pickup not being rolled about by the security/bumped by other cars/scratched by people walking by.
  
• Generally more space and room in the house.
  
• More residential area with normal people/quieter/less crouded.
  
• More privacy and freedom to do as I wish.
  The above are somewhat personal. I did not find all the annoyances that bad. I moved down because of the earthquake on the boxing day shook the building one hour before affecting Phuket and Khao Lak. At my quiet moment, I sometimes long for residence in a flat. But on the whole, coming down to the ground has been an eye-opening especially when hearing birds chirping away. The only complaint I have is some little things go wrong all the time and the running of water pumps. There is no perfect solution to either.
  

Condos are a big risk and will deteriorate. Thais dont refurb buildings so figure they will tear it down in 20/30 years and then you get into the legal problems of what happens with your 1/100 share of the property. Not in all cases. (I have not heard of one yet except for the government housing condos which were poorly built 40 years ago). One condo we own has an age of 25 years old and recently installed new lifts and can still fetch rental of 60,000/month. (Tai Ping Towers). Legal problem? Unlikely because whatever you do you need 75% agreement from co-owners of what to do next. At that stage, democratic rules come to play. If the whole building caught fire or collapsed due to earthquake and uninhabitable, knock-down is definitely a must and compensation from insurance companies is expected. Or alternatively, co-owners take the money and sell land for eventual distributions to co-owners instead of using the fund to rebuild. (So, you could ask the management whether the sum is well-covered for each unitholder.

My view is to buy an old house in the suburbs; the trick is to get the land ownership; the quality of the property is a lesser issue. Preferably with reasonable transport (maybe a 10 min bus ride to the BTS/MRT). You can always renovate/rebuild an old house; labor and materials are quite cheap in reality. It is a question of preference. I would hate supervising house building or even repairs. Close supervision is always a must.

If you are new to Thailand/Bangkok then the best thing to do is rent and see if the gf sticks with you or goes gold digging elsewhere Definitely, never go by the romantic idea of Thailand and gf. Always hum to yourself that Thailand is not England, whatever you thought happens in England do not also happen in Thailand. Remember Thailand has never been colonised and quaintnesses are everywhere. You might feel somewhat at home in Malaysia, Singapore or Hong Kong.

Renting=low risk/cheap/easy. Absolutely and plenty of supplies if you are not in the high-end category.

Down here in the south of Phuket, there are houses and condos being thrown up everywhere at an alarming rate. But as I travel around the area, I see the same For Sale notices and Rental signs that have been up since at least last year. And a new phenomena is ordinary houses sticking 'for rent by the day/week' signs outside.

Has anyone sold or for that matter, been able to rent their property lately? The estate agents/rental agents keep telling me their busy, but they would wouldn't they.

pkrv,

Just a slight correction. I am pro-Bangkok investment only on the condos that are next or almost next to the BTS and MRT. I also have the feeling as others that the selling prices now are somewhat too high. But from my past experiences, rarely do I have a chance of buying a bargain. Whenever I buy stocks or condos, I also feel the price as too high and always feel like a sucker every time.

This time I take a safety measure of sticking to the mass transit. If it turns out that all my purchases are proven eventually as bad, at least I think I have time to stick around for the price to rise to compensate for my purchases of exhorbitant prices. That is how I see the condo picture in Bangkok. Like others, I also don't like most condos in Bangkok or those developers with one-off development. This type of developers does not care for any further developments, they just want a quick profit and run. May be Sidmund Freud can explain my mentality better. When I was in London, I lived 15-minute walk away from South Kensington station and then dreamt all the time of how I wish to be next to the station.

Moonfruit,

The questioner asked why this soi is able to command the high price of 150k/m2. I gave the answers from my own commitments of "why". Naturally, when one make a decision, one has to override other points that may be small and irrelevant in a buyer's mind.

Your reference of the unwalkable sois was related to sub-sois where Emporium cleverly has made it so accessible to its other fronts thereby causing incoveniences to those houses and condos in the sub-soi areas. For the condo I bought on the main soi 24, we are not affected because we are almost next door to Emporium. For our tenants who live in Siri Residence (now fetching 120k-140k/m2), they could not care less of the effects of the sub-sois.

Granted that even on the main soi 24, during festive seasons, you may also be stuck there for ages. However, the condos with more than five-minute walk to the BTS or MRT station is outside my consideration. Those condos in that soi do not warrant my second glance. The condo (Siri Residence) I referred to is currently in the process of transferring to buyers. But enquiries for rental are plenty and todate I have rented out with the previous quoted yield. That also explains why the light is not all turned on.

I am not trying to urge anyone to agree with me on my choice of investments but purely thought that the questioner could get insights into the mind of the one who has committed the resources. I also thought that by putting my mind on the table, others could also tell me where I have gone wrong. Knowing is easy but the hardest part in life is making a decision. I therefore like to uplift this forum to another stage of maturity.

Let me share with you the mind of an investor who has been buying the space in that price range:

The reasons are being near to Emporium, BTS station, and a park. On a higher floor, the view of the park and some with the lake is impressive. With that pluses, you can command Baht700 to 800/m2 monthly rental against an investment of 130k/m2 to 150/m2. The gross rental yield per annum is 6.5% or a net yield of 5% after taxes and other incidental expenses. Under a broad brush basis, a yield of not less than 5% has always been considered as an acceptable benchmark. Currently, bond yield or bank interest is in the range of 2% to 3%. In addition, the likelihood of capital growth, if very near to the three gems, is greater than others. The vicinity has now become the Japanese haven, being near to Japanese main school and conveniences in buying things Japanese.

However, the price has also been driven by speculators especially in the past year when the plus potentials become more obvious to tenants. The risk of losses in paying high price now is a slowdown of foreign direct investment thereby reducing a number of potential expatriates requiring such accommodation. What I fear most from this high-priced investment is scarcity of tenants and one earthquake. Hence, I always ask for an insurance coverage on earthquake. With that fear in mind, I always have to hum the words of Bob Hope to pacify me that God does not manufacture any more land (especially in the most demanded area like Mayfair or Bond Street). (Bob Hope was famous for buying property in Los Angeles).

Personally, I would not buy those that are not real close to the three gems of easy transportation, easy shopping for food, and open air space of a park. A ten-minute walk to BTS is still not good enough for me. It should not exceed five minutes. Walking in Bangkok is no comparison to UK or US.

Once you have these three gems, you have more leisure time and better lifestyle than the majority Bangkokians. You don't even need to own a car.

As they say, location, location and location. The definition of a location is not the most pricey area of land but the area that is most wanted by residents wanting to live there. The price of Silom, Wireless and Sathorn is historically good for offices but not for residence. But Asoke is a quaint one where it can satisfy both office dwellers and residential dwellers. The price for some residential condos in that area also shot up to 130k/m2 range and office rental shot up from 450/m2 to 600/m2.

If you had a bit of extra cash where would you put it to work? Options include condos to let in Samui, Hua Hin/Cha-Am, Pattaya or Rayong. I realize that the money could be put into equities or commodities but I am looking for some insight from members who have been active condo investors in the areas mentioned. I believe that the rental yields and capital appreciation on condos could be attractive for a long term investor. Thanks for your comments.

Trollster,

I think I fall into your category of a seasoned investor in condos. Your belief of yields and capital gains on condos being attractive for a long term investor is quite correct, historically for me. (I would not tell you the percentage of the return on capital because some people in this forum would just call me a liar in view of their hang-up idea of Thailand being a third world and bad for property investment). But I have never invested in the seaside resorts for rental because I know Bangkok market far better and don't feel comfortable in travelling. I bought a few condo units for personal uses in Jomtien because of the view and serenity and the local agents have been asking to buy two and a half times of the cost in 1999.

If I were you, I would not invest in the areas you mentioned. I would prefer to invest in the area that I and my family know of the location and of the rental market, i.e. Bangkok, where the rental market is more matured and the chance of capital gain is greater and safer. The worst thing about buying a condo is not able to rent out and naturally not able to sell quickly while you have to foot the monthly maintenance fees. Fearing for this event, I therefore prefer to invest in condos next to the BTS or MRT stations. Though the price is far higher but I feel that I would have a safety margin in liquidating or renting. Lately, I have gone into a few projects under that basis with the price ranging from Baht 75,000sqm to Baht120,000sqm. (Mostly in Sukhumvit area and not beyond Soi 67). They are off the plan investment in which you put in deposits and instalments etc. covering 30% of the price payable over a period of 30 months while the buildings would be completed in 36 months. If you are lucky or your strategy is spot on, you can make a profit of 100% on your 30% deposits. But if the economy turns sour and the market truly collapses, then your chance of losses on the total deposit sum is there. I do not advocate for anyone to invest in the way I do since it is up to the judgment of each investor.

I write because I found your question was well put and thought that you were truly seeking for right information. I just share my experience with you. I may be successful historically but prospectively I may be wrong.

QUOTE (think_too_mut @ 2008-02-19 08:19:51) This is where the girl is coming from:

Twenty buildings in the decades-old flat complex have been marked for demolition. Buildings 1-8 along Din Daeng road, which have 672 units, and buildings 21-32 along Vibhavadi Rangsit road, with 640 units, have all been set for demolition.

The board last year proposed a plan to demolish the flat complex, saying the buildings were no longer safe for residents to stay in.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/18Feb2008_news003.php

Have you got a link that works?

I'd be interested which set of buildings they are talking about.

Cheers

The article is not there any more.

Would not the excerpt give enough details about where the buildings are?

The referred buildings were built 40 years ago by the government housing department to help the lower income group and the poor. It was then built to eradicate slum-dwellers.

I can refer to the first residential condos built for sale to the public, Tai Ping Towers. Both buildings must be over twenty years old and I am still earning rental of 60,000/month for a 250sqm (four bedrooms) flat.

I can also refer to the four-floor buildings along the Rajdamnoen Avenue which were built sometimes in 1930 and they are still ever strong and nice to look at and people are still working there.

I can also refer to the tallest building in 1950 with nine floors in Chinatown area. The building is still standing there but somewhat dilapidated.

I can also refer to most of the shophouses in the Ratanakosin area which were all built pre-Second WW and people are still trading and living there.

Need I find more?