Does anyone know where to get pure Propylene Glycol or Glycerin in Bangkok?

I could order from iherb but their delivery prices to Thailand have increased a lot.

I want to use either to dissolve a little Salycilic Acid powder for application on skin. Salycilic Acid does not dissolve well in water. It dissolves well in ethanol but ethanol is too drying to the skin.

Here's some info on Salicylic Acid: https://www.makingcosmetics.com/Salicylic-Acid_p_51.html

Standard Chartered have just deducted 200 THB for the annual ATM card fee (on 2017-09-01). Will the Standard Chartered ATM card still be of use after September?

Last year's fee was deducted in the beginning of October.

Is having the visa stapled on top of a used passport page still accepted? That was done on one of my last trips at Yangon airport (without needing to ask for it), and it was fine. The immigration officers had also stamped the arrival and departure stamps on the visa itself as usual.

8 hours ago, Argus Tuft said:

Yes, still USD$50 on arrival

Thank you, it's good to know in advance.

8 hours ago, Argus Tuft said:

multiple entry 12 mth Business visa is up to 26,000 baht now

Has there been another rise from 24k to 26k THB?

Does Business Visa On Arrival at Yangon Airport still cost 50 USD? I'd rather get that if so, than spend 70 USD for the business eVisa.

The Bangkok Myanmar Embassy's fees have also become unattractive (rising from 1440 THB to 2000 THB).

Will Tisco offer the same 2.25% interest rate of Standard Chartered JustOne accounts?

On 5/24/2017 at 2:53 PM, elviajero said:

You need to go to immigration to have your permt (extension) transferred.

Is going to Chaeng Wattana optional when you get a brand new passport?

It would be good if I could just carry both old and new passports through airport or border crossings than have to waste time at Chaeng Wattana just to have an extension of stay stamp transferred.

2 hours ago, ballbreaker said:

Have you thought about using NAS?

That would be an enclosure that provides access to the storage via a network interface, right?

I guess there are many types of NASs out there, but are there any that allow you to install your own drives of various sizes, and also implement RAID-like data protection?

2 hours ago, Chicog said:

I would suggest a Drobo, which can handle mix and match drive configurations and will take care of data protection for you.

I've just had a look at Drobo, and it looks like an attractive solution, especially with the hassle-free data protection features. Though it's expensive (ranging from 349 to 640 USD), and the drives cannot be read by any system other than another Drobo.

2 hours ago, Jdietz said:

2 external, 2 internal SATA ports. 

Thank you, it would be an option. It would be better if there were more ports. To use the 2 eSATA ports I'd need to additionally buy eSATA to SATA cables, and I'd have to place the attached drives externally.

I've accumulated many hard drives over time and want to be able to connect most or all of them to my PC, instead of having to unplug and connect whenever I need something on a particular drive. My PC motherboard has only 4 SATA ports, one of which needs to be for the operating system.

I also want to use RAID-like software (e.g. snapraid.it and/or drivepool) for data redundancy to prevent data loss in case of drive failure. e.g. 3 physical drives can appear as one big drive and a total failure of one physical drive would not result in any loss of data. I've had countless problems of data loss over the years, and I've read that as hard drive manufacturers keep trying to squeeze more data storage space into the same limited physical space, reliability is going to continue to decrease. So it makes sense for us users to introduce redundancy for data that we don't want to be losing, which means the need for many physical drives.

I've seen hard drive docking stations that can hold 2, 3, or 4 drives and connect via a USB port, but I think a SATA interface may be more reliable and performant.

I think the best solution is to use something like a multi-port SATA expansion card. Here's one that allows for an additional 8 drives:

Marvell Chipset 8 Ports SATA 6GB PCI Express Controller Card PCI-e to SATA 3.0 Converter Supports NCQ & Port Multiplier FIS

Where in Bangkok could I find something like this card?

As Standard Chartered's retail banking is going to be taken over by Tisco, I'm concerned about what will happen to their eSaver account product which I've enjoyed using as a much more flexible alternative to term deposits but still with a high interest rate. So I'm now researching alternatives.

An eSaver account currently earns 1.5% per year. I use this for the bulk of my savings. I even managed to use it to qualify for a one-year extension of stay (even though it comes with no passbook or ATM card).

A JustOne account, which is a transactional account that comes with a passbook and ATM card, currently earns 2.25% per year for balances up to 100k THB.

Krungsri's Mee Tae Dai account seems to be an alternative, but with only a 1.3% interest rate.

I assume TMB ME is still not available for foreigners.

What other accounts are around that:

• Earns high interest;
• Allows withdrawals without forfeiture of accumulated interest;
• Can be used to satisfy extension of stay requirement?

An eSaver account currently earns 1.5% per year.

A JustOne account, which is a transactional account that comes with a passbook and ATM card, currently earns 2.25% per year for balances up to 100k THB.

Krungsri's Mee Tae Dai account seems to be an alternative, but with only a 1.3% interest rate.

There doesn't seem to be any better rates around.

I have had good experience over the years with Standard Chartered's high-interest eSaver account. Interest rates were similar to rates of term deposit accounts, with the additional advantage that I could transfer money out of the account at any time for withdrawal or to any bank account in Thailand (or even to anywhere else in the world via telegraphic transfer) without forfeiting any accumulated interest.

I had even successfully used my eSaver account funds to qualify for a one-year extension of stay.

So do you guys or anyone else know what would happen to existing eSaver accounts? e.g. would they have to be closed, and if so, when could that be?

What are some good alternatives to Standard Chartered's eSaver account?

It should also be noted that the value of a land plot does not appreciate just because it exists; it appreciates due to demand for it (e.g. desire to build something on it in that area). So an assumption of 5% annual land value appreciation is based on the assumption that demand for that land will remain. Maybe in reality such demand won't be so consistent, but that's just part of the risk of real estate investing.

11 hours ago, lkn said:

However, a large part is really about maintenance, rather than initial construction, which is why it is close to impossible for me to speculate about how long the current buildings will last. Some may look like crap in 20 years, some may still be nice to live in, even in 100 years.

Maybe the 50 year value that the Thai Appraisal Foundation uses is for the very first condominium buildings. The purpose for the numbers in their table is for further calculation (e.g. accounting or forecasting), so a number needs to be provided for the lifetime of a building, and they chose 50. Maybe this number will gradually increase in future in acknowledgement to improving construction quality in Thailand.

11 hours ago, lkn said:

Btw: the condo from 1972 (which I bought in 1996) had an annual appreciation of ~11% through the 20 years I owned it, even though your estimates would have it unlivable in 5 years

There will of course always be disparity between valuation model outputs and real market prices (just like in quantitative finance for financial markets), as valuation models can never exactly explain what happens in the real world (but we can still continue to try by continually improving the models). There will always be elements of unpredictability in real markets, because real market players are people, and people behave in ways that aren't always 100% predictable, and may make decisions based more on emotions than logic or calculation. You can see real estate developers' attempts to exploit people's emotion-based decision-making in the kind of marketing that they create and display.

So in addition to land share appreciation and physical unit depreciation, there would be a market premium component to a unit's value that would be based on demand in the real market. There would actually be different kinds of demand, such as:

• Demand to be in the building;
• Demand to live in the particular unit;
• Demand to be in the area.

I have the first two separate because a building could be old and undesirable but a nicely renovated unit in it could still be attractive to the market. For new buildings, it could be the same.

There will always be physical unit depreciation, as a unit will naturally continue to deteriorate as it ages (though maintenance can counteract deterioration and slow down the aging). But market demand like those just listed can offset such depreciation and result in net appreciation. As a building and a unit in it becomes old, and new supply of units nearby increases, the first 2 demands may decrease and eventually be lost, with demand to be in the area remaining. The land share value of a unit may have also exceeded physical unit value, so these could then become the drivers of real market value appreciation.

16 minutes ago, wordchild said:

I used to own a flat in London that was in a building close to 200 years old. Built by one of the speculative builders of that day. It's still standing and (annoyingly) has gone up in value significantly since I sold it , a decade or so ago!

Is the rise in value of the flat now driven largely by rise in land value?

Or has the building gained a kind of heritage status?

20 minutes ago, lkn said:

Look at the NYC skyline, many of these buildings are 80-90 years old. Are they at the end of their life and unlivable? Is anyone coming to throw people out of these buildings and demand they demolish them and sell the land?

 

I am not claiming that everything built today is built to last a thousand years, but I also don’t buy that a new condo today is useless in 50 years

Would you say that construction quality in Thailand is at the same level as in U.S.A.?

How long (either a single value or range) would you say buildings that are constructed today in Thailand would last on average?

Is your main argument that condominium buildings may last 100 years or more, so there's no need to think about loss of value of a unit any time soon? That would be valid if you don't intend to have it passed down through future generations (like other forms of real estate).

1 hour ago, lkn said:

They actually state that it depreciates until it reaches 40% and then no further depreciation beyond that point, even if it’s older than 30 years.

I find that strange, especially if it means that even at end-of-life a unit will still retain 40% of its original value.

With anything else that is manufactured or constructed, once it becomes unusable, it loses all of its value, and you throw it away. Maybe in the case of a car that no longer works, you could try to sell it for spare parts, but the amount of money you would get from the sale would still be tiny compared to the original price of the car, nowhere near 40%.

It makes more logical sense to assume that once a unit eventually becomes unlivable, whether it be 50 or 100 years from inception, the physical unit would no longer hold any value. Hopefully by then the share of land would be worth a significant amount. Of course, if the owner could additionally receive compensation equal to 40% of the unit's value at its inception, then that would be amazing, but what would be the rationale?

1 hour ago, lkn said:

Forced by whom?

 

If the owners neglect to maintain the building, I assume you could end up in a situation where the government steps in and simply declare the structure unsafe for living and thus revoke the permission, in effect making the condo worth only the underlying land or the cost of making the building safe.

 

But isn’t that rather pessimistic?

Forced by authorities.

It's not pessimistic, but realistic in the long term. We're not talking about gold, diamonds or permanent land here, which can be passed down perpetually through countless generations. See the Thai Appraisal Foundation's table that I had shown in the original post of this thread. They assume a maximum 50 years of age for a condominium building (corresponding to 2% simple depreciation per year). I don't think they have a financial interest in limiting ages of all buildings. If you choose well maybe you could find one that will end up lasting much longer than 50.

I understand that not everyone is interested in thinking so far ahead, as there may be more than enough to think about now and in the immediate future. Many may simply let heirs deal with whatever may happen so far into the future.

34 minutes ago, lkn said:

 I simply wanted to indicate that “break even on land in 50 years” seems like a strange thing to focus on when rental income should “break even” long before.

It would be very relevant to those who buy to live in, as they would not earn rental income. Most owners would want to be left with some value at the end of a unit's life, otherwise it would be just like renting (but paying a lump sum at the beginning).

34 minutes ago, lkn said:

As for trogers question about whether it is actually break even, there are of course many ways to look at this, but you have gotten your initial capital back in full and you own a condo, so in that sense, you are better off than before you made the investment (regarding assets).

You would only "own" the condominium for some time, after which the physical unit will eventually be lost and worth 0 when occupants are forced to vacate. That may be very far into the future, and it may be heirs who would have to go through it, but it's a certainty.

9 minutes ago, lkn said:

What sort of bank gives you a yield close to 4%?

Probably none (in Thailand), but the major difference between earning bank interest and earning rent is that with a bank account you still have the entire principle in the end, in addition to the interest earned. At the end of life of a condominium, the physical unit itself would be worthless, and you are left with the unit's land share value, which if worth less than the total investment amount of the condominium, would be loss of some principle.

9 minutes ago, lkn said:

If you want to do a more realistic model than my simple “break even after 25 years” you should also include rental hikes. I find it unlikely that the rent in 35 years is not higher than today.

Yes, rent could increase, but that is dependent on real market demand for the particular unit. As a unit ages, it may become increasingly less desirable to the market compared with new units that have much better design and features, limiting the rental rate of the old unit.

11 hours ago, trogers said:

Would getting back a 100% of what you put in today, but 25 years in the future a breakeven?

Yes, if you don't consider the time value of money; But it is better to do so to be more realistic.

To find the breakeven point whilst accounting for time value of money, first we need to know how much you'd end up with if you instead left the total investment amount in a bank account that earns interest.

Then you need to find the number of years it would take for future value of earning regular rent (and each time you earn you deposit it into a bank account that earns interest) to equal the amount above.

With a 4% annual rental yield, I have determined that it would take 35 years for total rental income (including the accumulated interest) to match the same amount as if you instead had deposited the full investment amount into a bank account for the entire duration, assuming a 2% annual bank interest rate.

23 minutes ago, lkn said:

But what about rental value? Say you rent it out and net 4% then you break even after 25 years, so why focus on the land value?

It doesn't have to be one or the other; you can try to maximize both capital gain and rental income. You can see that I covered both in my first couple of spreadsheet tables. The second last line in each table is the sum of the two.

If though you can find a unit from which you can consistently earn extremely high rent, such that you don't have to be concerned about the land share value decades down the road, and are willing to accept some capital loss as the rental income would far offset it, then that can be good too.

My latest posts were focused on capital gain only, because I was analyzing the relationship between land share and non-land share components of a unit's total value over time.

As long as we understand that the physical unit is eventually going to be worthless when occupants are ordered to vacate, we can decide whether or not we should take that into consideration.

A unit without land share could, in effect, be thought of as a 50-year leasehold unit, with lease not extendable.

23 minutes ago, lkn said:

I would also think that your focus on land value ratio favors cheap construction, because materials + labour are a large part of the price you pay for a condo, and as you want to maximize land value ratio, you indirectly minimize price of materials and labour.

 

Compare a cheaply built concrete house using cinder blocks, plastic window frames, etc. and then one built with bricks and wood, the latter can easily be made to look great even in 100 years (we have many beautiful houses in Europe that are more than a hundred years old), whereas your cheap construction will look like crap, but it will likely have a larger part of the price go to the underlying land.

Placing high importance on land share value need not favor poor quality construction. Land share value would be just one of many other factors that should be taken into consideration when purchasing a condominium unit, and construction quality would be one of those other factors. You can choose which factors are most important to you and make investment decisions accordingly. Personally, I use a scoring system with each factor having a weight, then calculate an overall score per property and rank in descending order.

Some well-constructed condominiums could last well over the 50 year time span that the Thai Appraisal Foundation has set for the life of a condominium building. Some poorly built buildings may last much less than 50. The longer the lifespan of a condominium, the more time you get for land share value to continue to appreciate, leaving you with more capital in the end, so the construction quality factor complements the land share value factor.

38 minutes ago, wordchild said:

when i said "older" units  i was talking about completed around 2003/6 ;so at the time i was looking 3 to 6 years old,  a 10 year old condo is pretty much pre-historic for many Thais.

10 years is just 20% into 50-year lifespan of a condominium building. I would have thought over 25 years would be "old".

I think you may be referring to style or design, as over a span of 10 years designs would have changed greatly, such that when a Thai looks at a 10-year old unit they would think it's very old-fashioned, compared to the modern creative architecture that we see in new buildings today.

At 10 years old, there would be 40 years left for land share value to appreciate. To be breakeven at the building end-of-life, the land share would need to be 14.2% of the total unit value, calculated as 1 / (1 + land value appreciation rate)^(number of years), where land value appreciation rate = 5%. To have capital gain equivalent to 2% bank interest, the land share would need to be 31.4% , calculated as (1 + bank interest rate)^(number of years) / (1 + land value appreciation rate)^(number of years). So if you saw a 10-year old unit having 50% of its price as land share, then that could have been a very good deal.

For a condominium already purchased, a valuation based on land share and depreciation can be calculated using this formula:

Total unit value at n years = land share value at 0 years * (1 + land value appreciation rate)^n + unit value excluding land share at 0 years * (1 - unit depreciation rate * n)

38 minutes ago, wordchild said:

Off the top of my head i dont know the date of the condominium act but i guess it was sometime during the 1980,s; So nothing before then.

I think there hasn't been much awareness among condominium buyers about share of land because no condominiums have reached their end-of-life yet. So we'll have to wait and see what happens when the very first condominiums die. Presumably the occupants would be asked to vacate and owners would receive compensation equivalent to their land share value. News of the first condominium deaths would be published, increasing the awareness of the long-term significance of the share of land that condominium units have.