fletchsmile

50 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

1 hour ago, fletchsmile said:

 

I think II reduced their DD fees recently, although i haven't looked into it recently as I'm not close enough

Nope. It's still there. There was another fee I wouldn't expect to pay which they removed recently, but the monthly investment still sticks.

When you wrote these type of investments are 0% with II, I think you've got lost in their headline marketing and that of the simple comparison sights ????

eg

Fund trading acc

Simple and fair fixed fees

• £22.50 per quarter which we return to you as trading credit.
• £10 flat rate to buy and sell investments online.
• £6 online rate for new accounts* and frequent traders.
• £1 for each investment made using our dividend reinvestment and regular investing services.

SIPP account has all the above

plus highly relevant to OP on a SIPP

Quote

Our annual administration fee is just £120 whilst you're building your pension pot. Once you start to take retirement benefits, there is an additional £120 annual drawdown fee.

https://www.ii.co.uk/ii-accounts/sipp

1 minute ago, Traubert said:

SG Pensions in Singapore.

 

I'm just going through the same process amalgamating three old UK funds into one SIPP.

Singapore?

Be sure you understand what you're being offered. An "international SIPP" and transferring your UK SIPP overseas/ outside UK is different than a UK SIPP.

With an international SIPP be prepared for lots of fees and commission to set up etc. "Wrapper fees", "advisor fees", set up fees. For many people they will be worse off than with a UK SIPP.

If the same provider is offering QROPs it's very likely you should be looking for a bargepole. While QROPs did have a place for some people in some situations, because of changes to UK pension rules and the many problems with QROPS, QNUPs etc, most people these days would do well to stay clear. International SIPPs seemed to spring up once the QROP market started to dry up, so tread carefully.

Might be right for you in your case and as a minority. But tread carefully with anyone tring to get you to move a UK SIPP outside the UK into a product "more suited for expats". As a sweeping generalisation if you're talking tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds then likely a UK SIPP would be better. Of course for millonaires it may be different ????

Warning bells LOL

21 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

 It maybe depends on the Funds you have with Hargreaves. I compared with Interactive Investor and the share class had the same low fee (rebate already taken account of) but HL would charge 0.45% or 0.25% or whatever for doing nothing. There is a reason a lot of people switched to Investment trusts if they wanted to stick with HL

 

Yes it will depend on the funds, which is the key point ????

II's range is also more limited not to mention less research.

But as an example:

Royal London Sterling Extra Yield:

II doesn't appear to offer the Class Y's - even on their switch fund class function:

OCF = 0.83%

https://www.ii.co.uk/funds/royal-london-sterl-extra-yld-bd-a/3257148

On the other hand, HL offers the Class Y

OCF = 0.83% less 0.43% = 0.4%

https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/r/royal-london-sterling-extra-yield-bond-class-y-income

That's a massive difference when people make statements like HL is more expensive. Someone really needs to look at all their holdings and all fees, from initial charges, OCF, loyalty rebates etc etc. Not to mention share classes which are not available by certain providers on certain platforms.

A question might be why doesn't II seem to offer the class Y's ?

As mentioned II have a fixed fee also on SIPPs, regardless of size. They also charge you to put your SIPP in drawdown. So you get charged twice. They also charge you for making sales/purchases, although a certain amount are effectively free, someone purchasing regularly ends up paying. Same for making monthly contributions. II charge a min GBP 1 on a GBP 25 investment. 4% is scandalous.

Personally I tend to buy my investment trusts thru my Singapore broker where I pay no platform fee. I leave HL for my unit trusts/OEICs etc knowing that I get the lowest OCFs net of rebates and these savings wipe out my platform fees

3 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

7 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Hargreaves Lansdown ..... nobody else comes close, the only pension managers that didn't steal from me.
Don't tell them you live in Thailand when you open the account, you need a mailing address in the UK for the application forms.
 
After that, they don't care where you are.

I moved from Hargreaves as their charge for unit trusts/OEICS is way too high. I hope you don't hold any. Interactive Investor has fairer charges, in fact 0% for those types of investments

I suggest you look very carefully at I.I. when it comes to SIPP charges. The devil is in the detail. Particularly when you put into drawdown:

Quote

 

On a 50k portfolio

Interactive Investors would be 22.50 a quarter or 90 quid on an ISA.
If you're using it for a SIPP however it's 120 quid a year. On top of that there is also a 120 quid annual fee for a pension in drawdown. So that would actually make it 240 quid and more expensive than HL on a 50k SIPP. HL has no extra charge for a SIPP in drawdown, and you can stop and start as you feel like it.
So on 50k their fixed fee doesn't necessarily save a lot for you, and is actually more expenive on a small SIPP in drawdown.
The comments about it on the compare website about the platform not being intuitive and lacking the info I'd expect and have seen elsewhere seemed valid from my own browsings. Didn't like it.
Where they might be useful in having a fixed charge is for someone with say a 200k+ ISA, particularly if they used tracker funds

A couple of other words of warning on other costs on interactive investors:
1) They charge 1 pound for regular investments. They say you can invest as little as 25 pounds a month. So that's a rip-off 4% if you were sticking 25 pounds a month in a fund. I do this for free for my brother and sister-in-law's accounts with HL. The minimum is 50 pounds per fund, but free and very easy to change. [edit: just read HL's lowest is also 25 pounds min now - still free]

 

www.ii.co.uk/investing-with-ii/regular-investing

 

2) their 10 pound dealing costs applied to funds. This would be a complete no for me.

This could significantly affect your total annual costs if you get charged to 6-10 pounds to buy and sell funds every time. It's something I would have queried specifically if I liked them and wanted to use them. I didn't like them though on researching, so never went any further.

 

www.ii.co.uk/investing-with-ii/frequent-trader

 

Be careful of the money comparison sites, which are often just cursory and superficial in nature. It's a shame, but in many cases they can do more harm than good. You really need one that discusses rebates and discounts.

HL is often touted as among the most expensive. On the face of it, they can be. I would also say if you invest only in index/ tracker funds and you are looking for the cheapest option then that will not be HL.

For me though, with a large range of active funds, the discounts and rebates I get from HL effectively cacel out all their platform charges. A very different story from the headline 0.45% most expensive you see.

Here's a cut and paste I made on another Thai forum. Links to other forums aren't allowed, but I'll waive my own copyright LOL:

Quote

 

These type of compare sites are an OK starting point. But you have to be careful as they really do over simplify and generalise. Good list to start with but for a lot of people they'd benefit by doing their own research on top.

 

On understanding costs in particular they can be very misleading and I wonder how many people are paying more than they need to as a result of these simplified generalisations.

 

Some examples:

 

AJ Bell: They describe as low cost (one pound sign) with a platform fee of 0.25% which tiers down on larger portfolios

 

BestInvest: They describe as (medium cost 2 pounds signs) but say describe  them as being a better option for smaller portfolios at 0.4% for an ISA

 

Hargreaves Lansdown they describe as high cost (3 pound signs) with a platform fee of 0.45%

 

So looks simple. AJ Bell Low, Best Invest Medium, HL high. But:

 

* My biggest gripe is these sites often don't mention anything about loyalty rebates and if they do, I haven't seen one that actually quantifies them in any meaningful way.

> With HL's Wealth 50 funds you save an average of about 30% on the normal fund fees. So on 0.82% normal fee you save 0.25%. This can wipe out much of their platform fee

 

* No mention that a decent provider can discount initial fees. Again although a few websites mention that, I haven't seen one that quantifies it. Almodt all of my unit trusts with Hargreaves Lansdown I pay no initial charge, as they have discounted it with the fund manager.

 

* Doesn't mention that HL is also tiered on unit trusts. Platform fee of 0.45% on first 250k, 0.25% on next 250k-1mn, 0.1 % on next 1mn - 2mn and zero after that. So on a 1 million portfolio it would be 0.3%; on 2 million 0.2%;  on 4 million 0.1%

 

* Doesn't mention that HL have a different fee structure for Investment Trusts and ETFs

> In an ISA: 0.45% capped at 45 pounds a year. I make that 0.45% on investments up to 10k and free thereafter

> In a SIPP: 0.45% capped at 200 pounds a year.

 

* Doesn't mention that HL have no platform fee for ITs and ETFs held in their Vantage Fund and Share Account

 

So for ETFs and ITs HL can be very good value, particularly if outside a tax free wrapper vehicle, i.e held in their Vantage Fund and Share Account

 

* These are the standard rates only. It's often possible to negotiate better deals

 

When all these things are taken into account, for me personally, my loyalty rebates broadly cover the ongoing platform fees. So the effective platform cost after rebates and non-standard fees is pretty much zero. Very different from the headline 0.45% which the site uses to form conlusions.

There's also no additional cost to enter and exit funds, and cheaper than going direct to the fund manager. So all in all the conclusions these sites make on fees are completely wrong and misleading in my case. I suspect the loyalty bonus and initial charges elements are significant for many others as well.

 

FWIW recently when trying to transfer my pension scheme to a SIPP:

 

- AJ Bell was a name that often came up and seemed a decent service on smaller portfolios. I would have considered if I couldn't get the transfer to HL

- I also personally contacted Fidelity and Best Invest but wasn't impressed with their service in general or response times on telephone enquiries. Stuff that gets dealt with in minutes over the phone at HL seemed a hassle, and was I'll call you back etc

- Pension Bee and a few other similar low cost options were cheap, but just too narrow and limited in scope

 

My own oversimplified view is that Hargreaves Lansdown is without doubt the best of the UK providers for someone like me. For many people it won't be the cheapest though. Those looking for lowest cost and simple services could likely be better elsewhere. They've also a wealth of useful information on their website. For my Uk investments the 2 biggest sources I use for analysis and research are Hargreaves Landsdown and Trustnet . These info services link nicely into managing my portfolio. So much in one place

 

10 minutes ago, Oxx said:

It's not churning and they make no money from it.

 

HL simply ensures that investors are invested in the lowest cost version of a fund available.  Sometimes new classes of a fund are issued, or HL negotiates a special discount and does the decent thing to ensure the existing funds are transferred to the new class.

Yes this is exactly as Oxx says.

To expand a little: when the RDR review came in a few years back, this resulting in different classes of the same fund having different charges, depending on whether inclusive or unbundled.

HL had a great conversion process which was free of charge and regularly flagged whether there were cheaper units available, and helped clients adjust. As the process is no longer new to everyone and the RDR no longer new it doesn't get piblicised as much. The functionality is still there though.

Also whenever you research any fund on their website it clearly shows initial charges, discounts, loyalty bonuses, as well other classes of the fund so you can see which is cheapest.

Can save quite a bit in the long run

7 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Hargreaves Lansdown ..... nobody else comes close,

 

Would second that. I've been a client for well over 20 years and always found their service second to none. My client number is in the 4X,XXX range, whereas today they are 7 digits and 1 million+ LOL

I recently spent quite a bit of time looking at alternative providers, and none came close. I had to look though in case I couldn't get an advise to give me the recommendations needed to transfer a DB scheme into my HL SIPP.

They are not necessarily the cheapest for some people. But there's a lot more to charging than meets the eye, and the headline rates you see.

AJ Bell would have been a reasonable choice if I couldn't use HL as first choice. They've just listed on LSE and strive to emulate HL, which seems pretty much everyone's benchmark for a UK plaform provider

6 hours ago, sonos99 said:

Unless you live in the UK Hargreaves Lansdowne will not allow this. I tried to do exactly this - transfer my other UK pensions into my already existing HL SIPP but they refused

 

I had already given them my Thai address at this stage. 

You might find it difficult but it is possible. You probably also need to be a bit more specific when you say "other pension schemes". Some can be transferred, some not. Defined benefit can be a compex area, defined contribution is simpler

I recently transferred a defined benefit scheme into my HL SIPP.

The service from HL was as usual excellent. Transferring a defined benefit schemes as opposed to a defined contribution scheme can be complex. I called HL as to exactly what I could and couldn't do, and what exactly is required. I was put on hold for a couple of minutes at one point while they checked a couple of points. In under 10 minutes I had the answers I needed:

1) Yes they could accept my transfer in, as an existing SIPP client with a UK registered address for my exisiting account 2) No they could not advise on the transfer, as I lived in Thailand. I already knew UK pension law requires you get advice to transfer a DB scheme. They couldn't do the Thailand bit though 3) In order to proceed I needed such advice from a qualified advisor and that advisor had to give a positive recommendation as to suitability, otherwise they wouldn't accept

From several other providers and advisors I was given run arounds and took days try to get clear answers as to what they could and could not do. I know it is achieveable, the question is just whether they could do it.  HL got me the key answers in under 10 mins. This is typical of their excellent service.

Took much longer to find a decent advisor in the middle though. Didn't want one. But law requires it for DB transfers

Hi Cheeryble. Long time no hear.

Banks are generally reluctant to lend vs properties not built. Not surprising to hear Crossy's story and a good chance they were dragging their feet in this case, as they will much prefer a mortgage.

Your wife should be able to get a mortgage in her name on those sort of numbers. Key for Banks here is the ability to service debt, as often measured by their debt service ratio (DSR), rather than in the west where there may be a greater focus on asset ratios. REason: Foreclosure is a lengthy process in Thailand compared to say US. 

Bangkok Bank and other banks often have loan calculators on their websites these days, eg borrowing 500k @ 6% from 20 years would be around 3,600 baht a month and well within her debt servicing ability. (You should be able to get a promotion in the early years for a rate better than 6%, eg we got variable 2.7X% for 1st year, 3.7X% variable years 2-3 and just under 5% variable rate after that.

http://www.bangkokbank.com/BangkokBank/WebServices/Calculators/Pages/Loan Calculator.aspx

GSB/Omsin can be good on these smaller sort of amounts, as unlike commercial banks their programmes often have a social element to them, to encourage people to get housing. You may also find them easier than commercial banks to get them to lend vs unfinished properties for this very social reason.

We've had a mortgage twice in Thailand. Both times vs a finished property though.

1st time on a condo - I had a WP and was guarantor, my wife was a housewife and not working. We did 10 year loan

2nd time on our house. Neither of us working, although my wife is a director of a company. We did 30 year loan. In this case they gave what they called a "surrogate" loan, based on the assets she had at the bank and their ability to generate a notional income. She did need to have some link to a company though, but the directorship covered that. Even though they did not look at income from that, and only assessed based on her assets. I was not considered at all by the bank for their calculations, except maybe the fact they know we have a good relationship with them and hence they were more eager to support our needs.

You can be a guarantor even if not married. Being married strengthens your case, but is not essential. On the numbers you mention though, she probably wouldn't need you.

There are often penalties if you pay off early. They often link to promotional terms. In our case now if we pay off within 3 years.

You can significantly overpay though. On our first loan, we significantly overpaid in the first 3 years, so running out the 3 year term became somewhat of a technicality. We paid off in just over 3 years, once the promotional rates had finished. Reasonable chance we might do similar this time too. 

i.e. pay off large lump sums early, and just leave enough repayments to last the 3 years can be a decent strategy to deal with this if you want to pay early

Your main issue will be the property not being built. GSB is well worth checking because of the social lending element. May be possible at other banks, but will be more difficult than on a finished property

GSB is often not the cheapest on higher amounts which are more commercial and without a social element to the programme. Where they come out cheaper though is often if there is some social element to the lending, eg government asks them to make available X billion of loans for 1st time buyers on smaller amounts, say up to THB 1million to get them to help people start out.

On 2/18/2018 at 5:48 PM, GOLDBUGGY said:

I am afraid that you are totally wrong about this My Fiend! You need to do more (some) research!

 

When a person buy stocks in the Stock Market, and earns an income from them, as in Dividends, he has to pay Income Tax on that. Should the value of that stock price increase, which many people hope it will do one day, and you sell it at a profit, you are then subject to more taxes known as Capital Gains Tax. 

...

But even if you don't sell the house you lived in, and die in it, your dependents will still be subject to the Inhereitance Tax,  So the bottom line is that you never get a Tax Breaks at all on anytime, including the house you live in. This is certainly easier for most people to believe and understand than you saying the government gives you this easy money to keep on a Rental Property because it went up 20% in value.   

This is where effective tax planning comes in. The tax breaks are there, you need to know how to take advantage of them. As a qualified accountant I would just say while that may be the case for people who don't plan, that are many mitigating steps you can take:

- I pay zero income tax or capital gains tax for example on the investments in my UK ISA and SIPP

After that I moved some money out of the UK:

- For Thai investments zero capital gains tax and minimal income tax (max at 10% on some)

- For Singapore investments I pay zero capital gains tax, no income tax on REITs and no additional tax on the divs I hold on other investments, beyond what the individual underlying investment pays

- For inheritance tax, to reduce this I moved money out of the UK and put it in joint names in Singapore and joint or wife's name in Thailand, and in come cases the childrens' name in Thailand

- Pensions these days can also be a way to pass on assets and reduce IHT

Once you start moving assets out of the UK, you find there are different ways to reduce various taxes. The problem with a UK house of course is moving it outside the UK 

On 2/16/2018 at 3:08 AM, sirineou said:

 Ad to the mix political instability.

Answer, don't burn your bridges.

If you sold your house back home and got $200,000 invested with an annual return of 6% you would get an income of $1000 p/m ( not considering tax and fees) with the principle remaining but depreciation by an average of 2% per year

If you kept the house and rent it ,you would receive  about $1500 rent per month ( depending on market)  minus 10% for management and 10 % for maintenance equals $1300 p/m    and your property is appreciating in value. But you don't have the liquidity of money in the bank , which is a double edged sword. You don't have the funds immediately if needed, but also you don't get to spend it impulsive.

But you always have a way back home.

Please don't argue the numbers, they are approximations used to make a point  

   

Goldbuggy made some good points about this post and the numbers.

On the numbers, while I won't disagree with your case, they are a key factor in the decision. You assume a 9% gross income yield before expenses on renting and only 6% gross on investing. A key assumption here that gross rental income exceeds investment income.

I won't disagree with that for you. But for many people that assumption won't be the case and that will change the points made. So anyone doing this needs to look at their own case of what they can get on both rental income and investments.

[BTW After charges, as Goldbuggy corrected the yield on rental income is 6% before taxes and same as 6% before taxes.]

In my case, my numbers would have been different. I would be more like 4% - 5% rental income after charges, and 7%+ on investment income. That's at least 2% higher. That would push me much more towards investments.

Taxes also can't be ignored. While I could end up being taxable on UK rental income, that 4%-5% would then be eroded further at a rate of tax that would be higher than capital gains tax and tax on divs I would received widening that gap further.

Tax on Thai mutual funds generally don't attract capital gains and divs would have a max WHT rate of 10%

Tax on Singapore investments would have no capital gains for me and divs may depend on what selected. If I selected Singapore real estate investment trusts (REITs) though, I have a portfolio which currently yields about 6.5% tax free with no capital gains tax or income tax on it, and with potential for capital growth because of the underlying property element.

Liquidity is an important point as you mention. A key factor within this is you can easily sell part of your investments if liquid. Much more difficult to sell part of a house.

Risk on income also needs to be considered. If no tenant all your income is gone (single exposure risk). While stock markets capital value will go up and down, the dividend income will be more stable. Very unlikely all your investments will stop paying dividends even during a market crash.

Also depends on someone's understanding and comfort level between property/ renting and investing. 

In my case with higher income, more favourable tax, better liquidity and flexibility, more diversification, less admin, knowing what I'm doing etc, investments win out very clearly. For someone with higher rental income that doesn't understand the investment world may be different

In terms of having a way home if needed, most of my investments could be sold in a week. The proceeds from those could be used to buy or rent a place back in the UK if needed. So selling your home and investing isn't really burning bridges either.

Not slow at all :) Assuming your 720k is after allowances then your calc looks right.

e.g you earned 840k but had 120k of allowances to deduct, so pay tax on 720k

So if you were earning 70k a month (=840k a year) and had 120k of annual allowances, you would pay tax of 60,500/12 or about 5k a month.

OPs question was about how this 60,500 for the year gets deducted from his salary.

In your example, What OP was expecting is he pays nothing in the first month because he hasn't yet earned 150k in the year, nothing in the second month as he is still cumulatively 140k and less than the 150k. But in the 3rd month as he now has cumulatively over 150k he starts paying tax. This method is wrong.

What happens in most cases is his accountant (or his system :) )works out what his expected income for the year will be then deducts expected allowances.

So the accountant will deduct approx 5k a month every month for 12 months. Not zero, zero, something, higher, higher still etc. If there are any changes in expected income or allowances for the year the accountant can make adjustments though :)

To OP

Agree with allane. Your accountant is doing it right. Your understanding wasn't correct. I qualified as an accountant in UK, and did a decade there plus about 20 years in Asia - mainly Thailand - to add to that.

This is the way it is done in most countries I've ever worked in. They estimate what your tax will be in the year, take off your allowances and calculate tax on that and deduct as you go along and get paid. Not sure what country you're from but in UK for example they used to call it PAYE = pay as you earn. 

When it gets to year end and you file your tax return, there may be a few adjustments for various things which need taking into account.

Cheers

Fletch :)

On 2/8/2018 at 5:17 PM, simoh1490 said:

The typical everyday savings account rate is now around 0.25%.

 

The penalty for withdrawal on Fixed Deposits is a loss of the agreed rate of interest which is then replaced by the everyday savings rate. The trick with fixed rate products is to split your funds across several accounts, in case you need to cash one, instead of 1 million in one account, open four at 250k each.

Also consider staggering the maturities so they naturally mature at different intervals. Reduces the likelihood of needing to cash any of them in.

22 hours ago, Dogbarker said:

BIG problem you have not mentioned  - Standard Chartered closed retail banking so what you mention is not possible and what a Bleeping issue they have created . They transferred the  business to Tisco   who are UNABLE to do International banking .. so any money brought in through Standard Chartered that you want repatriated is a mess.... I can confirm Tisco have written cashier cheques in Thai Baht for several millions for me  .. but  as for repatriating funds that is another can of worms!!!!!!!!  If I could rewind  20 years I would never have done business with Standard Chartered anywhere in the world .. it is not just in Thailand .. sorry guys rant off! 

I sort of assumed anyone with a Stan Chart account knew Tisco had taken over their retail business . Wasn't really relevant to OPs thread either. I only used it as an example of how limits can differ between banks. I did write it all in the past tense, though "Used to", "had" etc  

Yes we've had our fair share of teething problems with Tisco as well but that's another story and there's a thread running on it elsewhere 

54 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

Same day interbank transfers are limited to 100,000 baht. I'm not sure why Krungthai  would limit this to 50, but at most banks it is 100k. This is a system limit, and it is not possible for any bank in Thailand to send more than this via standard interbank transfer.

 

If you want to send more than this, it must be done via Bahtnet, which is a batch process that is only run once per day, and will be processed at the receiving bank the following day. The fees for each type of transfer are different, with Bahtnet having a much more expensive starting rate, but being much cheaper for large value transfers.

 

 

 

 

Several of the banks I use used to have a 50k limit for immediate interbank transfers rather than 100k.

Also:

What I've noticed this year is settlement is often quicker, and you can do more than 100k via normal interbank transfers that will arrive same day.

For example, on 4 Jan I transferred 350k from my TMB account to a Tisco account. It arrived straight away on 4 Jan. Have to say that I was surprised, when I logged into the Tisco account and saw the money already there same day straight away, without a fee, 350k. TMB did split it into 7 amounts of 50k before sending as they apparently have some sort of channel limit on that at 50k

I've done similar a few times as well.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

To OP

I also have Bangkok Bank internet banking. They  added a new limit as follows, which may be what your bank staff are referring to:

http://www.bangkokbank.com/OnlineBanking/PERSONALBANKING/IBANKING/BUALUANGIBANKING/SERVICES/Pages/MaxTransferLimit.aspx

Alternatives include:

- Set your 3rd beneficiaries up more than 5 days before you need to transfer

- Open an account with a different bank

- Use a cashier's cheque. Be careful though that unlike a normal cheque the funds are deducted straight away from your account so if you lose it or it gets stolen you'll have issues I don't like using cashier's cheques made out to "cash" as anyone could find/steal it and cash it, and it's deducted already from your account you can't "stop" it before it goes out. Best to make it out in exactly the name of the beneficiary if you use, and be very careful you don't lose LOL

- Promptpay is another option with higher limits than the 100k

http://www.bangkokbank.com/BangkokBank/PersonalBanking/SpecialServices/NationalEpayment/Pages/PromptPayFAQ.aspx

Limits for online banking (via internet) vary between banks. Mobile banking (via your phone) limits can be different again.

You will come across various types of limits, including a daily limit, per transfer limit etc.

There will be what the bank allows as a maximum, and what you choose to set for your accounts, as you can alter the default limit to be lower (but not higher than what the bank allows) 

It may also vary between type of account as to bank limits and you can set different limits on different accounts

It may also differ for 1) transfers between your own accounts 2) transfers to 3rd party same bank 3) transfers to 3rd party other banks

It's possible to set lower limits than what the bank allows, as well as different limits on different accounts.

As examples:

For Standard Chartered, the bank's maximum daily limit for an online transfer used to be THB 2million, however, you couldn't transfer more than 500k at a time, meaning you needed to do it 4 times.

But:

I had accounts with more than 2 million in, but would set the limit lower than that at say 100k, as an additional control against hacking, fraud etc

On the other hand for an account with only a few thousand baht in, which I would use for day to day transactions I would leave the limit at 2 million, as if hacked or fraud they couldn't get much as there wasn't much in the account. Saves keep altering limits.

If I wanted to do large transfers on accounts with large sums in, I would temporarily change the max to 2mn per day and then change it back again straight after

Tisco doesn't do internet banking. However their limit for mobile banking is 50,000 per transaction to 3rd parties 

TMB has a max of 500k (?) a day I think for my internet banking, but any transactions above 50 k (?) it will split

On 1/13/2018 at 12:58 AM, Air Smiles said:

 

Which uk companies have a policy to not employ more than 1 member of the same family?

Read my post again and read the opening post. There is a big difference between the conclusion you've jumped to and what I wrote.

Companies will have policies on the subject of "families (family members) or working together" which was the question asked.

As an example, the first accounting firm I worked for, Coopers and Lybrand (now PWC), had such a policy. Not long after I joined a colleague moved departments as they got engaged to one of the more senior managers in the department. They were not allowed to work on the same audits to prevent conflicts of interest in their work.  

As another example, I frequently came across employment questionnaires asking if you are related to any persons currently employed by the company, and if so give details. One of the reasons again being to see if it would lead to any governance/ control risk issues.

The policy isn't usually "not to employ more than one member of the same family" as you've interpreted it, but to ensure appropriate segregation of duties where it poses a risk in some form by them working together.

Another related example, common for banks' senior personnel is to have to make regular declarations as to all share holdings and directorships of connected persons (spouses, companies controlled, parents, children etc), again to avoid conflicts of interest.

Some companies often have policies on it from governance and control perspectives, e.g. stronger segregation of duties, and reduction in conflicts of interest etc. It's not unique to Thailand either. If anything I came across it more in the UK, where good governance and control principles are stronger than in Thailand

On 1/9/2018 at 3:03 PM, bannork said:

Sad news GarryP. I just read today that Patsy passed away in November from the cancer that she had been suffering from for a while.Her humorous and lively posts were always worth a read. Here is a link

https://www.englishforum.ch/daily-life/277135-patsycat-rip.html

 

.

Very sad to hear that Patsycat passed away. I always enjoyed her perspectives here and on other forums.

R.I.P, 

Cheers to Patsycat

Fletch 

On 1/10/2018 at 10:10 PM, billd766 said:

 

I haven't seen Mig16 for a while either.

Mig is alive and well in real life. Her affliction of supporting Arsenal is still ongoing though.

Cheers

Fletch

On 5/9/2017 at 2:56 PM, StreetCowboy said:

I'm still here, but I miss my friends.

 

Some just post much less (Villagefarang, for example), some have been banned, and others moved on to greener pastures, either figuratively or literally

 

SC

Mr.Toad and Smokie were moved on, and are both better than ever.

Rather than greener pastures they now frequent more mango pastures and am happy to say Fletch sees them regularly in real life and in forum Cheers

Fletch 

On 5/9/2017 at 8:03 PM, weegee said:

Neverdie?....I am pretty sure he passed away a while ago....Neversure is still on the missing list,,,lol...boy could he get a Topic going.

 

 

Yes Neverdie allegedly passed away

2 hours ago, topt said:

SantiSuk are you referring to where you do not avail yourself of the Personal Allowance? Even with this option are you still not liable for tax on any property income and pensions?

I understand there is no CGT if non resident other than on property now.

Yes that's also my understanding, and I think that's what he's referring to. As you say, the offset is losing your personal allowance. Plus you are still liable on property income etc