wordchild

i would agree Alibaba looks pretty cheap now but i am concerned about political risk and also they have been somewhat tardy in terms of returning their massive capital surplus to shareholders. There are many shares in HK/China that look cheap , and i own a number. The 3 i picked (you asked for 3) have a couple of common characteristics 1) They have very strong balance sheets 2) They pay decent level of dividends (around 7% 2024 consensus forecasts) which they have the capability of growing so they are pretty defensive. There are other shares that will do better if the market bounces strongly but i believe these 3 will do pretty well whatever the market does. On Your points As you mention CU has bounced strongly from its lows with a move up from just under 4 to 5-96 HKD. However if you look further back the shares were trading over 12 HKD in 2014. All of the major China Telcos look very cheap and have announced a strong commitment to grow their shareholder returns. China Mobile is the biggest and arguably the safest of the three, but CU has a better growth outlook (in my opinion). I would argue that Power is not particularly cyclical, If anything, it has been rather dull, in recent years. It is part of the CK group of companies and its largest shareholder is CK Infrastructure ,which attempted to buy them out a few years ago. Power is a holding company with significant positions in a number of network and power businesses around the world. Because of the nature of its underlying businesses , mainly regulated utilities, it is a pretty defensive company, it also has an extremely strong balance sheet.

1) Ping An (2318 HK) 2)China Unicom (762 HK) 3) Power Asset (6 HK) HK and China will be the best markets to be in for 2024 and 2025, My Opinion FWIW I would probably also have a side bet on BT in the UK. Full disclosure; I own shares in all of the above.

" The overseas use of offshore bonds has unfortunately come to be associated with high charging, opaque structures from commision-based salespeople who have sold risky investments to unsuspecting expats" Quoting AES from the above.

To Quote from the intro to the above; "

https://www.aesinternational.com/wealth/reviews/offshore-investment-bonds/what-are-offshore-investment-bonds This gives a reasonable, factual and balanced summary of the uses of offshore investment bonds. In particular the section on "Problems with offshore investment bonds" is worth reading as it refers to the potential for excessive charging, which is what, i believe, you are referencing. That section highlights the issue that many expats have experienced ie depending on the provider, the IFA/Wealth Manager can have a significant degree of flexibility with regards to the charging structure eg with the potential to impose a charging structure that could involve significant penalty (upto 9.5 percent) for an early withdrawal from the scheme. That is , of course, on top of the other charges they impose on your assets. The key takeaways for me are 1) these products offer pretty much zero benefit for a long term expat who does not intend to return to the UK 2) They offer the potential for loading exit charges which effectively tie in the customer. 3) i am sure there exist honest IFAs who do not abuse these products but, for sure, some do

The London Times article, which i linked in the OP, was referring to expats who had been the victims of offshore IFA,s sharp practice in the recent past, not from many years ago. I know, for a fact, that the deVere Group (referenced in the article) still promote "offshore portfolio bond" structures to customers of their Dubai operation. One needs to exercise extreme caution in dealing with any offshore financial advisors, especially those based in places like Thailand. As the original Times article illustrates you are running significant risks with your finances

Not True, Many offshore IFA,s still use a product called a "portfolio bond", as a kind of wrapper, this is a structure which effectively locks the customer in for a number of years, carries high annual costs and is expensive to get out of. The IFA,s love them because they tie in the customer but they are of zero benefit to the majority of long-term expats. These , portfolio bonds, can be very detrimental to your financial well being and if any advisor proposes such a structure you basically know that they are not going to act in your interests so walk away.

did you read the comments and links posted above ie re how the domicile rules in the UK are set to change post 4/25? Your position could be fundamentally different post that date.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-the-taxation-of-non-uk-domiciled-individuals/technical-note-changes-to-the-taxation-of-non-uk-domiciled-individuals#:~:text=From 6 April 2025%2C the current remittance basis of taxation,years of non-UK residence. Link posted from gov.uk which explains the changes , some of which will be implemented from 6/4/2025 and others will be subject to a period of consultation. As is stated in this document the definition of domicile will change fundamentally to one that is based on the length of residence in the UK. It also looks like 10 years non residency will change your status to one of being not domiciled. As can be seen in these (UK Govt) guidance notes, if someone, who was previously domiciled in the UK, and is then not a UK resident for a 10 year period , and then returns to live in the UK , they will benefit from the 4 year grace period; ie they will be treated the same as a newly arrived non dom.

Actually that is the whole point. Both parties are agreed on the principal that the definition of domicile needs to change. The exact nature of the change is subject to a period of consultation that is going on right now. but , for sure, the way in which UK domicile is determined will change.

Whatever the final shape of the legislation, it is hard to see how either government could move to a length of residency test as the primary determinant of domicile for those who live in the UK, and then apply another kind of domicile test for those who have lived outside the UK for many years.

https://blog.macfarlanes.com/post/102j5b7/the-labour-party-announces-further-reforms-to-the-non-dom-regime Labour has indicated that it is supportive of the current governments proposals re domicile, however they would prefer to see the legislation toughened up in certain areas. It seem like there is broad acceptance that the domicile rules need to change and it seems likely that some form of residency test will be at the heart of the reform. However there is an ongoing consultancy process and we have yet to get any of the detail from this.

great point, this whole situation is, very much, in flux. the UK domicile rules are currently undergoing consultation pre new legislation, which may or may not be enacted by the current government. In any event , i think it is likely that there will be a change in the definition of domicile to one which is based on time either resident or NOT resident in the UK. I think the advice to wait , rather than implement a new series of arrangements is a good one. I suspect, that whichever government finalizes the legislation , UK citizens who have been non resident UK for a significant number of years , will find that they are deemed to be non domiciled in the UK.

Dont know anything about them, however the website raises a couple of red flags for me. 1) offices in Bangkok , Seychelles and Chichester (UK) - an odd mix of locations 2)Lots of the usual general guff on the website but very little in the way of specifics eg no names/details for the key staff. This makes it impossible to do any initial background checks on the people you would be dealing with- a major red flag , at least for me.

and background to the case mentioned in todays ST https://www.aol.com/sec-fines-york-firm-devere-8-million-over-192142813--sector.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pension-fraud-stolen-uk-expat-brite-advisory-mark-donnelly-jjh5cr7mk Interesting article and a reminder to us all about the risks of using offshore investment advisors

I used to live down the end of soi 11 and I dont know if they are still there, but there used to be 2 or 3 single houses tucked away on the opposite side of the soi , before you get to Kallista at the end.

still some single houses , but deep into the soi down toward the khlong, also down 11/1 , again heading toward the khlong.

Under UK law, it is the domicile of your father on the day of your birth. That is your domicile of origin, it is possible to claim a different domicile after many years outside the UK. As others have said the key point is where are your assets held? That is where probate will be needed and you should have your main will in that jurisdiction. eg if your accounts are in Singapore then your executors will need to apply for probate in Singapore, no need for a Thai probate application to cover those assets. You should also have a separate will, in Thailand, to cover your assets here, a Thai probate will be needed to cover those (Thai) assets. If there are no UK assets then there is no need for a UK probate. If you have been resident outside the UK for many years , and with no UK based assets, the Singapore courts should see no reason to involve the UK. Certainly that is the advice i have had from my own lawyers in Sing. (As for Australia i am not sure what the situation is and you should get legal advice on this when drawing up your (Singapore or other) will.) It may also be a good idea to attach to your wills a letter stating your residence and where you consider to be your permanent home. Inheritance tax obligation, on your estate, firstly depends on where the assets were held at the time of your death. eg in Singapore there is no inheritance tax. From what you have said about your situation, it is the inheritance law of the country where your assets are held that takes precedence . As long as you are not UK domiciled the UK could only make any claim for inheritance tax against the value of UK "situs" assets held by your estate; this would include eg UK property but also the shares or bonds of UK based companies even if they are held in an overseas broking account. If your beneficiaries are Thai residents there maybe a risk (depending on the circumstances) of Thai inheritance tax being levied. Again , its best to get (Thai and other countries) legal advice on this issue when drafting the wills. The advice i have had, in the past, is that there should be no Thai inheritance tax liability so long as the assets continue to be held outside Thailand by your beneficiaries. However, as we all know, the taxation rules are somewhat fluid here, and it would be best to get up to date advice on this. Depending on your family situation, it might be worth considering having your accounts in joint names. eg if your (eg Singapore) account is held jointly by you and your wife then it is possible that the assets would be transferred to her sole name on your death, by the bank, without the need for any probate. However this depends on the internal policies of the bank and the nature of the account. As i understand it, most Singapore banks (and banks in certain other countries) currently apply the principal of "survivorship" on the death of one of the joint account holders. You should certainly check with your non-Thai bank what their policies are before you set up any joint accounts.

I dont think that is the reason. I think its more that they make assumptions (maybe unfairly) about the lifestyle of farangs who speak Thai.

when i first moved to work in Thailand i thought i should make an effort to learn Thai, so i asked my then secretary to book a Thai tutor for a few hours of lessons each week. My secretary at the time was an oldish Thai lady who had been educated abroad, spoke immaculate English and came from a fairly high class background. Her response was along the lines of, what did i need to learn Thai for? Everyone in the company spoke English, and everyone i would likely be dealing with (customers etc) also spoke English, and anyone who didnt speak English she would deal with as that was HER job. None of her previous bosses had ever bothered to learn much Thai , she said. And anyway "only low class foreigners spoke Thai!" I ignored her advice, but i think her views are not unusual amongst certain Thais.

A couple of Thai brokers, that i am aware of, will open offshore trading accounts for customers. Services and markets offered vary from broker to broker, but it is possible to trade offshore and hold the funds outside Thailand with these accounts.

agricultural land, in an area she is familiar with. she can work it herself or rent it out.

The ease and speed of bank payment transfers here, is an area where Thai Banks are ahead of many countries in the West eg when i make a transfer on my UK Banks's phone app (when in the UK) it can take several minutes or even longer to process. In Thailand payment transfers and receipt notifications are handled pretty much instantly. In the early days one of the key benefits that the delivery service companies could offer to restaurants was the handling of cash and receipts. with the development of Promptpay and the speed and ease of the whole process, the value of that service for the restaurant has declined. I think as a trend more and more restaurants will seek direct relationships with their more lucrative customers and increasingly cut out the delivery companies.