A positive story about buying a house in Thailand

[WhatsNext]

3 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

If you were to rent yours, you wont get 35k

Have you seen mine ? Everyone is so sure without even having a single clue of what the house is like, why the focus on rent value ? I really couldn't care less. Let's get back to discuss building and owning, renting is an entirely different thing.

Edited September 12, 2021 by WhatsNext

[Pravda]

28 minutes ago, WhatsNext said:

If you don't do the work you don't get results, enjoy your search troll !

 

It seems like you call everyone a troll who doesn't agree with your ridiculous valuation. It's probably not your fault...you just fell for the sales pitch.

[Ralf001]

2 minutes ago, WhatsNext said:

Have you seen mine ? Everyone is so sure without even having a single clue of what the house is like, why the focus on rent value ? I really couldn't care less.

Your the one that brought up rent values.... not me.

[WhatsNext]

1 minute ago, Pravda said:

 

It seems like you call everyone a troll who doesn't agree with your ridiculous valuation. It's probably not your fault...you just fell for the sales pitch.

I call you a troll because you ask me to provide proof for -your- made up arguments. 

Edited September 12, 2021 by WhatsNext

[WhatsNext]

Just now, Ralf001 said:

Your the one that brought up rent values.... not me.

Sure, i said i am saving 40k a month on rent from my perspective and that's true. 

[Pravda]

1 minute ago, WhatsNext said:

I call you a troll because you ask me to provide proof for -your- made up arguments. 

 

They are not made up. They are painfully realistic. Notice how I didn't call you a troll for putting false rental prices?

 

I 

[WhatsNext]

4 minutes ago, Pravda said:

They are not made up. They are painfully realistic. Notice how I didn't call you a troll for putting false rental prices?

I just explained why i called you a troll, that hasn't changed. Changing the focus of the discussion to avoid that, doesn't work. Let's start a new thread about rental prices instead of bickering here about something that really doesn't matter in my situation. I save 40k from my previous way of life and have a comparable house. If you think i save less, fine up to you.

 

to all : i'd like the discussion to focus on something else than rental value of a house you have no clue about, we are never going to agree, i am never going to post pictures and i just don't really care. Thanks and be positive ????

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by WhatsNext

[transam]

6 minutes ago, WhatsNext said:

If you are not trolling, then do tell what was negative about it.

 

Thaivisa is amazing, everything is negative at least with a certain crowd, it's entertaining but a little sad  too. I hope you can see some positive in life as well, trasam. 

 

Not just for Transam : This is turning into a mud fight, i won't be slinging anything back, but before you react ask yourself : Am i contributing something to the information here, or am i just taking away. If the latter is the case, drink some more Chang, find your oldest wife beater and start to walk up and down Soi Bukhao. 

Simple, buying a house using the company ploy purely for a farang to get his hands on it is not legal, so how can your story be positive, it's just a dodgy route you have used.

 

PS. My house/land was built after I got married, so if things did go tits up I would get something out of it, in fact the house and land has now doubled in price, so theoretically I would get my money back. That is a positive story..????

PPS. Derogatory remarks are uncalled for, sorry if you don't like questions in replies.

[Ralf001]

4 minutes ago, WhatsNext said:

Sure, i said i am saving 40k a month on rent from my perspective and that's true. 

Was it not you who said your new house would rent for 35k ?

 

Your not saving 40k a month either as you now have all the associated costs of owning the house.

[WhatsNext]

5 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Your not saving 40k a month either as you now have all the associated costs of owning the house.

Now that's a valid point of course, the 1200 baht to the project and the future maintenance are costs that you don't have when renting. Pool/garden maintenance is a choice because i am lazy. On the other side of the coin, i won't have to worry about rent increasing (yeah not now, i know, covid) and i'll get some of my cash back for sure when the house sells. 

 

edit : and i forgot the yearly fee for the company reporting/paperwork, another 1000 or so baht per month. Which you don't have when leasing, but... when selling the company there are no transfer costs, when selling the lease there are. Always 2 sides to everything.

Edited September 12, 2021 by WhatsNext

[RafPinto]

`That's exactly what I was thinking:

 

How much is the yearly accounting and auditing (if necessary) fee?

[sammieuk1]

21 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

What kind of a house can you get for that?  That would buy you a nice house in a nice location in the UK.  Is it some sort of mansion?

One that comes with its own province presumably ????

[vukovar77]

22 hours ago, transam said:

The Limited company ploy, I am sure Patts land office is fully aware of that farang ploy, and perhaps that avenue will come tumbling down at some time...

 

I often wondered how a company that is set up purely to buy a house for a farang, does the profit and loss etc paperwork that a company must do.. Can someone enlighten me..?

First of all,as I know it is propably not legal to have company for only have house on your name???Second ,in a fact you are not an owner,cos You can have only49%.Besides maintain company including paperwork is pretty pricey.

[Gecko123]

20 hours ago, WhatsNext said:

No, you just sell the company, or rather my part with the 100% voting rights. The house is on the company that doesn't change. No need for the land office.

OP:

I confess that I have been scratching my head for the last 24 hours over your response. A morning spent doing yard work has not provided any breakthrough insights into what you might have meant, and I am wondering if you or any other posters could help clear up my confusion.

 

I get that the ownership of the property has been transferred to a corporate entity, and that you have consolidated all of the voting rights under your control. I also get that you - as the future seller of the property - could care less about the land office as long as you get the sale price you agreed to.  But, surely, the future buyer of the property is going to want to register the property with the land office and confirm that the title on the property is clear before they hand over the cash to buy the property. Even though the property is currently registered under a corporate entity, the buyer of the property is not going to leave the house in WhatsNext's corporate name; he or she is going to want to transfer it into their individual name or into another corporation's name, and it seems to me that the only place they are going to be able to do that is down at the land office.

 

When you and the new buyer go to the land office, I'm picturing the registrar pulling out his title ledger, and finding the corporate papers which say the lawyer, the girlfriend and her mother are the owners. At that point you whip out your documents showing you have 100% voting rights along with whatever other forms showing you have the right to sell the property on behalf of 'WhatsNext corporation. My admittedly limited experience with land office officials is that they would be extremely reluctant to accept those superceding documents on face value, and, at a minimum, would require the lawyer, the girlfriend, and her mother (still can't stop laughing ) to be present and sign off on any sale you and the new buyer are attempting to execute. Especially as you are a foreigner, the red cautionary flags would be rippling in the wind when you set foot in the land office. Also, if the new buyer took out any type of loan from a bank, wouldn't the bank also be required to do due diligence that the title on the property was clear and you in fact had the right to sell the property? Hence, my earlier concerns that there is a very high likelihood that the lawyer, girlfriend and mother are going to have to be available and cooperative for you to execute a future sale.

 

You as well as a number of other posters have disparaged anyone who has pointed out the "gray" legality of the corporate structure you are using.  But the fact is, that over and above all of the risks associated with real estate ownership, you are also incurring a significant additional "regulatory" (government) risk because of the grey legality of what you have done. At any point during your ownership of the property, this risk could present itself, so while everything may have been smooth sailing so far during the initial purchase and construction phases, you won't be definitively able to say it was a "positive" outcome until much further down the road. While it goes without saying you are free to risk your money as you see fit, I'm not comfortable with your attempts to encourage other people to circumvent Thai land law in a similar manner as you outlined in your post. I can only surmise that quite a number of the people who have applauded the OP have already taken or plan to take a similar course of action, but I still say to anyone tempted to follow down this path: ignore those voicing caution at your own peril.

[khunPer]

When talking about rent prices vs. costs of property, and also selling price vs. costs of property, one shall always remember the three major factors that all real estate agents use, and buyers and renters are very aware off, they are in random order...

• Location
• Location
• Location

 

If I for example build a house for 3 million baht - and let us exclude the land-under-the-house cost for a moment - I might in some locations hardly get my money back, and also not get a 10 percent rent per year, whilst in other locations I can have my building costs many-fold back when selling, or a high rent.

 

Let me mention an example, my next door Thai neighbor.

He inherited a small six meter wide and 27 meter long piece of land, it's 162 square meters or 40.5 talang wah in Thai measure, about 1/10th of a rai. The neighbor's plot was three times as wide and sold for 9 million baht - very cheap, actually, as the previous owner needed money, so the land value for the 6 meter wide plot would be in the area of 3 million baht, perhaps 4-5 million baht, at that time about 12 years ago.

 

My next door neighbor builded a 2-bed, 2-bath narrow house, about 4 meter wide, and a tiny pool in front. The costs were 2.4 million baht for the house, so complete with interior around 3 million baht. Total property value in costs between 6 million and 8 million baht.

 

He could easily rent his house out for 100,000 baht to 125,000  baht a month on longer terms, that's from 15 percent per year of an 8 million value, and up to 25 percent a year of a 6 million value.

 

During the Covid-pandemic he made a long term rent for a bargain-price of only 70,000 baht a month, which is only just over the 10 percent figure, if a value of 8 million baht is used, but still 14 percent of a 6 million baht value. The rent can be cancelled with a notice if he sells the house, and it's on the marked at an asking price of 25 million baht, i.e. some 3-4 times the initial cost value about 12-13 years ago. And it's not a way out price; however, he might need to give a discount on a few million baht. His neighbor sold their 3-bed pool house on a larger land plot, two years ago for 50 million baht, asking price was 69 million baht; that was foreigner's company limited owned house, so the shares were sold, not the property, and sold to another foreign buyer, so no tax or transfer fee involved.

 

For comparison, a 2.4 million to 3 million baht house of same age, but way back from the beach - which might be from 10-15 minutes walk to 5-10 minutes car-ride - would be difficult to re-sell for the initial construction price plus land cost. Back there, land is priced around 3.5 million per rai - same land price as 10-15 years ago - however relative little more for smaller size plots, so a half rai size is little more than half of rai-price plus some extra for eventual development costs for road and electricity.

 

My point is that it's extremely difficult to compare rent prices, or property sales prices, as the location makes the difference. So when someone says 9,000 baht in monthly rent for a 5 million baht cost price, it might be correct in that location, while in another location 40,000 baht per month in rent for similar construction of similar size of land might be a bargain, simply because of it's a different location. And interest of location can change over relative short time - in Bangkok for example a condo might change value if Sky Train or Metro becomes available within short walking distance - value of location can also decrease, depending of the area's development.

 

And as comment to my earlier posts about company limited method, and long term value of "investing" in a home, I should mention that I also lives in a home, where the land is owned by a company, and leased out to me; while I'm the owner of my house, now on 12th year. The method works, if you take your precautions - i.e. no nominee shareholders, and preferably other activities in the company - and is aware of potential risks. By the way, my neighbor also owned his house using company limited method - he's a real estate lawyer, and was also my lawyer - he is the one that sold above mentioned property.

 

The post is intended to add another success stories of "owning" a house in Thailand, one way or the other...????

 

 

[newnative]

3 hours ago, WhatsNext said:

Have you seen mine ? Everyone is so sure without even having a single clue of what the house is like, why the focus on rent value ? I really couldn't care less. Let's get back to discuss building and owning, renting is an entirely different thing.

     You're never going to win with these posters.  They aren't interested in important nuances like how a place looks, what is the quality and location of the project, the size and quality of the house and furnishings, etc.  The whole package.  They aren't interested in the nuances that make one house rentable for 35,000 or 40,000 and another only command 20,000 or less; one property sell for a million more than another down the street.   It's the same with prices on both condos and houses for sale.  And, it explains why this property sells at a profit and that property might not.  It can be dozens of different things--which makes it all so interesting, fun, and challenging.

     But, they aren't interested in all that.  Easier to not actually do any homework.  Easier to not actually get out there and see what's what.  Easier to just post vague claims with usually no actual examples to back up what they are claiming.  Surely we all remember the claim that all Thailand condo buildings have a life span of just 30 years, after which they promptly crumble to the ground.  I believe that was later corrected by another poster and amended to 20 years.  At the time I was reading this distressing news I was bravely sitting in my Wong Amat beachfront condo, no hardhat, in a building built back in 1984.  

     Earlier this year we had someone post that houses in Pattaya were now virtually worthless.  Well, if I remember he was actually even vague on his vagueness because I think he also said they had all lost 50% of their value.  So, take your choice--either worthless or worth 50% less, in his learned opinion.  Any real world examples given to back up his claim(s)?  Not a single one.  

     Meanwhile, my partner and I had been house hunting around Pattaya at this same time.  We certainly would have liked to snap up a now 'worthless' house at, say Silk Road, or View Talay Villas, or Siam Lake View, or Jomtien Park Villas, or Siam Royal View, or Baan Balina, or Palm Lakeside Villas, or Baan Fah Rim Haad, or Horseshoe Point, or Mabprachan Garden, or Paradise Villa, or . . .   Well, you get the point.  We searched high and low and did not find any houses that were now 'worthless'--or even priced 50% less.  

     Are there some bargains to be found with properties for rent and for sale?  Sure.  Is everything suddenly worthless or priced 50% off?  No.  Probably not surprising, but quality homes in quality projects seem to be holding their value, both in rentals and sales.

[topt]

5 minutes ago, newnative said:

You're never going to win with these posters. 

Agreed and I am not sure why the OP has continued to engage with them but up to him 

[khunPer]

1 hour ago, Gecko123 said:

OP:

I confess that I have been scratching my head for the last 24 hours over your response. A morning spent doing yard work has not provided any breakthrough insights into what you might have meant, and I am wondering if you or any other posters could help clear up my confusion.

 

I get that the ownership of the property has been transferred to a corporate entity, and that you have consolidated all of the voting rights under your control. I also get that you - as the future seller of the property - could care less about the land office as long as you get the sale price you agreed to.  But, surely, the future buyer of the property is going to want to register the property with the land office and confirm that the title on the property is clear before they hand over the cash to buy the property. Even though the property is currently registered under a corporate entity, the buyer of the property is not going to leave the house in WhatsNext's corporate name; he or she is going to want to transfer it into their individual name or into another corporation's name, and it seems to me that the only place they are going to be able to do that is down at the land office.

 

When you and the new buyer go to the land office, I'm picturing the registrar pulling out his title ledger, and finding the corporate papers which say the lawyer, the girlfriend and her mother are the owners. At that point you whip out your documents showing you have 100% voting rights along with whatever other forms showing you have the right to sell the property on behalf of 'WhatsNext corporation. My admittedly limited experience with land office officials is that they would be extremely reluctant to accept those superceding documents on face value, and, at a minimum, would require the lawyer, the girlfriend, and her mother (still can't stop laughing ) to be present and sign off on any sale you and the new buyer are attempting to execute. Especially as you are a foreigner, the red cautionary flags would be rippling in the wind when you set foot in the land office. Also, if the new buyer took out any type of loan from a bank, wouldn't the bank also be required to do due diligence that the title on the property was clear and you in fact had the right to sell the property? Hence, my earlier concerns that there is a very high likelihood that the lawyer, girlfriend and mother are going to have to be available and cooperative for you to execute a future sale.

 

You as well as a number of other posters have disparaged anyone who has pointed out the "gray" legality of the corporate structure you are using.  But the fact is, that over and above all of the risks associated with real estate ownership, you are also incurring a significant additional "regulatory" (government) risk because of the grey legality of what you have done. At any point during your ownership of the property, this risk could present itself, so while everything may have been smooth sailing so far during the initial purchase and construction phases, you won't be definitively able to say it was a "positive" outcome until much further down the road. While it goes without saying you are free to risk your money as you see fit, I'm not comfortable with your attempts to encourage other people to circumvent Thai land law in a similar manner as you outlined in your post. I can only surmise that quite a number of the people who have applauded the OP have already taken or plan to take a similar course of action, but I still say to anyone tempted to follow down this path: ignore those voicing caution at your own peril.

I'm mainly replying to your part "When you and the new buyer go to the land office, I'm picturing the registrar pulling out his title ledger, and finding the corporate papers which say the lawyer, the girlfriend and her mother are the owners..."

 

The case with a company limited as property owner is that nobody - as in no one - goes to the land department to re-register or transfer anything. It's the shares of the company that are sold, either the majority, and especially the vote right controlling amount, or preferably all shares.

 

Therefore, there might be no shady owners of somebody else's wife, or girlfriend, or nominees; the buyer(s) of the shares decide themselves who owns what, apart from only 49 percent fo the shares can be owned by a foreigner.

 

Of course you, or preferably your experienced Thai property lawyer, makes due diligence of the company limited to be taken over, which includes a visit to a land office to check the title deed for eventual servitudes.

 

A problem with the company limited method raises if the buyer don't need, or want, a company limited as owner - for example a Thai buyer, as a company limited involves costs to accountant and auditor - and preferably a company profit and some small amount of tax paid - in that case the property needs to be transferred at the land office. However, now the company shall pay tax - which might be business tax, as the property is owned by a company - and the buyer will normally pay transfer fee; stamp cost is negotiable, but often paid by seller.

 

Furthermore, the money paid for the property shall end up inside the company, which cause another problem. It's little more difficult to close a company limited than to open one, and can also be more costly, if you read various posting in ASEAN NOW forums. When liquidating the company limited the remaining funds, after everything have been settled, are paid back to the shareholders. The foreign owner is due to receive up to 49 percent of the funds, i.e. if owns up to 49 percent of the shares, while the other shareholders are due to receive the remaining 51 percent or more sum...???? - that's why using the old-fashioned, and now illegal, method with nominee shareholders might be a disaster in such a situation, much better if a wife/girlfriend, and a minor child or two, gets the money...????

[JustAnotherHun]

Guys, if you want to discuss rent prices, you should not exclusivly focus on the price of the object. More important is, where the property is and the quality of the village/surroundings.

An object far off the darkside in the middle of the nowhere will be cheaper to rent than one close to the city in a well maintained village, no matter  if  construction costs were the same.

 

[Pravda]

26 minutes ago, newnative said:

     You're never going to win with these posters.  They aren't interested in important nuances like how a place looks, what is the quality and location of the project, the size and quality of the house and furnishings, etc.  The whole package.  They aren't interested in the nuances that make one house rentable for 35,000 or 40,000 and another only command 20,000 or less; one property sell for a million more than another down the street.   It's the same with prices on both condos and houses for sale.  And, it explains why this property sells at a profit and that property might not.  It can be dozens of different things--which makes it all so interesting, fun, and challenging.

     But, they aren't interested in all that.  Easier to not actually do any homework.  Easier to not actually get out there and see what's what.  Easier to just post vague claims with usually no actual examples to back up what they are claiming.  Surely we all remember the claim that all Thailand condo buildings have a life span of just 30 years, after which they promptly crumble to the ground.  I believe that was later corrected by another poster and amended to 20 years.  At the time I was reading this distressing news I was bravely sitting in my Wong Amat beachfront condo, no hardhat, in a building built back in 1984.  

     Earlier this year we had someone post that houses in Pattaya were now virtually worthless.  Well, if I remember he was actually even vague on his vagueness because I think he also said they had all lost 50% of their value.  So, take your choice--either worthless or worth 50% less, in his learned opinion.  Any real world examples given to back up his claim(s)?  Not a single one.  

     Meanwhile, my partner and I had been house hunting around Pattaya at this same time.  We certainly would have liked to snap up a now 'worthless' house at, say Silk Road, or View Talay Villas, or Siam Lake View, or Jomtien Park Villas, or Siam Royal View, or Baan Balina, or Palm Lakeside Villas, or Baan Fah Rim Haad, or Horseshoe Point, or Mabprachan Garden, or Paradise Villa, or . . .   Well, you get the point.  We searched high and low and did not find any houses that were now 'worthless'--or even priced 50% less.  

     Are there some bargains to be found with properties for rent and for sale?  Sure.  Is everything suddenly worthless or priced 50% off?  No.  Probably not surprising, but quality homes in quality projects seem to be holding their value, both in rentals and sales.

 

Nice story, but lets stick to the facts. I never said property in Thailand is worthless.

 

Please, show me the property that sells for 5.1 million baht and rents for 35,000b. A few links would be nice...it's as simple as that.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Pravda

[Ralf001]

7 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Guys, if you want to discuss rent prices, you should not exclusivly focus on the price of the object. More important is, where the property is and the quality of the village/surroundings.

An object far off the darkside in the middle of the nowhere will be cheaper to rent than one close to the city in a well maintained village, no matter  if  construction costs were the same.

 

Given the OP's is a new Village I suspect it is way way out on the darkside... the price paid also suggests this too.

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

On 9/11/2021 at 2:25 PM, transam said:

On 9/11/2021 at 2:19 PM, WhatsNext said:

Of course they are aware , it's all over thailand. Of course they can stop it at any point, but they have failed to do so the last 30 years. 

 

There is a yearly fake report being made by the accountant, or real if you want to, i can rent my house from my company and everything will be real. Up to you.

Expand  

So a bit of a gamble, with false documents. Hmmm.

Not just a bit of a gamble, it's 100% illegal.   

 

Even if he rents from the company it will still be nothing more than a ploy for a foreigner to illegally "get ownership" of a property/land using, as you said, a non-trading company.   

 

Probably won't, but it could all come tumbling down particularly if he fell out with the Thais involved.   As long as he's happy, that's all that matters, pro tem.

[Liverpool Lou]

On 9/11/2021 at 2:27 PM, WhatsNext said:

I recommend you read up on how houses are "owned" in thailand under the current rules. There are no false documents. If everything comes falling down it will be for all foreign "home owners" in thailand, not just for me, and will cause such a problem that they'll never do it. If they do, no problem transfer house to TGF of choice, lease back. 

If it did all collapse, what makes you think that a person (your girl friend) who's been directly involved in a fraudulent scheme to give ownership of land/property to a foreigner will be allowed to retain the property of which she fraudulently became an part-owner?      I know how low the chances are of that happening but don't forget that there could be a big downside for all three of you.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Liverpool Lou

[Pravda]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Not just a bit of a gamble, it's 100% illegal.   

 

Even if he rents from the company it will still be nothing more than a ploy for a foreigner to illegally "get ownership" of a property/land using, as you said, a non-trading company.   

 

Probably won't, but it could all come tumbling down particularly if he fell out with the Thais involved.   As long as he's happy, that's all that matters, pro tem.

 

The funniest thing is that people like op think they are fully protected. Once you do something even remotely dodgy your actions will attract a certain kind of undesirables. 

 

Just Google Ian Rance and or Jonathan Heed as I'm not sure links are allowed.

[ncc1701d]

There are pros and cons for all of the options to buy. If you are happy with your circumstances and aware of the possible outcomes, then great.

 

One option that I am considering for a property under 6mil is to loan the money to my girlfriend and register that loan (mortgage). not all areas allow this, so it would need to be looked into.

 

1) You can set up the registered mortgage (means at any time you can force her to sell and pay your loan back. If she is uncooperative, you can go to court. I've taken 4 people to court in the last 18 months and it's actually very easy to do).

 

2) Set up a usurfruct to allow you to stay there for more or less forever.

 

3) An MOU in the case you die or she dies - what happens to the mortgage.

 

Or a combination of all 3

 

Better to be done before you get married.

 

everyone's situation is different. But it's another option some may not have heard of. And obviously best to go through a proper lawyer.

 

I also think if you're looking to invest, your money is probably better off elsewhere. But if you want to live and enjoy and don't need to rely on the purchase - then you just need to protect yourself as best you can.

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by ncc1701d

[Liverpool Lou]

On 9/11/2021 at 2:34 PM, WhatsNext said:

On 9/11/2021 at 2:32 PM, transam said:

You quoted false company documents, that must be an offence, surely.

Yeah this is thaivisa, of course i expected the wall of negativity to come rolling in, enjoy yourself

That negativity also happens to be 100% accurate about the chances that you are taking!

[Liverpool Lou]

23 hours ago, WhatsNext said:

. Plus a minimal hope of the thai government making the 8 million "visa" a reality in the future (8 million investment and you can own land/house).

Plus a hope that the future legislation will be retrospective for those currently, illegally, owning the property, don't bank on that being the case.

[newnative]

2 minutes ago, Pravda said:

 

Nice story, but lets stick to the facts. I never said property in Thailand is worthless.

 

Please, show me the property that sells for 5.1 million baht and rents for 35,000b. A few links would be nice...it's as simple as that.

      Feel free to stick to the facts, as well.   I never said you were the poster of that tidbit about property being worthless.  

      You obviously totally missed the point of my post, which was that properties can rent or sell--even in the same projects--for all sorts of different amounts depending on many things.  According to one of your posts, 6 MB houses in Bangkok rent for 13,000 baht.  Rather a blanket statement but even disregarding all the factors that go into one house renting for more or less than another, it doesn't mean that that's the case in Pattaya.  

     You're welcome to check some of the projects I mentioned in my post to get some idea of the varied house values and rents for single-family 3 to 4 bedroom homes in Pattaya, which may be and likely are different than Bangkok, or other areas of Thailand.  Looking for one house selling and renting for specific rental and sale amounts is a pointless exercise, for all the reasons properties differ.   Can one be found?  Likely.  Do I want to look?  No.  Does finding one mean anything, other than this particular house rents for X amount and sells for Y amount?   No.  But, search away if you are so inclined.  

[jazzdog32095]

21 hours ago, WhatsNext said:

Sadly that isn't true, the house i was renting before for 40k was about 8 million with everything included. If i could rent an 18M property for 40k i'd be doing that instead. Of course i am not including condo's as i am not interested in those. 

IMHO especially in these uncertain times you would be far better off in that rental. By not commenting on the other issues I brought up they must have some merit. Location, location, location and timing, timing, timing. At the peak 2002-2008 I developed and built in Costa Rica. Cut up an ocean view farm I bought for 150K usd into 30 lots that sold out in 15 months for 65K a pop. Flipped 5 farms for 4x what I paid. Built a resort on 62 acres costs me 225K, sold in 2008 for 1.2M.

Come 2009, the great depression, home equity loans went the way of Dinosaurs and Costa Rica like Thailand depending on tourist came to a screeching halt and 12 years later I am still sitting on 100 acres I couldn't give away. Point is when life looks like easy street there's danger at your door, Grateful Dead. 

 

Actually the government in Costa Rica got greedy and ran off expats same way Thailand has. Now instead of rich and famous all there is are backpackers taking more than they spend. Luckily Thailand has the Chinese onslaught, just be careful where you step going shopping at Central Festival. 

[cmarshall]

People have different standards.  I would never, ever have handed over THB 50,000 before signing a contract, since what do you have then?  A handshake?  In my experience in the US such a request would be an insult.

 

Sounds like there are lots and lots of risks with the string-and-bailing-wire ownership structure.  The OP also makes the classic newbie mistake of allowing for zero cost of maintaining the property and in ignoring entirely the opportunity cost of the purchase price which could have been invested without at least the ownership risk.  Living in the home that you own free and clear is never "free."  

 

Still, it may work out for him and I hope it does.