1 hour ago, JohnnyBD said:

I'm sure there are plenty of millionaire expats (USD, CAD, GBP, EUR, etc.) in Thailand on LTR visas. I know of several. Some are just acquaintances, and some are close friends. I posted earlier about one, a Belgium, who recently spent over 90MM Baht on 3 new condos (2 in Bangkok & 1 in Pattaya). I have a close friend who's also one, he just sepnt 20MM on a new house & 1.75MM on a new vehicle for his wife. As for me, I prefer not sharing my personal wealth level with strangers. I will just say I'm very comfortable.

 

I am not being negative or nasty in any way but if he spent 20mill baht on a house then he paid for it but can not own it

 

That is something personally I  would not do, unless of course he has a child of his own who has a Thai passport (even if it is a dual passport) who he could buy it through as it will be passed onto the child at his death anyway as part of the inheritence.

 

 

3 hours ago, JohnnyBD said:

I'm sure there are plenty of millionaire expats (USD, CAD, GBP, EUR, etc.) in Thailand on LTR visas. I know of several. Some are just acquaintances, and some are close friends. .... I have a close friend who's also one, he just sepnt 20MM on a new house & 1.75MM on a new vehicle for his wife. As for me, I prefer not sharing my personal wealth level with strangers. I will just say I'm very comfortable.

 

Nice looking house.

 

Your post reminded me ... a bit off the topic of your post ... but relevant to the LTR visa thread.  My understanding is if one is looking to use a real estate purchase as one's investment in Thailand (for the LTR-WP visa), I believe it can only be a freehold condo or possibly a 30-year leasehold (although I am uncertain re;the leasehold).  

 

One can not use (as proof of investment in Thailand) the house one lives in, where house has been bought by a Thai company (in which one has 49% share in the company - which is max amount allowed by law).

 

This is relevant to a couple friends of mine, whose passive income just falls short of the $80K US equivalent passive income per year for the LTR-WP visa.  They live in a massive, on the beach, villa, purchased years ago by a Thai company in which they have 49% ownership share, purchased of course, with their money provided to the company, to purchase the house. The sole purpose being to let them live in it.  Today market value for the villa they live in is around $40-million THB.

  

Because the house is in the company's name, and not their name, they can not use the house as proof of investment in Thailand. The same story is true for another couple.

 

So sadly, its not just an investment in Thailand,  but it has to be an investment structured in a certain way to meet BoI requirements.

 

1 hour ago, oldcpu said:

 

Nice looking house.

 

Your post reminded me ... a bit off the topic of your post ... but relevant to the LTR visa thread.  My understanding is if one is looking to use a real estate purchase as one's investment in Thailand (for the LTR-WP visa), I believe it can only be a freehold condo or possibly a 30-year leasehold (although I am uncertain re;the leasehold).  

 

One can not use (as proof of investment in Thailand) the house one lives in, where house has been bought by a Thai company (in which one has 49% share in the company - which is max amount allowed by law).

 

This is relevant to a couple friends of mine, whose passive income just falls short of the $80K US equivalent passive income per year for the LTR-WP visa.  They live in a massive, on the beach, villa, purchased years ago by a Thai company in which they have 49% ownership share, purchased of course, with their money provided to the company, to purchase the house. The sole purpose being to let them live in it.  Today market value for the villa they live in is around $40-million THB.

  

Because the house is in the company's name, and not their name, they can not use the house as proof of investment in Thailand. The same story is true for another couple.

 

So sadly, its not just an investment in Thailand,  but it has to be an investment structured in a certain way to meet BoI requirements.

 

 

It is also strictly not legal to do that, houses can be purchased by a company if they are meant for rental or a resort etc but not for living in yourself, true many people have done that but if the tax man wished to investigate it, it would be seen as fraud.

 

4 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

I am not being negative or nasty in any way but if he spent 20mill baht on a house then he paid for it but can not own it

 

That is something personally I  would not do, unless of course he has a child of his own who has a Thai passport (even if it is a dual passport) who he could buy it through as it will be passed onto the child at his death anyway as part of the inheritence.

Yes, he paid for it. The house is in his wife's name, and they have a 15 year-old daughter together. He wanted to buy it for his wife. They do live together.

1 hour ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

 

It is also strictly not legal to do that, houses can be purchased by a company if they are meant for rental or a resort etc but not for living in yourself, true many people have done that but if the tax man wished to investigate it, it would be seen as fraud.

 

 

That is also my understanding.  ... Its surprising thou, as to how many foreigners do this.  ... For them, there is a ongoing risk that some day Thailand may decide to do a country wide crackdown.  At present thou, it appears only if one gets in trouble for other reasons, that the local government makes the effort to also go after any such one for the inappropriate setting up of a company for sole purpose to buy a house.

 

I nominally always recommend to my foreign friends, who are thinking to buy in Thailand for the first time, to only go for a foreign freehold condo.

 

For a house with land, having one's Thai wife buy the property is one approach. I know of one couple (Thai wife / foreign man) where the foreign man paid for a Thai-Freehold condo which was registered only in his Thai wife's name. He and his Thai wife then paid the legal fees for a 30-year lease (which is registered at the land office), where she leased the property to him for 30-years for next to nothing. The idea being to protect him, in case their relationship went south. ... while this was for a (Thai freehold) condo, the same approach could be adopted for a house/property.

 

19 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

I have a non-O visa. (Not O-A, I do not know what an O-A is?)

I got a 90 day visa in the UK and had to show I had at least £10,000 in an account in the UK for at least six months with bank statements.

This was then extended to a year in Thailand and no medical insurance needed.

Make sure the Google maps overhead picture of your house is clearly displaying the latitude and longitude coordinates otherwise it will be rejected , well that is the case in Phuket at the immigration office. 

The 800k has to be left in the account for three months, then it can reduce to 400k and then two months before you apply again it has to be 800k.

Thanks - will do on the google maps.

The O-A is a Retirement Visa applied for from an overseas country.

You cannot apply for an o Retirement Visa from overseas.

You can only get an O Retirement Extension when in Thailand.

22 hours ago, oldcpu said:

No. Not accurate.

Clearly you do not know many wealthy foreigners who live in Thailand.  

But i note "IMO" in your post, so given that word ( IMO ) , ...  fine. 

May I humbly suggest thou, widen your circle of acquaintances in Thailand. What you learn may surprise you.

 

ROFLOL - Millions of Dollars in investments in their home country and living full-time in Pattaya - get real mate.

They may own a apartment there and visit - but come on - Pattaya is home to Expat millionaires - come on.

 

PS - I play golf as you may know - at many expensive courses - I have met a few genuinely 'wealthy' Expats and not one of them actually lives here full time.  Yes there are some who have business here, but we are talking about long term retired/married Expats living here on the LTR.  Or are you talking about those 'rich' Foreigners who have businesses in Thailand and stay/live here a lot - met a few Japanese ones myself - there are a lot around Si Racha. 

 

Obviously I am not talking about them - I am talking about older retired/married Expats who are considering the LTR - like me - and my decision like a lot of others has been 'no thanks'. Only 6000 takers in over 3 years - against a BOI forecast of 500K to 1 million within 5 years - something wrong me thinks with LTR. IMO it is the health insurance scam (unless you have a cheap global insurance plan from overseas like you)  and the future income tax implications.  But I could be wrong - but why have so many not taking it up??  They say that there are over 40,000 holders of Thai Visa Elite. 

On 9/14/2025 at 1:13 PM, JohnnyBD said:

Ok, are you talking about me this time? Or, are you tallking about that other person? Just asking because of the "wanna be" millionaire comment...

 

All good Johnny - it is all directed at the wanna be millionaire. 

23 hours ago, oldcpu said:

You are griping because you can't meet the BoI definition of wealthy (because to do so would cost you some money that is unacceptable to you).   Its YOU who can't meet the BoI definition.  

I did not bother reading any more of your post - other than that above.

 

YES I do meet the requirements - easily.

YES I can afford ripoff health insurance.

NO I will not pay so much for so little insurance

NO I will not put $100K USD into a savings account in Australia (bad earnings and also tax issues for me). 

NO I will not provide BOI my financial information.

NO I will not continue with the application. 

 

I have made my decision - you have made yours.

I will say it again - lets agree to disagree.

 

23 hours ago, oldcpu said:

No. Not accurate.

Clearly you do not know many wealthy foreigners who live in Thailand.  

But i note "IMO" in your post, so given that word ( IMO ) , ...  fine. 

May I humbly suggest thou, widen your circle of acquaintances in Thailand. What you learn may surprise you.

It would be a sad life if you were a deluded fool who think because they have an LTR Visa that they are considered 'wealthy'.  But I did say IF - so perhaps that does not apply to you??

 

If my Avatar triggers you - that says a lot too. IF.  

19 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

I am not being negative or nasty in any way but if he spent 20mill baht on a house then he paid for it but can not own it

That is something personally I  would not do, unless of course he has a child of his own who has a Thai passport (even if it is a dual passport) who he could buy it through as it will be passed onto the child at his death anyway as part of the inheritence.

Mate - you just punched a hole right into the middle of their delusions - well done.

 

I recall a recent story about a similar 'fool with his money' in Phuket who was scammed out of the property and lost all his money. He ended up proving the sale was a fraud, but the court ruled a Thai person had bought the property in good faith (at about 20% of actual value) so the sale was not voided and he lost the property.  Many stories across Thailand of similar events through corrupt officials and bad family members/wives.  Genuine retired millionaires do not live in Thailand on an LTR. 

 

Here's the latest BOI LTR stats thru 31 Aug 2025 which covers exactly the first three years of the LTR program that began 1 Sep 2022.   The program is averaging approx 2,374 LTR visas issued per year with the Pensioner category showing the most growth.   If the LTR program keeps that pace after 5 years the number of LTR visas will be up to around 11,870.....after 10 years 23,740. 

 

The LTR program is not going away with those types of numbers.   And as inflation and wage salary increases slowly do their annual thing of around 3%/year this will make current LTR income requirements more reachable to more people assuming the current LTR requirements do not change.   IMO  any LTR requirements changes will be reduction of some requirements like how BOI recently completely did away with the LTR WGC $80K annual income requirement.

 

Yes, the current LTR stats are not approaching the government aspirational projection of around 1 million within 5 years, but I don't think anyone with any brains remotely believed that projection.   That projection was just pure political BS in late 2021/2022 when Thailand was trying to economically recover from the COVID pandemic and feeding the Thai population all kinds of "political talk" about what the government was doing to improve the economy like enticing a million well-off farangs to move to Thailand.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=771165072294242&set=a.144552841622138

Deleted...duplicate of above post.

 

53 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Mate - you just punched a hole right into the middle of their delusions - well done.

 

I recall a recent story about a similar 'fool with his money' in Phuket who was scammed out of the property and lost all his money. He ended up proving the sale was a fraud, but the court ruled a Thai person had bought the property in good faith (at about 20% of actual value) so the sale was not voided and he lost the property.  Many stories across Thailand of similar events through corrupt officials and bad family members/wives.  Genuine retired millionaires do not live in Thailand on an LTR. 

 

 

Quite a few years ago I was visiting a friend of 30 years in CM, we went out one night and got back to 'his' house at 3am ,we had a great time, lots of beer involved, I had not seen him form many years at the time so we were celebrating. 

 

It is a massive house of 7000 sq ft internally, two rye of land and a full size swimming pool, massive lawns and flower beds, long driveway, not in the sticks but on a guarded gated development.

 

Driver, gardener, two full time conchais.

 

The next day in front of me his wife said to him, 'if you come home late again I will sell the house.'

 

He had also bought a house in Hua Hin used when the smoke season arrives in CM. Plus two houses in the UK rented out. 

 

I would never get myself into that position. His wife has never worked, it was all paid for by his hard work but he did not reply to her as he did not have a leg to stand on.

 

I live in a house in Phuket owned by my Thai partner which she bought herself.

 

The deal is I pay for all of the electricity bills, the food supplies and other such things, she cooks at home at she says it is heathy ,New Zealand beef/lamb etc,  this arrangement balances things out. 

 

We are just about to put the house in a will in my son's name as he has a British and Thai passport (he has a business in New Zealand), that way if she goes first I can not be kicked out of the house by her lazy family. 

 

If I go first then the will can be changed.

 

My property is rented in the UK together with other monies which are safe, thus we are financially independent of each other which is a healthy way to be.

 

Neither of us are human ATM's 😃

 

 

14 hours ago, oldcpu said:

 

That is also my understanding.  ... Its surprising thou, as to how many foreigners do this.  ... For them, there is a ongoing risk that some day Thailand may decide to do a country wide crackdown.  At present thou, it appears only if one gets in trouble for other reasons, that the local government makes the effort to also go after any such one for the inappropriate setting up of a company for sole purpose to buy a house.

 

I nominally always recommend to my foreign friends, who are thinking to buy in Thailand for the first time, to only go for a foreign freehold condo.

 

For a house with land, having one's Thai wife buy the property is one approach. I know of one couple (Thai wife / foreign man) where the foreign man paid for a Thai-Freehold condo which was registered only in his Thai wife's name. He and his Thai wife then paid the legal fees for a 30-year lease (which is registered at the land office), where she leased the property to him for 30-years for next to nothing. The idea being to protect him, in case their relationship went south. ... while this was for a (Thai freehold) condo, the same approach could be adopted for a house/property.

 

 

So if the wife goes and he has a 30 year lease, the wife family can only get the property if the lease expires or he is dead, I would not want to be in that position, it sounds a bit risky to me. 

1 hour ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

 

So if the wife goes and he has a 30 year lease, the wife family can only get the property if the lease expires or he is dead, I would not want to be in that position, it sounds a bit risky to me. 

 

Yes - however IMHO  it is better than the no lease scenario ... where 1 year after the wife meets someone else, falls in love, and kicks him out of the house.  This way for 30-years, she can't kick him out of the house. 

 

Say the man is age-55 when he signs the 30-year lease.  She can not kick him out until he turns 85, if he should be so lucky to live that long.

 

Is that not preferable to having no 30-year lease?   

 

Is it ideal ? Obviously not.

 

Would I do that?  No.

 

I would (and did) buy a foreign freehold property in a condo in a location where  I believe it will retain its value, or go up in value.  In fact, it has gone up, significantly.

 

So possibly we agree - except I see that if one wants a house ,  and if one does not want to rent, AND if one does not want to go against the (currently ignored) law and have a Thai company buy the house, then having the house name in a Thai family member (with a 30-year lease written) , ... suggests to me a lease is better than no lease.

On 9/13/2025 at 1:45 PM, oldcpu said:

 

Not exactly. That is not fully accurate.  You need to dig into the details.  Things like Canadian RRSPs, RRIFs, and USA 401(k) are excluded.

 

 

Further - anyone who is wealthy, and can easily meet the BoI requirements (and is not a border line qualifier) likely has their money diversified.

 

So one can show BoI one meets the requirements, but in fact BoI only sees a fraction of one's wealth.

 

It is important, in my view, not to jump to conclusions that between BoI and FATCA/CRS, that all one's financial information is being closely tracked.  it is not.  However one is required, in their tax residencies, to carefully follow the local laws, and also one is required, in the country from where one obtains their income, to follow the tax laws of those countries also.

 

 

Correct some accounts like the ones you are mentioned are exempt.

On 9/13/2025 at 8:51 PM, oldcpu said:

 

My understanding is the foreign health insurance , as stated on the website of Frankfurt consulate, is only good for the permission to stay in Thailand associated with the validity date of the foreign obtained LTR visa.

 

Once one is (inside Thailand) past that Type-OA validity date, then one is into annual extensions of one's permission to stay in Thailand (for reason of retirement).   

 

And you will find out, when you go for your first annual extension of your permission to stay in Thailand, that your foreign health insurance is NO LONGER ACCEPTED in Thailand by immigration.  Believe me, I have been through that route.

 

If you do not want to buy health insurance in Thailand, then the choices IMHO are:

(1) leave Thailand (to invalidate the type-OA) and return either on a type-O (if you can obtain such from Frankfurt) or return visa exempt to Thailand and apply for a Type-O in Thailand. Type-O has no health insurance requirement, or

 

(2) leave Thailand (to invalidate the type-OA) and simply obtain a new type-OA (and pay for the foreign insurance) - and visit friends in Germany every year, and every year get a new Type-OA, or

 

(3) if one has a Thai wife obtain a new type-OA (based on marriage) from Frankfurt.  I don't know if that possible (to get a type-OA based on marriage). Why marriage? No health insurance required if one has visa (or 1 year extension) based on marriage and if one has a Thai wife, or

 

(4) if one has a Thai wife, then after the first year in Thailand on Type-OA (for reason of retirement), for first annual extension and buy the health insurance, but in the second year (for the 1 year extension) switch to a permission to stay based on marriage to a Thai.

 

but again, unless there was a big change, foreign health insurance is NOT accepted for extensions of one's permission to stay on a Type-OA visa.  Foreign insurance can only be used for the initial obtaining of the Type-OA visa.

  

Correct, foreign health insurance is only allowed while on the OA visa not for an extension of stay. IMHO it is possible to obtain back to back OA visa by returning to you home country after 2 years . I only pointed out that foreign health insurace is possible with OA in an response to someone claiming all health insurance has to be thai. One of the main benefits of OA is that in fact it can be used as a 2 year visa when leaving after 360 days and returning the next day .

On 9/14/2025 at 3:15 AM, Pib said:

 

Assuming you got your OA visa after "new" rules went in effect years back that required specific medical insurance vs the old OA rules where health insurance was "not" required & you got that 69 Euros/month insurance just because you wanted health insurance regardless of the visa type, it can be VERY hard to get a foreign insurance policy approved for OA visa usage because of a specific certificate by the Thailand Office of Insurance Commission that your foreign insurance company must sign with multiple signatures and also stamp.   A foreign insurance company signing such a "foreign government form/certificate" that certifies health coverage in Thailand is very hard to do as insurance companies tend to be very reluctant in signing any forms that are not forms from the insurance company as it can be a legal trap for them. 

 

Unless a person can convince their foreign insurance company to sign the Thai govt form which is basically rigged to push OA visa applicants towards buying a Thai insurance policy from a list of approx 12 preapproved Thai insurance companies for visa purposes then getting a foreign insurance policy accepted for OA Visa medical coverage purposes is very hard to do.  And when applying for an OA Visa Extension of Stay (i.e., annual extension) the same rules apply in terms of needing to have that special form signed unless you can get a wavier from the Thai govt.  It's hard.

 

From FrankFurt Thai Embassy for OA Visa regarding valid health insurance

https://frankfurt.thaiembassy.org/de/page/non-immigrant-visa-o-a?menu=655cc785830a7b77c4757b43

 

Link to download the Office of Insurance Commission form the foreign insurance company must sign

https://longstay.tgia.org/companiesoa

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your post! It was not a problem at all to receive the foreign insurance Certificate from my insurance company. They are used to filling in the form on a daily basis and the form was send to me the same day to me via Email. I would recommed beforehand to make sure the company understands this requirement. No problems on the consulate side either as I think the majority of Germans use this company (H.M. not sure if allowed to post its name here) .

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I did not bother reading any more of your post - other than that above.

 

YES I do meet the requirements - easily.

YES I can afford ripoff health insurance.

NO I will not pay so much for so little insurance

NO I will not put $100K USD into a savings account in Australia (bad earnings and also tax issues for me). 

NO I will not provide BOI my financial information.

NO I will not continue with the application. 

 

I have made my decision - you have made yours.

I will say it again - lets agree to disagree.

 

 

i doubt that you meet the requirements easily, or we have a different definition of easily.

 

So - it boils down to you thinking the amount of money you  are willing to set aside in non-liquid asset (ie not in cash) for Self Health Insurance,  is superior to the BoI requirement of $100K in a Bank in Cash for self Health Insurance  and further, you think your non-liquid asset (ie not in cash) is superior to any Health Insurance.

 

Well - you are not alone there in that view. 

 

 I know some expats who rejected the LTR for the same reason as you , where they have no Health Insurance and they don't want to lose any penny on putting money in cash for self Health insurance coverage.  They are happy to take that gamble, and they are happy to go the Type-O route. 

 

My view re: the Type-O, is good for them!! I hope it works out. 

 

Further, to be clear, I hope (in all sincerity) that this all works for you.

 

BoI have a different view than you thou, when it comes to what is required for Self Health Insurance. 

 

You can argue with BoI.   Go ahead.  Good luck there ! 

 

As for the use and definition of wealthy. its not my definition.  It never was ... so your insults in that regard simply re-enforce your handle.  It BoI's definition.  In my posts its always been about BoI's definition.

 

As your posts have proven, you can't do such $100K US$ equivalent (in cash) self health insurance to BoI's requirements, without the loss of income irritating you.  Right?  It would irritate you.  Which in my case, frankly, is a loss of annual income so small (in my case - ie the difference between 4% and 17% on $100k US$ ) that it is relatively trivial for me - with no affect on my life style - at most it might mean a few pennies less to who ever inherits my money when i pass away.  

 

Obviously, it is not trivial for you.

 

Regardless ... 

 

Honestly?  I actually wish you all the very best. 

 

But I note your waiting for some BoI decision about taxation against some not approved wish of the Thai RD to switch to global taxation is wrong. This has NOTHING to do with waiting for BoI.  It is the absolute wrong approach IF you wish to live in Thailand. This is not about taxation for you. Its about health insurance (and maybe about whether for you to live in Thailand ).

 

If (in bold) , if there is Global taxation, all Visas will be affected if global taxation is implemented.   

 

Your waiting for the BoI ONLY makes sense, if that affects your decision to live in Thailand. Else you would simply decide now, no waiting and no LTR, because you hate the thought of not maximizing an investment on $100K US equivalent (where self health insurance to BoI requirement would possibly reduce the return on $100k US to only 4% per year ).

 

What you state about waiting, is simply, illogical if you decide regardless to live in Thailand > 180 days per taxation year. 

 

Simply decide now, LTR or no LTR with Self health insurance to BoI requirements as your criteria. 

48 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

As your posts have proven, you can't do such $100K US$ equivalent (in cash) self health insurance to BoI's requirements, without the loss of income irritating you.  Right?  It would irritate you.  Which in my case, frankly, is a loss of annual income so small (in my case - ie the difference between 4% and 17% on $100k US$ ) that it is relatively trivial for me - with no affect on my life style - at most it might mean a few pennies less to who ever inherits my money when i pass away.  

Bingo!  The minimal opportunity cost, to keep your money liquid, that BoI requires -- so that you don't stiff a Thai hospital, while you await your stock portfolio to recover -- should mean nothing to a person of means. And most folks of means realize the value of health insurance, when they weigh the cost of triple bypass against annual insurance premiums. 

 

But, some folks of means weren't dealt with a full deck. Or, they're really not 'of means.' That Grumpy doesn't fit into the LTR club -- is fine with me. 

5 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

You cannot apply for an o Retirement Visa from overseas.

You can only get an O Retirement Extension when in Thailand.

 

Nonsense.

7 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Thanks - will do on the google maps.

The O-A is a Retirement Visa applied for from an overseas country.

You cannot apply for an o Retirement Visa from overseas.

You can only get an O Retirement Extension when in Thailand.

This is very incorrect.

The non-OA is a retirement visa, and can ONLY be applied for from home country, or country of permanent residence.

The non-O can be applied for based on retirement or many other reasons, and is available from both your Thai embassy overseas and from most immigration offices in Thailand (not all).

21 hours ago, JohnnyBD said:

On 9/14/2025 at 6:09 PM, JamesPhuket10 said:

I am not being negative or nasty in any way but if he spent 20mill baht on a house then he paid for it but can not own it

 

That is something personally I  would not do, unless of course he has a child of his own who has a Thai passport (even if it is a dual passport) who he could buy it through as it will be passed onto the child at his death anyway as part of the inheritence.

Yes, he paid for it. The house is in his wife's name, and they have a 15 year-old daughter together. He wanted to buy it for his wife. They do live together.

One more thing, I find most people tend to judge others by what they would do based on their own financial situation. I'm guilty of doing that sometimes, but I try not to. I have been knowing this man for over 10 years. He's a good friend, and he's in a much higher income & wealth level than most of us. He can easily afford to spend that money to take care of his wife & daughter's future after 20 years of marriage. I applaud him for doing it. I also try take care of my wife, so she will have a place to live and money to live on after I'm gone. I'm hoping that won't be for a very long time, but who knows. Best of luck to you...

@Old cpu - It`s not really fair to compare the return on cash ( 99.99 % safe ) with the best returns available on stocks . After all , where can you get a guaranteed 17 % return ?

Historically , stocks have done around 12 % pa ( compared with cash at 4 % today ) . But this involves taking on a lot of risk , there`s no guarantee .

2 hours ago, persimmon said:

@Old cpu - It`s not really fair to compare the return on cash ( 99.99 % safe ) with the best returns available on stocks . After all , where can you get a guaranteed 17 % return ?

Historically , stocks have done around 12 % pa ( compared with cash at 4 % today ) . But this involves taking on a lot of risk , there`s no guarantee .

 

Yes ... you are absolutely correct.  I had a fuzzy recollection of S&P average over past year being 17% so deliberately plugged in that very high number to make a point. 

 

Of course if one looks over 10 years (which makes a lot more sense for a comparison) the stock market return (such as S&P-500) is closer to the 12% you note.  

 

Perhaps I pushed too hard to make a point, a point which Jim Gant summed up  nicely in better words than what I succeeded to describe.  Putting aside $100K US$ equivalent in cash for a person of means, for self health insurance, is not an issue.   

 

On that note, my trading strategy, which has served me well for over 3 decades, is always have a cash reserve, ready to use - which has served me incredibly well, given my trading style. 

 

One example:  I used my cash reserve to load up in nvida shares when it was dirt cheap ( > 1,000 shares) decades ago . I had a salaried job then, and as months/years went by I rebuilt my cash reserve and then increased my position in nvidia even more in Nov-2008 when the price dipped. Look at that nvidia stock today.   And nvidia is only a fraction of my portfolio today.  Having a cash reserve has always worked well for me.

 

Again ..  it gets back to what Jim Gant noted about people of means.

 

One point I did not mention, is if one thinks they can get 12% (using your number) on $100k that is $12,000 US$ /year then that more than pays for good health insurance.  I suspect one can get pretty good health insurance for 1/3 that cost.

 

I pay ~240-euros/month for my subsidized health insurance that covers both myself and my wife. I note that my former employer (who provides my European pension and who subsidizes my Health Insurance) pays more than that in their share - possibly they pay 250-to-300 euros.  So that is about ~500 euros/month, or 6,000 euros per year. Convert to US$ and one has ~$7,000 US$/year being paid total in Health Insurance (where my share for myself AND my wife at 2,880 euro/year equates to about $3,400 US$/year for my & my wife's Health insurance).   

 

So I note, that ~$3,400 US/year (in Health Insurance costs)  is a lot less than ~$12,000 US equiv earned in capital gains from $100,000 US$ (if one can get 12% capital gain) . So one could, if they wish, put the $100,000 US$ equivalent in the stock market, say buy an ETF that tracks the S&P-500. Assume it tracks reasonably well and gets 12%.  That $12,000 would pay for the $3,400 US Health Insurance for 2 people (myself age-71 and my wife age 58).

 

Then get a letter from the Health Insurance company worded in a way to meet BoI requirements.

 

That is another approach as well.   I think it makes sense to have good Health Insurance. 

 

All of this, IMHO, is manageable if one is able to restructure one's finances (and Insurance) to meet BoI requirements for the LTR visa.

 

 

11 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Genuine retired millionaires do not live in Thailand on an LTR. 

 

 

Wrong.

 

An investor who bought $1,000 worth of NVIDIA stock at the IPO in 1999 would have $4,728,255 today, roughly 4,728 times their original investment.  But possibly, according to you, investors also do not live in Thailand?  I will have to stop looking in the mirror.

10 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

So if the wife goes and he has a 30 year lease, the wife family can only get the property if the lease expires or he is dead, I would not want to be in that position, it sounds a bit risky to me. 

Just for clarification:  "A bit risky" refers to the risk of the guy being killed by the wife's family?  Or to the risks to the wife's family?

 

6 hours ago, oldcpu said:

So I note, that ~$3,400 US/year (in Health Insurance costs)  is a lot less than ~$12,000 US equiv earned in capital gains from $100,000 US$ (if one can get 12% capital gain) . So one could, if they wish, put the $100,000 US$ equivalent in the stock market, say buy an ETF that tracks the S&P-500. Assume it tracks reasonably well and gets 12%.  That $12,000 would pay for the $3,400 US Health Insurance for 2 people (myself age-71 and my wife age 58).

Indeed, $100k well invested will largely pay for any decent international health cover.

 

As it's not a given to be able to get 12% in capital gains every single year on the S&P 500 without NAV erosion, there exist passive income ETFs that pay regular distributions. Such as SPYI, covered call ETF that yields about 12% p.a. (minus 15% WHT if non-US person residing in Thailand) with a slight NAV decay compared to the underlying SPY total return. With a bit more volatility, QQQI based on Nasdaq-100 yields about 14% p.a. before tax.

2 hours ago, Yumthai said:

Indeed, $100k well invested will largely pay for any decent international health cover.

You are spot on mate. If one chooses to roll the dice, and go without health insurance to save money, that's their choice, but not having health insurance comes with some risks.

 

People pay for insurance to protect themselves from potentially overwhelming financial losses caused by unexpected events. In most cases, insurance is a sunk cost that can never be recovered. That's just how insurnaces work.

 

As for the LTR-WP visa rules, one can choose to meet the health insurance requirements or not. If one doesn't want to comply with the requirements, that's their choice. Maybe the rules will change one day, but continually complaining about them is useless. It's better to accept the facts and just move on, rather than dwelling on the negativity.