1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

No deflection. I've posted the numbers. Buying a condo doesn't even make financial sense, regardless of the 51% / 49% and who sits on the committee. The purchase price, invested in my home country, makes more than the rent on a similar condo in my block. Not to mention the elephant in the room, life expectancy, which in my previous example, put it at around 85 years of age for a buyer to then be ahead of a renter.

Correct, and authorities are in the process of investigating 47,000 Thai companies suspected of this illegality.

Again you're changing the issue from what you posted and I replied to just to cover your misleading statements. I never suggested buying or not buying or renting or investments. You can throw any exception in after the fact to try and support misleading statements but it doesnt change what you said. Stay with the topic.

4 hours ago, henryford1958 said:

I bought a legal freehold condo here 20 years ago. Best thing i ever did. Saved 6 million baht in rent and i still own a 4 million baht condo. Renting is a mugs game.

📈 Renting + Investing

• Capital invested: ฿4,000,000 at 8% annual compound return on the stock market

• Future value after 20 years:

[ FV = 4{,}000{,}000 \cdot (1.08)^{20}

 ]

[ FV \approx 4{,}000{,}000 \cdot 4.66 \approx 18.64 \text{ million baht}

 ]

• Rent paid: ฿180,000/year × 20 = ฿3.6 million.

• Net position: 18.64m − 3.6m = ≈ ฿15.0 million.

---

🏘 Buying Outcome

• If you bought, you avoided rent (3.6m) but tied up 4m.

• For buying to match renting+investing, the property today must be worth ≈ ฿15 million.

---

⚖️ Conclusion

• If the property is worth less than ~฿15m today, renting + investing at 8% was financially superior.

• If the property appreciated to >฿15m, buying was the better choice.

43 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

What do you think of the option to purchase the building outright (giving you permanent foreign freehold ownership of the house) and concurrently, you enter into a 30-year lease agreement for the land, registered at the local Land Office. Do you think that is still a viable option?

I've seen this discussed but I don't really know enough about it to say whether this would be a viable option. Google says a foreigner can put a house in his or her name so that seems to be possible. I try to limit myself to what I know, mostly based on personal experience, and my spouse and I have never done anything with leases so I leave it to others with that kind of experience.

10 minutes ago, newnative said:

I've seen this discussed but I don't really know enough about it to say whether this would be a viable option. Google says a foreigner can put a house in his or her name so that seems to be possible. I try to limit myself to what I know, mostly based on personal experience, and my spouse and I have never done anything with leases so I leave it to others with that kind of experience.

If you don't know anything then why post--just read other posts and get info from them. IMO

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I've never met a farang who has admitted to a loss in Thailand. 😂

With all the fees, taxes, moving costs, work in selling the place etc, I bet you made no profit in the end.

I know of one who took a small loss on a sale--but probably at least broke even with the rent saved. Everyone else I know has come out ahead, in varying degrees. You seem to think there are big expenses involved with selling a property here--there aren't, other than the commission, which we figure into the price. It's not like the US, or perhaps OZ.

Fees were very low as we held the house for a year and there is now a special reduction for Thai owner transfers--it's only 0.01% from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. We closed the end of July 2026. Property taxes for the year were 800 baht--they are incredibly low in Thailand. We spent almost that amount on lunch today. The house was sold furnished so we only moved personal items, antiques, and art, which we did ourselves in our SUV.

We stored some stuff at a storage facility while the new house was being built--we would have had those same charges if we had rented for the year the new house was being planned and built. The 'work in selling the place' mostly involved staging the house, which I enjoy doing and is not really work for me, and sitting on my duff and emailing lots of agencies and agents, not especially hard at this point, either, and I enjoy the process with them.

22 minutes ago, couchpotato said:

If you don't know anything then why post--just read other posts and get info from them. IMO

I was answering someone who asked me a direct question--that is why I posted.

3 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

Buying Outcome

• If you bought, you avoided rent (3.6m) but tied up 4m.

• For buying to match renting+investing, the property today must be worth ≈ ฿15 million.

Actually it's even more than ฿15M if you factor in all the extra costs being a property owner vs being a tenant over 20 years, the obvious ones being maintenance and tax on rental income.

Edited August 13Aug 13 by Yumthai

37 minutes ago, newnative said:

I've seen this discussed but I don't really know enough about it to say whether this would be a viable option. Google says a foreigner can put a house in his or her name so that seems to be possible. I try to limit myself to what I know, mostly based on personal experience, and my spouse and I have never done anything with leases so I leave it to others with that kind of experience.

That can definitely be done. Lease the land and own the house. It would help if the house could be moved at a later date, if necessary.

3 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

📈 Renting + Investing

• Capital invested: ฿4,000,000 at 8% annual compound return on the stock market

• Future value after 20 years:

[ FV = 4{,}000{,}000 \cdot (1.08)^{20}

 ]

[ FV \approx 4{,}000{,}000 \cdot 4.66 \approx 18.64 \text{ million baht}

 ]

• Rent paid: ฿180,000/year × 20 = ฿3.6 million.

• Net position: 18.64m − 3.6m = ≈ ฿15.0 million.

---

🏘 Buying Outcome

• If you bought, you avoided rent (3.6m) but tied up 4m.

• For buying to match renting+investing, the property today must be worth ≈ ฿15 million.

---

⚖️ Conclusion

• If the property is worth less than ~฿15m today, renting + investing at 8% was financially superior.

• If the property appreciated to >฿15m, buying was the better choice.

So true. And that doesn't even consider the risks of finding yourself in an AirBNB dominated floor with idiot tourists coming and going at all hours, a disco moving in next door making sleep impossible, sketchy neighbors who smoke dope like chimneys, or a surprise special assessment because they haven't kept up the maintenance.

Freely admitting that I was looking at the low end of the Bangkok market (looking for an alternative to a hotel for about a week each month, so I could leave my stuff), I found that I could rent a condo for a tiny percentage of the sales price of condos in the same buildings. So I'd be better off leaving my money where it is, earning more than the rent. A lot more.

I don't know if that holds true in the premium market, but it sure does in the low (but perfectly livable) end.

1 hour ago, newnative said:

I've seen this discussed but I don't really know enough about it to say whether this would be a viable option. Google says a foreigner can put a house in his or her name so that seems to be possible. I try to limit myself to what I know, mostly based on personal experience, and my spouse and I have never done anything with leases so I leave it to others with that kind of experience.

An Aussie did just that, at Udon Thani, except the moving the house elsewhere. Built house on steel girder frame, on piling/stilts. Pretty cool actually, and blew the neighbors minds one week.

As for some reason, he had to raise it, I think. So hired a crane, and picked up the whole house, while doing the work.

With that, I think it could have easily been put on a flat bed trailer and relocation.

Only problem, house mostly wood, and eventually was termite food.

17 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

An Aussie did just that, at Udon Thani, except the moving the house elsewhere. Built house on steel girder frame, on piling/stilts. Pretty cool actually, and blew the neighbors minds one week.

As for some reason, he had to raise it, I think. So hired a crane, and picked up the whole house, while doing the work.

It was a small knock down house ...

You could actually do that today, buy with GF/wife or rent land, and put one of the 'Capsule house', or shipping container converted home, link a couple together for more area.

Actually cross my mind to put one of the capsule home on one of our lots, just for the hell of it. But they're a bit pricey, and could build same size house for less.

All moveable if needing to ... options abound, limited by one's imagination ...

Shipping container one done at Udon ...

Edited August 13Aug 13 by KhunLA

3 hours ago, newnative said:

I know of one who took a small loss on a sale

One, only one. 😂

So, the property market in Thailand is thriving so much that basically no one ever makes a loss, yet, there are 1.64 million vacant properties in Thailand, and that has zero impact on the market, neither do other external forces, neither does data show a 4 year decline in the market. 😂

You are dribbling now.

6 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

📈 Renting + Investing

• Capital invested: ฿4,000,000 at 8% annual compound return on the stock market

• Future value after 20 years:

[ FV = 4{,}000{,}000 \cdot (1.08)^{20}

 ]

[ FV \approx 4{,}000{,}000 \cdot 4.66 \approx 18.64 \text{ million baht}

 ]

• Rent paid: ฿180,000/year × 20 = ฿3.6 million.

• Net position: 18.64m − 3.6m = ≈ ฿15.0 million.

---

🏘 Buying Outcome

• If you bought, you avoided rent (3.6m) but tied up 4m.

• For buying to match renting+investing, the property today must be worth ≈ ฿15 million.

---

⚖️ Conclusion

• If the property is worth less than ~฿15m today, renting + investing at 8% was financially superior.

• If the property appreciated to >฿15m, buying was the better choice.

As you have done, I've posted figures a few times before also, over different threads.

"But, but, but, rent is dead money." 😂😂

Then, once again, add life expectancy into the mix. I recently posted figures, based on another member's figure of 15,000 baht a month rent, that's was 3,400,000 million baht, left in my home country, at 5.3% bank interest, one would have to live until 85 years of age before they can say they are now ahead because they bought and not rented. How many over 85 year old foreigners are there here?

On 8/2/2026 at 11:31 AM, MIke B Bad said:

The real mystery is.......why the hell would anyone buy in Thailand?........politically unstable, facing financial difficulties, corruption is endemic, laws are applied, not applied, misapplied......????

On 8/2/2026 at 11:47 AM, MIke B Bad said:

Ha! I'm sure she does.

My take is my capital is invested ......

🏠 Option 1: Buy the condo

• Purchase price: 6,000,000 baht

• Annual appreciation: 2%

Future value after 5 years:

6,624,480*

*This ignores all other costs associated with buying

---

🏡 Option 2: Rent + Invest

• Rent cost: 20,000 baht/month = 240,000 baht/year

• Total rent over 5 years: 240,000 × 5 = 1,200,000 baht

• Capital invested in stock market: 6,000,000 baht

• Annual return assumed: 8%

Future value after 5 years:

7,615,800

I bought our property for the wife twenty years ago. A 4 storey shophouse unit on a normal soi in Hat Yai with 360m² of living space, plus a further 100m² of roof area (our garden) all for Bht2.3m. No chance of getting that with home & land or a condo. I never considered it as a capital investment, simply a gift to the wife, it it all went wrong it was money I could walk away from. I like the space we have, and the community we're a part of, and after 29 years together, 20 in this house, the only way I'm leaving is in a box.

As for the original question, given the uncertainty, I would consider "buying a house via the company route" as rather risky.

.

Edited August 13Aug 13 by Stocky

53 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

One, only one. 😂

So, the property market in Thailand is thriving so much that basically no one ever makes a loss, yet, there are 1.64 million vacant properties in Thailand, and that has zero impact on the market, neither do other external forces, neither does data show a 4 year decline in the market. 😂

You are dribbling now.

Never said any of what you posted--you're the one 'dribbling'. What I said was I personally only knew of one. You then take it upon yourself to proclaim I am saying, 'the property market in Thailand is thriving so much that basically no one ever makes a loss'. Stop attributing to me things I have never said. What I have said is that people continue to buy and sell property in Thailand, in good times and not so good times. That was true during covid and it's true now.

What some people overlook is that even if you might take a loss on a property sale, you may not have lost money overall on the transaction if you have lived at the property for a few years, as you have saved on rent, while also having the enjoyment of the space you owned, to do with what you wanted, with your own things, which is important for a lot of people.

11 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Good advice.

Older folk will not live long enough to see any financial benefit from buying over renting.

When you can not own the property in your own name, the odds are against you.

So why put any assets on the chopping block here?

I'm sure they felt secure in the knowledge that "everyone else is doing it, so it must be fine" but I have never subscribed to that theory.

The fact that Thailand allowed this illegal activity to continue for decades meant there was always going to be a point in time in the future where the amount of foreigners, and the amount of property they control, was going to be too much for the Thai government to continue to ignore. It appears it has now reached that point.

This is typical in Thailand. Allow the grey area. Turn a blind eye. Make money out of it. Allow the corruption. Then, when it suits them, pull the rug out from under people.

You obviously have no clue on why the Thai government is doing the crack down on illegal company ownership.

I bet you also think the crack down on mule bank accounts is just prejudice toward foreigners to take their money.

17 hours ago, impulse said:

So true. And that doesn't even consider the risks of finding yourself in an AirBNB dominated floor with idiot tourists coming and going at all hours, a disco moving in next door making sleep impossible, sketchy neighbors who smoke dope like chimneys, or a surprise special assessment because they haven't kept up the maintenance.

Freely admitting that I was looking at the low end of the Bangkok market (looking for an alternative to a hotel for about a week each month, so I could leave my stuff), I found that I could rent a condo for a tiny percentage of the sales price of condos in the same buildings. So I'd be better off leaving my money where it is, earning more than the rent. A lot more.

I don't know if that holds true in the premium market, but it sure does in the low (but perfectly livable) end.

That's the killer for me.

Quiet neighbours, quiet neighbourhood......never move.

15 hours ago, newnative said:

Never said any of what you posted

Do you deny the facts I have posted?

15 hours ago, newnative said:

What I said was I personally only knew of one.

Yes, only one. Not a very large sample base. 😂

15 hours ago, newnative said:

Stop attributing to me things I have never said.

I haven't. I already know you talk up the market here, that's because you have skin in the game.

I post data that refutes the claims you make about the Thailand property.

Once again, this comment is misleading.

"What some people overlook is that even if you might take a loss on a property sale, you may not have lost money overall on the transaction if you have lived at the property for a few years, as you have saved on rent"

What about the lost of earnings of the capital used to buy the property, which makes more money in one's home country than the cost of the rent for the exact same property.

You conveniently overlook that because it does not suit your narrative.

Edited August 14Aug 14 by KhunHeineken

16 hours ago, Dan O said:

You obviously have no clue on why the Thai government is doing the crack down on illegal company ownership.

I bet you also think the crack down on mule bank accounts is just prejudice toward foreigners to take their money.

"Returning Thai Land to Thai People." They will have a big statue of Anutin one day. 😂

We've all been caught up in the extra security checks by the banks, due to mule accounts. It has caused some inconvenience for many members.

Of interest to authorities is, and back on topic, many of these Thai companies using nominees wouldn't even have a corporate bank account. Yes, a Thai company with no bank account. A little hard to argue the company is legit without a flow of money through a bank account.

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

"Returning Thai Land to Thai People." They will have a big statue of Anutin one day. 😂

We've all been caught up in the extra security checks by the banks, due to mule accounts. It has caused some inconvenience for many members.

Of interest to authorities is, and back on topic, many of these Thai companies using nominees wouldn't even have a corporate bank account. Yes, a Thai company with no bank account. A little hard to argue the company is legit without a flow of money through a bank account.

no its shutting down illegal activity.

Just now, Dan O said:

no its shutting down illegal activity.

"Everybody else is doing it, so it must be fine."

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

Do you deny the facts I have posted?

Yes, only one. Not a very large sample base. 😂

I haven't. I already know you talk up the market here, that's because you have skin in the game.

I post data that refutes the claims you make about the Thailand property.

Once again, this comment is misleading.

"What some people overlook is that even if you might take a loss on a property sale, you may not have lost money overall on the transaction if you have lived at the property for a few years, as you have saved on rent"

What about the lost of earnings of the capital used to buy the property, which makes more money in one's home country than the cost of the rent for the exact same property.

You conveniently overlook that because it does not suit your narrative.

More deflection. As you well know, it is not that I am 'denying' your facts. You post your national facts, which is fine. I post boots on the ground, personal experience. What I have repeatedly stated is that national facts, or facts for other parts of the country, such as Chiang Mai, do not hold relevance for Pattaya with local transactions. True whether you're hunting for a used car or buying a property. One part of Thailand might be doing well, another part not so well. You need local data to know how your area is doing. National data gives average income for Thailand at around 15,000 to 16,000 baht a month. Local data shows Isan at about half that--a big difference.

I've given you examples to explain this--you just keep repeating the importance of your national data and ignoring my point. National vs. local is not unique to Thailand, by the way. How is it helpful, or meaningful, to someone selling a house in West Virginia, and trying to price it, that national data shows houses selling in California for an average of $754,000? Is that relevant? No. Wouldn't it be more useful to have West Virginia data, and even more useful to have data for the town in WV where your house will be for sale? Of course, it would. That's useful, that's relevant. The average home price for WV is around $182,000, by the way.

How is it helpful for me, as a seller, to know that there are 50 3-bedroom pool villas priced at under 6MB in CM, if I am selling one in Pattaya? Would it be more helpful to know the figure for Pattaya? And, even more helpful to know the figure for my area of Pattaya? This is not rocket science.

Nobody is disputing that investment returns can be better than real estate with some other investments. I have said repeatedly do what works best for you. However, there are some people who prefer to own, even with you telling them to rent and invest elsewhere and they'll do better financially. That includes me. For some, a home is much more than just a financial consideration--you are the one who always ignores this aspect, including your recent post.

What I pointed out in my last post was, for those who choose to own rather than rent, even though their property might lose some value, or perhaps just retain its value, an owner who lives in his or her home for a number of years will likely end up with a net plus, with the rent savings. The longer you own, the more that is likely. This is focused solely on owning, with making a better financial return on something else a separate issue.

Had we stayed in one of the first condos we bought when we first came to Pattaya, and not moved from it, it would likely be paid for by now with the rent savings. Even if it lost some value, we would still have a net plus. Likely we would have had a bigger financial net plus with renting and investing but owning over those years has given us happiness and contentment that can't be measured financially--which I know falls on deaf ears for you, with only the bottom line mattering. That's perfectly fine if the bottom line takes top priority for you with rent vs. own. It should always be what works best for you, and what works best for me--they don't need to be the same. And, once again, one can do both--own property and also have other investments, as well. America is producing 1,200 millionaires a day with that combination.

At the end of the day some people are naturally renters and some are naturally homeowners. Me personally owning a home makes me feel good. That is priceless.

On 8/12/2026 at 11:06 PM, Cameroni said:

What do you think of the option to purchase the building outright (giving you permanent foreign freehold ownership of the house) and concurrently, you enter into a 30-year lease agreement for the land, registered at the local Land Office. Do you think that is still a viable option?

In a YoutTube posted by @jvs previously in this thread, there is a foreigner representing a law firm that says there are companies such as SIRI Property Partners (siri-thai <dot> com) that specialize in providing 30-year lease agreements such as what you are asking about. In that same video, Laguna Phuket (I think this is the correct name) as a development has been providing this same type of arrangement since its inception. What I don't know is what actually happens after the 30-year lease ends. Supposedly, those leases are renewed, but at what cost? Surely the Thai company holding the land ownership doesn't just say, "Hey, here you go with another 30-year lease on the back of the chanote" without charging something. My concerned is that you may be required to pay the a significant amount of money to renew the lease on the land once again.

Go to the SIRI Property Partners website for more information on what they are offering. I have no association with any of these organizations. All the properties that I paid for are owned wholly by my Thai spouse.

6 minutes ago, donx said:

In a YoutTube posted by @jvs previously in this thread, there is a foreigner representing a law firm that says there are companies such as SIRI Property Partners (siri-thai <dot> com) that specialize in providing 30-year lease agreements such as what you are asking about. In that same video, Laguna Phuket (I think this is the correct name) as a development has been providing this same type of arrangement since its inception. What I don't know is what actually happens after the 30-year lease ends. Supposedly, those leases are renewed, but at what cost? Surely the Thai company holding the land ownership doesn't just say, "Hey, here you go with another 30-year lease on the back of the chanote" without charging something. My concerned is that you may be required to pay the a significant amount of money to renew the lease on the land once again.

Go to the SIRI Property Partners website for more information on what they are offering. I have no association with any of these organizations. All the properties that I paid for are owned wholly by my Thai spouse.

Yes, a real problem for guys like me who are only 55. I could easily live 30 plus years.

9 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Yes, a real problem for guys like me who are only 55. I could easily live 30 plus years.

The law does back up the 30 year lease,i know some people are saying this can be extended by another 30 years but that does not seem to be legal.

Besides no one knows what is going to happen in 30 years or the years leading up to that.

I think the only way to fix this is to add another name to the lease if you are allowed to buy the person selling the lease.

A guy i know who is 80 years old just signed a 30 year lease 3 years ago,optimistic?

I think his daughter is also on the lease ,in case he dies she will still have the place for the remainder of the 30 year period.

Or put the whole lease in a childs name and you live in it?

Just now, jvs said:

The law does back up the 30 year lease,i know some people are saying this can be extended by another 30 years but that does not seem to be legal.

Besides no one knows what is going to happen in 30 years or the years leading up to that.

I think the only way to fix this is to add another name to the lease if you are allowed to buy the person selling the lease.

A guy i know who is 80 years old just signed a 30 year lease 3 years ago,optimistic?

I think his daughter is also on the lease ,in case he dies she will still have the place for the remainder of the 30 year period.

Or put the whole lease in a childs name and you live in it?

Yes that makes sense. If you lived 30 years plus and survived the lease and then had to vacate the premises as a 85 year old it would seem very harsh. By that time there'll probably be AI putting up red flashing "lease expired" notices on all kinds of fancy computers.

On 8/13/2026 at 12:07 PM, MIke B Bad said:

📈 Renting + Investing

• Capital invested: ฿4,000,000 at 8% annual compound return on the stock market

• Future value after 20 years:

[ FV = 4{,}000{,}000 \cdot (1.08)^{20}

 ]

[ FV \approx 4{,}000{,}000 \cdot 4.66 \approx 18.64 \text{ million baht}

 ]

• Rent paid: ฿180,000/year × 20 = ฿3.6 million.

• Net position: 18.64m − 3.6m = ≈ ฿15.0 million.

---

🏘 Buying Outcome

• If you bought, you avoided rent (3.6m) but tied up 4m.

• For buying to match renting+investing, the property today must be worth ≈ ฿15 million.

---

⚖️ Conclusion

• If the property is worth less than ~฿15m today, renting + investing at 8% was financially superior.

• If the property appreciated to >฿15m, buying was the better choice.

It would also make a big difference if you actually had the money to pay cash or needed to borrow it.

16 hours ago, newnative said:

you just keep repeating the importance of your national data

The national data does not support your argument. It is you who is deflecting.

16 hours ago, newnative said:

What I pointed out in my last post was, for those who choose to own rather than rent, even though their property might lose some value, or perhaps just retain its value, an owner who lives in his or her home for a number of years will likely end up with a net plus, with the rent savings. The longer you own, the more that is likely. This is focused solely on owning, with making a better financial return on something else a separate issue.

I have posted figures to show, using another members example of 15.000 baht a month rent, that at 3,400,00 baht, one must live to around 85 years of age to only then be able to say they are ahead, if they were to rent the exact same property.

You continually ignore the loss of earning capacity of the capital for the purchase price.

Due to no town planning laws in Thailand, and some other issues like poor management of a condo blocks, poor construction methods etc, that "home" that you talk up could become a slum. Then, what's one got to even sell and buy again in another location? They can't, unless they sell at a fire sale and take a loss not only on the property sale, but also on the loss of use of the purchase price capital.

16 hours ago, newnative said:

Had we stayed in one of the first condos we bought when we first came to Pattaya, and not moved from it, it would likely be paid for by now with the rent savings.

Yet again, you ignore the lost earnings from the purchase price capital that pushes your "net plus in rent savings" way out in years.

Another member posted projected sales figures of keeping the purchase price invested versus buying a property here. His figures showed the Thai property had to be worth around 15 million baht for the owner to say their property's value is now worth more that the purchase price capital invested over the same period of time.

Thailand foreign ownership of laws aside, the financials don't even stack up in the rent v buy debate here. There's no economic benefit, past 85 years of age, to buy. How many 85 year old expats are there in Thailand?

I'll say it again. Rent is not dead money in Thailand.

Apartments a half kilometer down the road have studios 4000B/m + utilities.

That's considered one of the more expensive choices for rentals by locals.

I bet you wouldn't have any problem finding a local to lease land to you for 25 years, maybe 1000b a month or 12,000b a year.

Then you pay 15,000b to build a traditional Thai bamboo thatch hut.

Bada bing Bada boom.

For 15,000b + 1000b a month you got a place to rest your bones in-between drinking sprees at your pub.

You're welcome. 🤑