8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

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.

Think that was my example. You seem to omit, one has to pay rent while living here.

15k X 25 yrs = 4.5M THB vs real cost of ~3.2M. Actually, initial invest of 700k.

Another thing you neglect to mention, though may not realize, that 3.2M wasn't splashed out all at one time. At that time, wasn't even available to be invested. As tied up in other investments.

1st house was 300k, then 2 yrs later, another 400k upgrade, then sold for 1.4M. Profit of 700k vs 7 yrs of rent of about 840k, so almost break even.

That 1.4M bought 6 rai, for 720k., so reality, no money spent, and not sure how much 700k THB would earn in the markets.

2nd house cost ~2M, all in. No real appreciation when sold, but the land appreciated to 1.2M, that the house sat on, and 2M more for the other lots.

So 2M out of pocket instead of rent for about 10 yrs. That house 400+m² w/pool probably would rent for 20k a mont, at least.

That's 2.4M rent, for 2M out of pocket expense. A savings of 0.4M by owning instead of renting. So now the land only cost 320k.

2.9M profit on land goes toward house #3.

76k ... land

1.1M ... contract build

300k ... wall, carport, extras

450k ... solar

1.945M total cost house #3, leaves1.2 million profit.

1M almost pays for our BEV: MG ZS + DECO SUSU

And the solar, has saved about 300k, by not buying electric & petrol.

So I've lived here rent free, and drive at almost no cost, along with almost no electric bill, because I built the first house for 700k THB.

That paid for the land for 2nd house, that paid for 3rd house + toys.

So at no time, was 3.2M splashed out, that could earn anything anywhere. Initial investment was 700k, paid for everything we own now VS paying 4.5M rent over 25 yrs.

Please tell me how spending 4.5M. over 25 yrs, is better than investing 700k building a house.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by KhunLA

24 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Initial investment was 700k, paid for everything we own now VS paying 4.5M rent over 25 yrs.

If you had invested 700k 25 years ago (01/08/2001) in SPY (S&P 500), total return (dividend reinvested) to date would be about 7M.

If you had invested 700k 25 years ago (01/08/2001) in QQQ (Nasdaq-100), total return (dividend reinvested) to date would be about 14M.

If you had invested 700k 25 years ago (01/08/2001) in INIVX (Gold), total return (dividend reinvested) to date would be about 17M.

Need to deduct the rent you have to pay for living during these 25 years, however mitigated by the extra costs (maintenance, tax) for the property owner strategy.

To add, financial investment is highly liquid and you could get the cash (100% or part of it) in your bank account in few days any time you decide to sell or borrow against it.

Again, there is no better investment only the one you understand.

35 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

If you had invested 700k 25 years ago (01/08/2001) in SPY (S&P 500), total return (dividend reinvested) to date would be about 7M.

If you had invested 700k 25 years ago (01/08/2001) in QQQ (Nasdaq-100), total return (dividend reinvested) to date would be about 14M.

If you had invested 700k 25 years ago (01/08/2001) in INIVX (Gold), total return (dividend reinvested) to date would be about 17M.

Need to deduct the rent you have to pay for living during these 25 years, however mitigated by the extra costs (maintenance, tax) for the property owner strategy.

To add, financial investment is highly liquid and you could get the cash (100% or part of it) in your bank account in few days any time you decide to sell or borrow against it.

Again, there is no better investment only the one you understand.

700k THB, not USD. If I needed money, I wouldn't have come to TH to begin with. Enough with the 'what if' scenarios.

I know how to invest, and done quite nicely, much better than market average, compounded 10-15%.

10-15% R0I is embarrassing ...

And who knew gold would have took off the way it did. Why not mention Yahoo or Google, Tesla, CATL, BYD stocks.

My porfolio was doing excellent, and no need to invest. That't why it's called 'retirement'. 'Tire' of doing anything.

My crystal ball was on the blink back then, for what popped, that people talk about now. The ones I 'did' pick did pop nicely, THANK YOU.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by KhunLA

@Yumthai I remember my last 'off the cuff' trade, well after I stopped trading. Buddy gave me inside tip about NWA, penny/pink stock, just before DL annouced buy out.

Think I spent less than $500, and week later, on rumors sold for $15k. Too funny.

After the announcement, the stock ticker was cancelled.

I did well with oil stocks right after bush 2 got elected. Did really good with the Y2K scam.

Gay media, before it went mainstream, after 2000. Medical/healthcare stock were good.

Never touch defence stocks, too moral for that, sadly, as they did excellent, during Cheney administration.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by KhunLA

@Yumthai

Last stock tip I got (PMETF), from day trading brother, was Jun 2022, to buy at @ $2.50, and one year later, it hit $13+.

I didn't bother, don't need the money. BUT ... that's how we trade, not 10-15%, that's embarrassing.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by KhunLA

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Think that was my example. You seem to omit, one has to pay rent while living here.

Yes, it was yourself who put forward the figure of 15,000 baht per month in rent.

I ran some figures based on your 15,000 baht monthly rent. The figure one would need, invested at 5.30% bank interest, is 3,400,000 baht to return 15,000 baht a month. Retiring at around 67 years of age, to surpass this purchase price in rental months (15,000 baht) one must live until around 85 years of age, allowing for some minor fees and taxes as well, before they can say they are now ahead by buying.

How many over 85 year olds do you know in Thailand?

1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:

Yes, it was yourself who put forward the figure of 15,000 baht per month in rent.

I ran some figures based on your 15,000 baht monthly rent. The figure one would need, invested at 5.30% bank interest, is 3,400,000 baht to return 15,000 baht a month. Retiring at around 67 years of age, to surpass this purchase price in rental months (15,000 baht) one must live until around 85 years of age, allowing for some minor fees and taxes as well, before they can say they are now ahead by buying.

How many over 85 year olds do you know in Thailand?

So except for the first sentence, you didn't read or understand anything else in that post.

And I retired at 45 + 25 is last year, come Sept/Oct ?, I've been here 26 yrs. Didn't need to invest my 700k THB then, in the market, to have what I have now.

If I retired at 66, I would not have come to TH, as no desire or need to.

You may want to try to read & understand what I post, if not, stop replying to me.

This will probably be my last reply to you, as obviously you have some learning issue.

Do have a pleasant day.

On topic, people retiring at 66 ish, should not be spending 10-20M THB on illegally bought RE.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by KhunLA

1 minute ago, KhunLA said:

So except for the first sentence, you didn't read or understand anything else in that post.

And I retired at 45 + 25 is last year, come Sept/Oct ?, I've been here 26 yrs. Didn't need to invest my 700k THB then, in the market, to have what I have now.

If I retired at 66, I would not have come to TH, as no desire or need to.

You may want to try to read & understand what I post, if not, stop replying to me.

This will probably be my last reply to you, as obviously you have some learning issue.

Do have a pleasant day.

Of course I read all of your post, but another member had already explained it to you, through projected figures. So did another member several days ago.

No point me posting similar figures again.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Welcome to my world

Difference with them, they understand my posts, and don't reply again & again with the same BS

Edited August 15Aug 15 by KhunLA

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Welcome to my world

Difference with them, they understand my posts, and don't reply again & again with the same BS

Your personal attack is wasted on me.

You do not have to accept my opinion, but the numbers don't lie. Numbers don't BS. It's you who is trying BS around the numbers.

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

How many over 85 year olds do you know in Thailand?

A few and even a couple who still play golf in their early 80s..........

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You do not have to accept my opinion,

Yet in thread after thread you continue to argue until no one can be arssed to reply............It seems it is just a game for you to be last man standing as it were.........

I can't believe this thread has just kept running - mind you few others currently.............☹️

58 minutes ago, topt said:

A few

Of course there would be a few, but not a large demographic who can proudly say, "At the age of 85 years old, I have got back the purchase price of my property, compared to renting." 🙂

1 hour ago, topt said:

Yet in thread after thread you continue to argue until no one can be arssed to reply

Am I the only one????

1 hour ago, topt said:

I can't believe this thread has just kept running

Ok, well, back to the OP, would YOU advise someone to buy a house via the company route? if not, what structure do YOU recommend they use to buy a house here?

7 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

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

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.

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.

I think with the post you are citing, we have Renter A, who is funding his 15,000 baht a month rent in Thailand by investing 4MB at 8%. Buyer B has used his 4MB to buy a condo, saving 15,000 baht a month in rent. Which of the two will have more net worth after 20 years?

The poster did not seem to take into account that when you own, you have extra money each month, in saved rent. He mentions that the seller has saved X amount of money on rent, but doesn't say what the seller has done with the money. As an owner, you have that extra 15,000 baht a month rent savings every month--in the poster's example--to invest. If a renter can invest and earn 8%, so can an owner.

Let's run the numbers through Google and see if there is a vast difference between renting/investing and owning/investing, for someone retiring to Thailand. In both cases, the renter and the buyer are funding the roof over their heads with the 4MB. Here's what we asked Google:

Renter A invests 4 million baht for 20 years, earning 8% annual interest. He funds his 15,000 baht a month rent from the money earned by his investment fund. Buyer B buys a 4 million baht condo, saving 15,000 baht a month in rent payments. He invests that 15,000 baht every month, also earning 8% annual interest. He pays his 30,000 baht a year condo fees and 1,200 baht a year taxes from money earned by his invstments. Assume the condo value and the rent stay the same for the 20 years. How much would both have in net worth after 20 years. Also run the analysis earning 6% annual interest.

Google's answer:

After 20 years, Buyer B comes out ahead in total net worth under both interest rate scenarios, assuming the condo maintains its base value of 4,000,000 Baht with 0% appreciation.

At 8% annual interest, Renter A finishes with a net worth of 10,871,905 Baht, while Buyer B achieves a net worth of 11,359,198 Baht. At 6% annual interest, Renter A finishes with 6,310,204 Baht, while Buyer B ends up with 9,761,986 Baht.

The above results were similar for 5-years and 10-years. Buying/investing or renting/investing are very close with 8% return. Buying/investing produces 3MB more with a lower 6% rate. The closeness of some of the figures rather surprised me, as I've been sort of brainwashed with all the posts saying how much better you'll do if you rent vs. buying.

I've said many times that I buy first because I get much enjoyment and satisfaction from owning and creating the spaces I spend my valuable time in. The investment aspect comes a distant second. I've also said I would buy even knowing I might lose some money--it's worth it to me. That's me, my situation. You have yours.

It seems clear to me that with the numbers so close with the 8% scenario, the best option is what it's always been--the one that fits each individual, couple, or family the best. For some, renting could easily be the best choice, for a variety of valid reasons. For some, especially those who prefer the freedom to make changes any time they want and have all their own furniture, art, electronics, etc., buying might be the better choice if one is comfortable with owning in Thailand, is here long-term, has a Thai spouse, etc. As always, there's no one size fits all--do what fits you.

Moral of the story is at the bottom

On page 9 specifically:

•  @Yumthai and the later numerical poster who ran the side-by-side 6%/8% scenarios present the cleanest, least emotional, most carefully framed quantitative points. They acknowledge trade-offs (liquidity, personal preference, sensitivity to assumptions) rather than declaring a universal winner.

•  @KhunHeineken is more consistent on the opportunity-cost and longevity angles and sticks closer to numbers, but his presentation is incomplete (under-weights the owner’s investable rent savings) and the exchange becomes personal.

•  @KhunLA personal success story may be true for him, but it is presented as generalizable proof, dismisses standard finance concepts, and descends into insults, which undercuts perceived balance and reliability.

Overall on this page, the more restrained numerical contributions (Yumthai + the side-by-side analysis) read as more truthful and balanced.

The dominant KhunLA–Heineken exchange is mostly unproductive and off-topic. The legal company-ownership question that started the thread is essentially ignored on page 9; anyone relying on this page alone for advice on that issue would be poorly served.

2 hours ago, TimBKK said:

Moral of the story is at the bottom

On page 9 specifically:

•  @Yumthai and the later numerical poster who ran the side-by-side 6%/8% scenarios present the cleanest, least emotional, most carefully framed quantitative points. They acknowledge trade-offs (liquidity, personal preference, sensitivity to assumptions) rather than declaring a universal winner.

•  @KhunHeineken is more consistent on the opportunity-cost and longevity angles and sticks closer to numbers, but his presentation is incomplete (under-weights the owner’s investable rent savings) and the exchange becomes personal.

•  @KhunLA personal success story may be true for him, but it is presented as generalizable proof, dismisses standard finance concepts, and descends into insults, which undercuts perceived balance and reliability.

Overall on this page, the more restrained numerical contributions (Yumthai + the side-by-side analysis) read as more truthful and balanced.

The dominant KhunLA–Heineken exchange is mostly unproductive and off-topic. The legal company-ownership question that started the thread is essentially ignored on page 9; anyone relying on this page alone for advice on that issue would be poorly served.

It reads as if an AI generated analysis. I don't care but curious if it was?

2 hours ago, TimBKK said:

•  @KhunHeineken is more consistent on the opportunity-cost and longevity angles and sticks closer to numbers, but his presentation is incomplete (under-weights the owner’s investable rent savings) and the exchange becomes personal.

The owner has tied his "investable rent savings" up in the property, thus, no savings.

The capital used for the purchase price of a condo here makes more money if left in one's home country than the rent for the exact same condo, plus "savings" left over.

4 hours ago, newnative said:

I think with the post you are citing, we have Renter A, who is funding his 15,000 baht a month rent in Thailand by investing 4MB at 8%. Buyer B has used his 4MB to buy a condo, saving 15,000 baht a month in rent. Which of the two will have more net worth after 20 years?

Buyer B DOES NOT save rent. His rent is tied up in the Thai property. He actually loses the earning capacity of that capital, which would make more than the rent would cost.

Also, there's no guarantee Buyer B will live for 20 years. If Buyer B bought at 67 years of age (retirement age) he would be 87 years of age after 20 years.

Buyer B could rent the exact same property he was considering buying, and his money earns enough each year to cover the rent.

No point in buying.

Edited August 16Aug 16 by KhunHeineken

17 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Buyer B DOES NOT save rent. His rent is tied up in the Thai property. He actually loses the earning capacity of that capital, which would make more than the rent would cost.

Also, there's no guarantee Buyer B will live for 20 years. If Buyer B bought at 67 years of age (retirement age) he would be 87 years of age after 20 years.

Buyer B could rent the exact same property he was considering buying, and his money earns enough each year to cover the rent.

No point in buying.

I'll go with Google's take. You must have missed the part where the results were the same for 5 years and 10 years. There may be 'no point in buying' for you--but that's just you. For others, there is definitely a point. I've talked about why I buy many times, and it hasn't changed.

If Buyer B does buy at 67 years, he has an asset to pass on to his spouse, plus the enjoyment of his own space, with all his own things, at a time where he might be spending more time at home than in his earlier years, when he was out working all day. Worth a lot to some, including me. Always has.

I also like that my younger spouse will be taken care of with our property assets, plus all our other investments. The house and the condo give lots of flexibility--live in the house and sell the condo, live in the condo and sell the house, rent one and live in the other, sell both and rent or buy something else, somewhere else.

I am 74 and my spouse and I sold a house last year and then moved to another house we bought last year. This year, in July, we sold the house we bought last year and we moved to a new house we started building last November. We are eyeing a move to Bangkok at some point.

Age is just a number--if I can still do something, I'll still do it. My life is not for everyone but it's keeping me happy, engaged and interested. And, certainly not bored. That's me. For a single person with no ties to Thailand, and many others, renting could certainly be the better choice. I keep saying, there's no one size that fits all. You keep saying, the size that fits KH should fit all. It doesn't--I'm chafing already just at the thought.

2 hours ago, newnative said:

If Buyer B does buy at 67 years, he has an asset to pass on to his spouse

It's a declining asset that would have to be sold at a fire sale, if she could sell it at all.

2 hours ago, newnative said:

I also like that my younger spouse will be taken care of with our property assets,

I'm sure most Thai women would simply prefer cash.

2 hours ago, newnative said:

Age is just a number--

Buying a property in Thailand at retirement age is a poor investment.

You talk to the sentimental side of it, but I'll stick to the numbers.

9 hours ago, TimBKK said:

The legal company-ownership question that started the thread is essentially ignored on page 9; anyone relying on this page alone for advice on that issue would be poorly served.

So you didn't read all the post, as I answered the query on pg 1, my first post. As other's did also.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1401023-buying-a-house-via-the-company-route-is-it-still-possible/#findComment-20680410

I didn't read all the post, but I'm sure you chimed in with excellent advice for the OP, instead of simply critiquing other's post.

Edited August 16Aug 16 by KhunLA

13 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's a declining asset that would have to be sold at a fire sale, if she could sell it at all.

I'm sure most Thai women would simply prefer cash.

Buying a property in Thailand at retirement age is a poor investment.

You talk to the sentimental side of it, but I'll stick to the numbers.

Let's take them in order.

1. Once again you are incorrect. The house we own is already in his name so no issue there. With the condo in my name, my Thai spouse would NOT have to sell, at a 'fire sale', a foreign quota condo that I will to him. Most people other than you know this already as common knowledge but here's Google:

   No, the Thai spouse is not required to sell the condo. They can legally transfer it directly into their name under Thai ownership at the Thailand Land Department.

2. You're 'sure' are you? Just as sure as you were with #1? Even if it's true, it's meaningless. I certainly don't make my financial decisions based on what some stranger might 'prefer'.

3. Wrong again. If you know what you're doing, you can do very well, even starting late at 'retirement age'. Spouse and I hit Thailand in 2010. I was close to retirement age, 59. First thing we bought was a used car. Second thing we bought was a small studio condo in Rayong, all we could afford and even that was a stretch. We parlayed that first condo into what we have today--a large 5-bedroom Pattaya pool villa and a center city Bangkok condo in a luxury project, plus enough cash in the bank to buy another property outright if we feel like it. And, some other investments--the 'ol not all eggs in one basket works for us.

4. Guilty as charged. I've always posted that buying and owning the space I live in is different than, say, buying and owning X amount of stock in Google. As I said in my previous post, the investment aspect comes a distant second. That will always be the case. For those who see no difference between the two, renting might be the better choice.

3 hours ago, newnative said:

No, the Thai spouse is not required to sell the condo. They can legally transfer it directly into their name under Thai ownership at the Thailand Land Department.

I never said the Thai spouse is required to sell a property that has been bequeathed to her.

A high percentage of Thai spouses come from Issan. They are not going to remain in a southern tourist area after their husband dies. They will look to sell the property as soon as possible and return to Issan. We have seen this in the past. In the current climate, such sales will be at fire sale prices.

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I never said the Thai spouse is required to sell a property that has been bequeathed to her.

A high percentage of Thai spouses come from Issan. They are not going to remain in a southern tourist area after their husband dies. They will look to sell the property as soon as possible and return to Issan. We have seen this in the past. In the current climate, such sales will be at fire sale prices.

"...asset that would have to be sold" sounds like required to me. What a Thai spouse decides to do with an inheritance is of no concern to me. I make my financial plans based on my situation, not someone else's.

4 hours ago, newnative said:

"...asset that would have to be sold" sounds like required to me. What a Thai spouse decides to do with an inheritance is of no concern to me. I make my financial plans based on my situation, not someone else's.

This is what I said, "It's a declining asset that would have to be sold at a fire sale, if she could sell it at all."

"have to be sold at a fire sale" - this goes to price, not sold due to Thai laws requiring the sale.

4 hours ago, newnative said:

What a Thai spouse decides to do with an inheritance is of no concern to me. I make my financial plans based on my situation, not someone else's.

Rubbish.

You continually post about how guys want to leave something for their Thai missus.

21 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

This is what I said, "It's a declining asset that would have to be sold at a fire sale, if she could sell it at all."

"have to be sold at a fire sale" - this goes to price, not sold due to Thai laws requiring the sale.

Rubbish.

You continually post about how guys want to leave something for their Thai missus.

Just digging the hole deeper with your weak deflection. If someone is not required to sell, then they don't have to sell, period. A fire sale doesn't even enter the picture--selling is not being forced. And, you have no idea what that theoretical property is so you couldn't possibly know if that asset is a declining asset.

Even if it theoretically was a declining asset on paper, that doesn't mean the spouse need automatically sell it. While it might be a declining asset at that moment in time, that can change in the future--and it's still shelter, it's still a roof over the spouse's head, whether the value at the moment is going up, down, or staying level.

It's also still a potential income earner for the spouse as a rental. I've mentioned several times that my Thai in-laws all have rental properties to help fund their retirements--this would also be an option for the spouse. You need to think more broadly, and more long-term.

Yes, I have posted in very general terms about foreigners leaving property to their spouses. Note the 'very general terms'. What a foreigner, whom I don't know, actually leaves to a spouse, whom I also don't know, and what the spouse actually does with the inheritance, is, as I said, 'no concern to me'. Why on earth would it be? Maybe explain exactly how that is 'rubbish'.

12 hours ago, newnative said:

If someone is not required to sell, then they don't have to sell, period.

It's you who is deflecting.

I a have addressed this, and even quoted myself.

I stand by my comment that most Thai spouses will look to sell, get the cash, and return to Issan, after the death of their husband / partner. Do you agree or disagree?

12 hours ago, newnative said:

Even if it theoretically was a declining asset on paper, that doesn't mean the spouse need automatically sell it.

I never said "need" to sell.

12 hours ago, newnative said:

I have posted in very general terms about foreigners leaving property to their spouses.

No, you have been quite specific to tie sentiment into property ownership here, despite even the figures showing it's a poor investment, not to mention the laws around foreign ownership of property.

I bet that's your sales pitch as well, as you continue to work here illegally as a sales agent, buying and selling properties.

I can hear it now, "You get to hang a painting on your own wall." 😂 😂

I rent and still hang photos on the wall. 😂 😂

Edited August 18Aug 18 by KhunHeineken

14 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

This is what I said, "It's a declining asset that would have to be sold at a fire sale, if she could sell it at all."

Would say true

IF, you've built a McMansion at "foreigner" prices or in a rural hellhole.

If you bought at Thai prices, in or near a popular city, it probably won't make or lose much.

21 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Would say true

IF, you've built a McMansion at "foreigner" prices or in a rural hellhole.

If you bought at Thai prices, in or near a popular city, it probably won't make or lose much.

If we take a typical condo in a southern tourist area, like Pattaya, the foreigner dies, the Thai missus is from Issan and wants to return to live there and be with family.

So, after some paperwork, she puts the condo up for sale, along with hundreds of others.

Her ATM has passed away, so she has no monthly salary. He may or may not have left some cash. If he was living on a pension, very possible he was using the 65k method, or an agent. No 800k, or savings.

So, she's the proud owner of a condo in a southern tourist area, but has no money to buy food. In effect, asset rich, cash poor.

She gets more and more desperate, dropping the price several times, still no sale.

Eventually, she drops it to a fire sale price just to draw out some buyers, in which it may or may not sell, and they are currently not selling, even at fire sale prices.

Does the scenario sound familiar? 🙂

So, what has the foreigner actually left her, a bill for ongoing taxes and fees. 🙂

On 8/16/2026 at 6:16 PM, KhunHeineken said:

It's a declining asset that would have to be sold at a fire sale, if she could sell it at all.

Not if wisely purchased. Why sold at fire sold, or at all, as wife may enjoy simply keeping it, living there, having a vacation, or income if renting it out.

On 8/16/2026 at 6:16 PM, KhunHeineken said:

I'm sure most Thai women would simply prefer cash.

Why, cash wouldn't appreciate, not can rent cash out, legally.

On 8/16/2026 at 6:16 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Buying a property in Thailand at retirement age is a poor investment.

You talk to the sentimental side of it, but I'll stick to the numbers.

Buying property (wisely) is never a bad investment. It's an appreciating asset, plain & simply. Best thing to buy IMHO.

Unless of course, bought with fake company, and you have no wife or trusted Thai to transfer it to. Then you'd be selling at fire sale price.

Edited August 18Aug 18 by KhunLA

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

If we take a typical condo in a southern tourist area, like Pattaya, the foreigner dies, the Thai missus is from Issan and wants to return to live there and be with family.

So, after some paperwork, she puts the condo up for sale, along with hundreds of others.

Her ATM has passed away, so she has no monthly salary. He may or may not have left some cash. If he was living on a pension, very possible he was using the 65k method, or an agent. No 800k, or savings.

So, she's the proud owner of a condo in a southern tourist area, but has no money to buy food. In effect, asset rich, cash poor.

She gets more and more desperate, dropping the price several times, still no sale.

Eventually, she drops it to a fire sale price just to draw out some buyers, in which it may or may not sell, and they are currently not selling, even at fire sale prices.

Does the scenario sound familiar? 🙂

So, what has the foreigner actually left her, a bill for ongoing taxes and fees. 🙂

Obviously all foreigner share condos are worthless.

But my wife inherits my pension, so not a problem she will encounter.

Edited August 18Aug 18 by BritManToo