I'm confused by the alleged remarks by Dr Sopon Pornchokchai, president of the Agency for Real Estate Affairs (AREA). He wants to relax foreign ownership quota, or restrict it further, (with his many references to how lenient Thailand is compared to China)? Also, not clear why China is an example that should be held up as a comparison. The property market in Bangkok and Thailand generally is massively oversupplied, and by deduction, overpriced, if the developers want to move their inventory. (Officially over 400,000 units countrywide, 220,000 in Bangkok; others suggest considerably more.) Some of the developers are very rich, so holding on is not of a concern. But it should be. If a condo has many unsold properties, the cashflow needed to fund the running of the place is severely restricted, and they (the developers will not fund it indefintely; the property therefore loses its attractiveness, when facilities are not maintained, (a further argument for a significant price reduction). Furthermore, the majority of Thais cannot afford any of these high end properties because of the huge income and wealth inequality; in all likelihood they were built for foreign ownership, (albeit only 49% availability). Even Thais who want to buy a more modestly priced property, (say below THB5m), are not able to get bank financing, because of the very high household debt, which is 86-89% of GDP.
