Real Estate Whispers

[Pattaya46]

I don't need beer bars and soliciting ladies around me.

I doubt that you will find such ladies in many places in Pattaya.

I think they are only on Beach Rd and Second Rd, and a few in Soi Boakao,

but Pattaya is far bigger that this very small area...

[Mossfinn]

Owning a property through a company is not a little dodgy it is completely illegal. The company is supposed to be a trading company. If it doesn't trade its a paper sham and you can lose your property if investigated.

Yes I know, but after receiving a PM I was trying to be a little less confrontational.

[PattayaParent]

In answer to the PM recently received:

Did you get a rude message also?

'you've shown yourself up to be ignorant and arrogant by not answerng (sic) my question...'

[thebounder]

Owning a property through a company is not a little dodgy it is completely illegal. The company is supposed to be a trading company. If it doesn't trade its a paper sham and you can lose your property if investigated.

Do I know anyone who has lost a property? No. There were strong rumours pre-coup that the local politicians were going to take all the property so set up on Samui so they could cash in on the massive price rises there.

The argument is always that the Thais will never do this as it will crash the economy etc. I call this the economists argument.

If you believe that Thais are logical, practical, and plan for the long term then by all means believe this.

Me? I rent. I can afford to buy. I could buy the whole block I live in but I rent. This is for many reasons, the main ones being Pattaya property prices are at least 100% overvalued plus if a lunatic moves in next door I can move out but at the end of the day I am not paying a premium for a property I can list in my own name and I will not buy an asset who's title I can not defend in court.

You talk as if you know the law, but it seems that you do not. As for company structures to own land, the whole point is that the law is far from clear. It is argued by many Thai lawyers that there are structures that can be created that are in fact legal. The key is to take advice from a quality lawyer. I am aware of a lawyer who has created ownership structures, which have been examined by the authorities, who have confirmed that, to their mind, the company owning the land/house is perfectly legal. However, it remains an area that is far from clear.

More inaccurate is your statement in relation to enforcement. According to three different Thai lawyers to whom I have spoken, in the event that the authorities discover that a foreigner does in fact own a piece of land (whether through a company or otherwise), and they choose to enforce against that foreigner, their remedy is to give that foreigner a minimum of 180 days to sell the land in question. In the event that the foreigner is unable to sell the land during that time, the authorities can step in and sell the land on behalf of the foreigner in question, but, if they do so, they are obliged to obtain market value for the property. I have been advised on several occasions that there is no provision for authorities simply to step in and seize property deemed to be owned by a foreigner.

Edited September 5, 2008 by thebounder

[Tarqin]

Bounder,

You condemn yourself with your own words.

'It is argued by many Thai lawyers that there are structures that can be created that are in fact legal'

And its argued by some lawyers that there aren't it being a fundamental and highly emotional concept in Thailand that non-Thais can not own land.

'I am aware of a lawyer who has created ownership structures, which have been examined by the authorities, who have confirmed that, to their mind, the company owning the land/house is perfectly legal. However, it remains an area that is far from clear.'

And I am aware of such lawyers also. The point is that the legal profession in Thailand is for falangs as reliable as the court system. What 'authorities' have confirmed this structure is legal? Could you march in to court with such authority or would everything be up for grabs as usual? Likely this lawyer (and possibly you) are trying to sell this structure to falangs and Captain Tarqin's sensible guide for sensible investors is never take investment advice from someone who is trying to sell you things.

Next to your enforcement statement. So you have 180 days to sell land, presumably to a Thai, and where everyone knows its a fire sale. What price do you think you will get? You can't sell it? The 'authorities' are 'obliged' to get you market value. Who's defining market value in this situation for a piece of land you have failed to sell on the open market?

By all means dream dear boy. I will keep my money in the bank.

[midas]

Owning a property through a company is not a little dodgy it is completely illegal. The company is supposed to be a trading company. If it doesn't trade its a paper sham and you can lose your property if investigated.

Do I know anyone who has lost a property? No. There were strong rumours pre-coup that the local politicians were going to take all the property so set up on Samui so they could cash in on the massive price rises there.

The argument is always that the Thais will never do this as it will crash the economy etc. I call this the economists argument.

If you believe that Thais are logical, practical, and plan for the long term then by all means believe this.

Me? I rent. I can afford to buy. I could buy the whole block I live in but I rent. This is for many reasons, the main ones being Pattaya property prices are at least 100% overvalued plus if a lunatic moves in next door I can move out but at the end of the day I am not paying a premium for a property I can list in my own name and I will not buy an asset who's title I can not defend in court.

Totally agree Tarqin ! The property market here for visa bearing farangs is a suckers market !

One of the least transparent property markets I have encountered

[Mossfinn]

In answer to the PM recently received:

Did you get a rude message also?

'you've shown yourself up to be ignorant and arrogant by not answerng (sic) my question...'

I wouldn't actually call it rude, just pointless.

[Mossfinn]

Tarqin's advice is pretty much how it has been related to me by more than one person, but I guess you pays your money and you takes your choice.

[thebounder]

Bounder,

You condemn yourself with your own words.

'It is argued by many Thai lawyers that there are structures that can be created that are in fact legal'

And its argued by some lawyers that there aren't it being a fundamental and highly emotional concept in Thailand that non-Thais can not own land.

'I am aware of a lawyer who has created ownership structures, which have been examined by the authorities, who have confirmed that, to their mind, the company owning the land/house is perfectly legal. However, it remains an area that is far from clear.'

And I am aware of such lawyers also. The point is that the legal profession in Thailand is for falangs as reliable as the court system. What 'authorities' have confirmed this structure is legal? Could you march in to court with such authority or would everything be up for grabs as usual? Likely this lawyer (and possibly you) are trying to sell this structure to falangs and Captain Tarqin's sensible guide for sensible investors is never take investment advice from someone who is trying to sell you things.

Next to your enforcement statement. So you have 180 days to sell land, presumably to a Thai, and where everyone knows its a fire sale. What price do you think you will get? You can't sell it? The 'authorities' are 'obliged' to get you market value. Who's defining market value in this situation for a piece of land you have failed to sell on the open market?

By all means dream dear boy. I will keep my money in the bank.

But you don't keep your money in the bank, you pay rent every month, which is dead money that you won't see again. In the meantime, others buy and in many cases in recent years have made very significant capital gains (even though I am sure you will deny that is the case). I am one of them, however, and know many others.

It is not me who is dreaming. There have been no seizures of properties from farangs here in Thailand and the only place that is ever likely to happen is in your own dream world. That said, lots of farangs who have put houses in the names of their wives/girlfriends have lost their properties. So it seems very clear to me which is the safer option.

You have completely missed the relevance of the law on enforcement. If the authorities sought to enforce against an individual who owns a house via a company structure, most savvy individuals would "sell" their property into a new ownership structure that complies with any new law. There are always ways of doing it and if you think otherwise I am sorry to say you are naive. There would be no need to sell the house to an unknown third party and take a loss.

Pretty much everything an individual invests in has a risk attached to it. Few things are certain. Look at the state of the UK property market now. Moreover, by way of example, plenty of foreigners have had property seized from them in Spain in recent years, courtesy of certain Spanish planning laws. Any government in the World could potentially change laws and seize property from anyone. However, it really isn't likely to happen. I never speak in absolutes for the very reason that I believe one should never say never. But the risk associated with holding a single house on less than a rai here in Thailand via a corporate structure put together by a top lawyer is extremely small.

[midas]

It is not me who is dreaming. There have been no seizures of properties from farangs here in Thailand and the only place that is ever likely to happen is in your own dream world. That said, lots of farangs who have put houses in the names of their wives/girlfriends have lost their properties. So it seems very clear to me which is the safer option.

You have completely missed the relevance of the law on enforcement. If the authorities sought to enforce against an individual who owns a house via a company structure, most savvy individuals would "sell" their property into a new ownership structure that complies with any new law. There are always ways of doing it and if you think otherwise I am sorry to say you are naive. There would be no need to sell the house to an unknown third party and take a loss.

Pretty much everything an individual invests in has a risk attached to it. Few things are certain. Look at the state of the UK property market now. Moreover, by way of example, plenty of foreigners have had property seized from them in Spain in recent years, courtesy of certain Spanish planning laws. Any government in the World could potentially change laws and seize property from anyone. However, it really isn't likely to happen. I never speak in absolutes for the very reason that I believe one should never say never. But the risk associated with holding a single house on less than a rai here in Thailand via a corporate structure put together by a top lawyer is extremely small.

But there is no need to risk money in Thailand ? There are far safer places to make money - take Sydney

where i have made some phenomenal capital gains on real estate. But more importantly if there

was ever a legal dispute ( and real estate is only ever the ownership of a " bundle of legal rights

and obligations " ) why risk your money in this Mickey Mouse Disneyland of a legal system ?

Yes I guess it all depends on your individual risk profile but why risk all the potential hassles

you have listed above when you make just as much money if not more in a far more orderly

property market

[norrona]

Totally agree withe Thebounder and thanks to the poster who answered the question about knowing if anyone has had a property re-possessed as it is in a company name....just a shame the other poster didn't reply when asked and skirted around the question

To my knowledge many people have been spooked about owning in a company name but never has it been enforced or even threatened....

Just thought I would clear the original topic up

rerason for the pm's is I had my posting writes removed