A Property Question...

[PattayaParent]

My point is that a developer can increase the price of ANY unit to a foreigner and so make a sale rather than tell a customer, no you can't buy that unit unless it's in a Thai/company name.

I don't think thaiwanderer will disagree with you then. I don't read his posts as saying that there are specific units assigned to the foreigner quota like you claim he says.

It's the developer's decision which units are registered as Thai or Foreign.

[thaiwanderer]

I give up and hope you never open a fruit stall given your inability to understand even basic supply and the difference between apples and oranges.

[donx]

My point is that a developer can increase the price of ANY unit to a foreigner and so make a sale rather than tell a customer, no you can't buy that unit unless it's in a Thai/company name.

I don't think thaiwanderer will disagree with you then. I don't read his posts as saying that there are specific units assigned to the foreigner quota like you claim he says.

It's the developer's decision which units are registered as Thai or Foreign.

It is the developer's decision, but he can change his mind at any time. This is still his decision. And to quote thaiwanderer in another one of his posts, "Yes it does matter which 49% (though i never said there are foreign only units)"

Seems to me he isn't saying specific units are set up as foreigner only units. They are preferred to sell to foreigners perhaps, but this is all based upon how the developer sees the affects of price and demand within their own market.

[PattayaParent]

^From my post #55

TW - Yes it does matter which 49% (though i never said there are foreign only units)

But you said there are units a foreigner would not be allowed to buy so that must also mean that there are units that ONLY a foreigner CAN buy.

Seems to me there's at least the implication that there are foreign allocated units and Thai allocated units, and he specifically says this in his example above (Post #59)

[PattayaParent]

I give up and hope you never open a fruit stall given your inability to understand even basic supply and the difference between apples and oranges.

But my fruit stall would sell out and make a profit while your fruit would go bad as you will only sell apples to perople who want oranges.

[thaiwanderer]

amusing.

Yours will have sold out of the biggest apples at a discount to people who can buy apples or oranges and then have only have small apples available when apple restricted buyers arrive.

My 'stall' can make 10 satang yours will tend to make 1 satang - if i have to i'll settle for 1 satang but why accept that at the outset?

I'll stop with the furit analogy before we start making pies.

[pkrv]

You guys are not married by any chance ];-)

I think we have made a mountain out of a mole hill here. We are specifically talking about:

1) Patthaya

2) It appears to be a specific development there.

3) A misuse of the 51/49% rule

4) Patthaya appears to be suffering a bit recently hence the creative thinking

IMO things to note are:

1) The OP realised something was up and withdrew

2) We here on Thai Visa are becoming far more sophisticated. We have split out house and land ownership from condominium issues

3) We understand condominium issues far more than before

4) We are not so easily fooled

The above said I can see that developers who have catered to an almost exclusively Farang customer base in Patthaya will have to get very creative indeed. Perhaps that creative effort would be better served in seeking the removal of the 51/49% rule? Rather than just pissing us off.

Edited February 9, 2010 by pkrv

[donx]

You guys are not married by any chance ];-)

I think we have made a mountain out of a mole hill here. We are specifically talking about:

1) Patthaya

2) It appears to be a specific development there.

3) A misuse of the 51/49% rule

4) Patthaya appears to be suffering a bit recently hence the creative thinking

IMO things to note are:

1) The OP realised something was up and withdrew

2) We here on Thai Visa are becoming far more sophisticated. We have split out house and land ownership from condominium issues

3) We understand condominium issues far more than before

4) We are not so easily fooled

The above said I can see that developers who have catered to an almost exclusively Farang customer base in Patthaya will have to get very creative indeed. Perhaps that creative effort would be better served in seeking the removal of the 51/49% rule? Rather than just pissing us off.

I agree with most of what you say but I want you to be aware that the OP indicated in post #7 that "the 3 or 4 developers we went to have 2 price lists - the Thai price (cheaper) and the Foreigner price..." so it isn't just a specific development with double pricing.

[pkrv]

You guys are not married by any chance ];-)

I think we have made a mountain out of a mole hill here. We are specifically talking about:

1) Patthaya

2) It appears to be a specific development there.

3) A misuse of the 51/49% rule

4) Patthaya appears to be suffering a bit recently hence the creative thinking

IMO things to note are:

1) The OP realised something was up and withdrew

2) We here on Thai Visa are becoming far more sophisticated. We have split out house and land ownership from condominium issues

3) We understand condominium issues far more than before

4) We are not so easily fooled

The above said I can see that developers who have catered to an almost exclusively Farang customer base in Patthaya will have to get very creative indeed. Perhaps that creative effort would be better served in seeking the removal of the 51/49% rule? Rather than just pissing us off.

I agree with most of what you say but I want you to be aware that the OP indicated in post #7 that "the 3 or 4 developers we went to have 2 price lists - the Thai price (cheaper) and the Foreigner price..." so it isn't just a specific development with double pricing.

Hi donx, well met - yes I did miss the point that it is several developments in Patthaya.

Unfortunately I feel this just reinforces my point - I am not sure what else to say and given you are from one of the colonies I’m not entirely sure you will interpret correctly ];-)

[Barack]

You guys are not married by any chance ];-)

I think we have made a mountain out of a mole hill here. We are specifically talking about:

1) Patthaya

2) It appears to be a specific development there.

3) A misuse of the 51/49% rule

4) Patthaya appears to be suffering a bit recently hence the creative thinking

IMO things to note are:

1) The OP realised something was up and withdrew

2) We here on Thai Visa are becoming far more sophisticated. We have split out house and land ownership from condominium issues

3) We understand condominium issues far more than before

4) We are not so easily fooled

The above said I can see that developers who have catered to an almost exclusively Farang customer base in Patthaya will have to get very creative indeed. Perhaps that creative effort would be better served in seeking the removal of the 51/49% rule? Rather than just pissing us off.

I agree with most of what you say but I want you to be aware that the OP indicated in post #7 that "the 3 or 4 developers we went to have 2 price lists - the Thai price (cheaper) and the Foreigner price..." so it isn't just a specific development with double pricing.

I think the OP should specifically list the developments/developers here in Pattaya (JomTien) that he mentions in his posts. I know View Talay does not have dual pricing and my friends when questioned, know of no dual pricing. So, OP please set the record straight and tell us who has dual pricing.

[pkrv]

I think the OP should specifically list the developments/developers here in Pattaya (JomTien) that he mentions in his posts. I know View Talay does not have dual pricing and my friends when questioned, know of no dual pricing. So, OP please set the record straight and tell us who has dual pricing.

I agree - I pressed for additional information several times. Yes it did come forward, but the developments were not named.

If genuine that should have been the final answer to an unasked question.

[HuaHinDreamsHolidayVilla]

We are trying to sell our villa at the moment and one of the questions I have been asked is how much transfer costs would be. We have the land in the company's name which we set up for the holiday villa so that we were told would be clear transfer of shares over to who ever buys. But, for the transfer of the building - how much would that be ? We heard it was 100 000 Baht - is this correct ? Does anyone know exactly ? I would be interested to know so I can inform anyone that is interested in buying our house there. Many thanks in advance

[stevejones123]

But you said there are units a foreigner would not be allowed to buy so that must also mean that there are units that ONLY a foreigner CAN buy.

No logic behind that at all.

[donx]

But you said there are units a foreigner would not be allowed to buy so that must also mean that there are units that ONLY a foreigner CAN buy.

No logic behind that at all.

I was going to say the same thing but I gave up trying to explain it to him.

[PattayaParent]

^So we have 10 units.

Foreigners are not allowed to buy 6 of them.

So logically then, then must be allowed to buy 4.

Or your logic is warped.

[pkrv]

^So we have 10 units.

Foreigners are not allowed to buy 6 of them.

So logically then, then must be allowed to buy 4.

Or your logic is warped.

Hi 'PattayaParent' actually you are a great poster - I think (though am not certain) the answer to your question is that Thailand is a cash based society - There is virtually no such thing as being in debt (or it is insignificant). Thus if you own something it is yours to keep essentially indefinitely.

Because Thais have worked out about 49/51% rule and we Farangs are 'unlikely' to buy in the Thai quota there is a perceived 'value' to the Farang quota, which it will retain.

And I think I have seen enough anecdotal evidence to suggest yes Thais do buy in the Farang Quota, please don't ask me how, I am not Thai, I am UK based.

Essentially a perceived market distortion has taken place that may not actually be true (but Thailand is a BIG place) which IMO causes confusion all around.

And no the Farang quota does not have to be sold either - It could be a massive overhead on Juristic.

Edited February 15, 2010 by pkrv

[123ace]

^So we have 10 units.

Foreigners are not allowed to buy 6 of them.

So logically then, then must be allowed to buy 4.

Or your logic is warped.

Hi 'PattayaParent' actually you are a great poster - I think (though am not certain) the answer to your question is that Thailand is a cash based society - There is virtually no such thing as being in debt (or it is insignificant). Thus if you own something it is yours to keep essentially indefinitely.

Because Thais have worked out about 49/51% rule and we Farangs are 'unlikely' to buy in the Thai quota there is a perceived 'value' to the Farang quota, which it will retain.

And I think I have seen enough anecdotal evidence to suggest yes Thais do buy in the Farang Quota, please don't ask me how, I am not Thai, I am UK based.

Essentially a perceived market distortion has taken place that may not actually be true (but Thailand is a BIG place) which IMO causes confusion all around.

And no the Farang quota does not have to be sold either - It could be a massive overhead on Juristic.

This is relevant for Pattaya and to a lesser extent Phuket (market is leasehold apartment driven as Thai's have vitulayy no demand). In Bangkok and Hua Hin, Thai's buy in excess of 51% and foreign buyers are less than 10% in most new condo's over the last 5 years.

It is true that foreign buyers are not debt heavy, but this is not a deliberate or planned factor in the process. Thai society is heavily debt orientated, including real estate purchases, aside from the super rich.

[pkrv]

^So we have 10 units.

Foreigners are not allowed to buy 6 of them.

So logically then, then must be allowed to buy 4.

Or your logic is warped.

Hi 'PattayaParent' actually you are a great poster - I think (though am not certain) the answer to your question is that Thailand is a cash based society - There is virtually no such thing as being in debt (or it is insignificant). Thus if you own something it is yours to keep essentially indefinitely.

Because Thais have worked out about 49/51% rule and we Farangs are 'unlikely' to buy in the Thai quota there is a perceived 'value' to the Farang quota, which it will retain.

And I think I have seen enough anecdotal evidence to suggest yes Thais do buy in the Farang Quota, please don't ask me how, I am not Thai, I am UK based.

Essentially a perceived market distortion has taken place that may not actually be true (but Thailand is a BIG place) which IMO causes confusion all around.

And no the Farang quota does not have to be sold either - It could be a massive overhead on Juristic.

This is relevant for Pattaya and to a lesser extent Phuket (market is leasehold apartment driven as Thai's have vitulayy no demand). In Bangkok and Hua Hin, Thai's buy in excess of 51% and foreign buyers are less than 10% in most new condo's over the last 5 years.

It is true that foreign buyers are not debt heavy, but this is not a deliberate or planned factor in the process. Thai society is heavily debt orientated, including real estate purchases, aside from the super rich.

Hi - '123ace' - May I ask some tactical questions? - Are you Thai? and do you represent a younger generation of property investors? this stuff is just needed to project forward/ assess.

foreign buyers are in no debt at all, they have to bring the funds in (for a condominium).

[123ace]

^So we have 10 units.

Foreigners are not allowed to buy 6 of them.

So logically then, then must be allowed to buy 4.

Or your logic is warped.

Hi 'PattayaParent' actually you are a great poster - I think (though am not certain) the answer to your question is that Thailand is a cash based society - There is virtually no such thing as being in debt (or it is insignificant). Thus if you own something it is yours to keep essentially indefinitely.

Because Thais have worked out about 49/51% rule and we Farangs are 'unlikely' to buy in the Thai quota there is a perceived 'value' to the Farang quota, which it will retain.

And I think I have seen enough anecdotal evidence to suggest yes Thais do buy in the Farang Quota, please don't ask me how, I am not Thai, I am UK based.

Essentially a perceived market distortion has taken place that may not actually be true (but Thailand is a BIG place) which IMO causes confusion all around.

And no the Farang quota does not have to be sold either - It could be a massive overhead on Juristic.

This is relevant for Pattaya and to a lesser extent Phuket (market is leasehold apartment driven as Thai's have vitulayy no demand). In Bangkok and Hua Hin, Thai's buy in excess of 51% and foreign buyers are less than 10% in most new condo's over the last 5 years.

It is true that foreign buyers are not debt heavy, but this is not a deliberate or planned factor in the process. Thai society is heavily debt orientated, including real estate purchases, aside from the super rich.

Hi - '123ace' - May I ask some tactical questions? - Are you Thai? and do you represent a younger generation of property investors? this stuff is just needed to project forward/ assess.

foreign buyers are in no debt at all, they have to bring the funds in (for a condominium).

Hi PKRV, no, I am an expat, been here a long time and in property (but no a Pattya agent).

From what I can see locals buy almost everything via debt, otorbikes,cars, mobile phones, multiple credit cards etc. Current western trends are of no concern to them.

[thaiwanderer]

foreign buyers are in no debt at all, they have to bring the funds in (for a condominium).

I dislike that often repeated fallacy.

Whilst the 'cash' may be unencumbered in country it doesn't at all mean its debt free.

[pkrv]

Hi PKRV, no, I am an expat, been here a long time and in property (but no a Pattya agent).

From what I can see locals buy almost everything via debt, otorbikes,cars, mobile phones, multiple credit cards etc. Current western trends are of no concern to them.

Thanks '123ace' - so Pattaya, the interesting thing that was missing from your list was condominiums? You're the guy on the ground here I have no experience of this market. IMO things really really do change from market to market.

[pkrv]

foreign buyers are in no debt at all, they have to bring the funds in (for a condominium).

I dislike that often repeated fallacy.

Whilst the 'cash' may be unencumbered in country it doesn't at all mean its debt free.

True, but a technical point A complex subject in itself, the funds are concrete in Thailand. (unless living working etc in Thailand, small number IMO)

[thaiwanderer]

foreign buyers are in no debt at all, they have to bring the funds in (for a condominium).

I dislike that often repeated fallacy.

Whilst the 'cash' may be unencumbered in country it doesn't at all mean its debt free.

True, but a technical point A complex subject in itself, the funds are concrete in Thailand. (unless living working etc in Thailand, small number IMO)

True. But often its then pumped by realtors to mean that the foreigner orientated Thai property market is somehow immune to ordinary economic pressures etc. because foreign buyers are only ever hard cash buyer with money to burn etc.

[pkrv]

True. But often its then pumped by realtors to mean that the foreigner orientated Thai property market is somehow immune to ordinary economic pressures etc. because foreign buyers are only ever hard cash buyer with money to burn etc.

Farangs are insignificant in the Market 50,000 in Bangkok, in a city of 10+ m. The rest I do not know about.

[donx]

Thai society is heavily debt orientated, including real estate purchases, aside from the super rich.

I find your comment interesting. The reason I find it interesting is that it contradicts what others on here have said in the past. I agree that most of the Thai purchased real estate used as a primary residence and priced under 2 million baht is likely to be mortgaged. However, I do believe that Thais that are wealthy but far from super rich purchase real estate as long term investments and pay with cash similar to the way they invest in gold from the gold shops.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that your perception and experiences lead you to a conclusion that differs from what I have heard others on here and middle class Thais I know from Bangkok say.

This issue has been discussed on here before with no clear answers regarding the percentage of real estate assests that have been mortgaged. I'd be interested in knowing if you have any hard evidence to back up your position. I can tell you quite honestly that I can't find any good information regarding this issue.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I bought my condo from a Thai and the condo association provided documents saying they were well below the foreign ownership quota. The condo is in my name and there was no problem with the transfer. The Thai wanted to sell and I wanted to buy. He didn't care if I was a foreigner or a Thai.

It's possible that if the foreigner quota is sold out, the price may be higher for a farang owned unit.

I have no idea why anyone would risk owning anything here in Thailand through a bogus company. Why take a chance when you don't have to.

This is a sensible answer - If the quota is not met the price is the same - don't take the risk - and it IS a risk and a large one to try and 'trick' the authorities into believing you are Thai. I own several units - no price differential - they don't care if I am Thai, Farang or Alien as long as I have the money.

[Pakboong]

Thai society is heavily debt orientated, including real estate purchases, aside from the super rich.

I find your comment interesting. The reason I find it interesting is that it contradicts what others on here have said in the past. I agree that most of the Thai purchased real estate used as a primary residence and priced under 2 million baht is likely to be mortgaged. However, I do believe that Thais that are wealthy but far from super rich purchase real estate as long term investments and pay with cash similar to the way they invest in gold from the gold shops.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that your perception and experiences lead you to a conclusion that differs from what I have heard others on here and middle class Thais I know from Bangkok say.

This issue has been discussed on here before with no clear answers regarding the percentage of real estate assests that have been mortgaged. I'd be interested in knowing if you have any hard evidence to back up your position. I can tell you quite honestly that I can't find any good information regarding this issue.

http://www2.bot.or.th/statistics/BOTWEBSTA...mp;language=ENG

According to BOT data, personal housing debt more than doubled during the last decade. You can follow the numbers back to before the 97 crisis. They are interesting when compared to development credit.

Virtually all Thais buy on credit, Thai/Chinese prefer to buy with cash largely because they can.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Pakboong

[donx]

http://www2.bot.or.th/statistics/BOTWEBSTA...mp;language=ENG

According to BOT data, personal housing debt more than doubled during the last decade. You can follow the numbers back to before the 97 crisis. They are interesting when compared to development credit.

Virtually all Thais buy on credit, Thai/Chinese prefer to buy with cash largely because they can.

It is interesting to see the increase in personal housing debt. Unfortunately, the statistic that I am most interested in seeing is what percentage of the housing market is mortgaged. I know in the US that percentage is quite high. Do you know where such information could be obtained?

[Pakboong]

http://www2.bot.or.th/statistics/BOTWEBSTA...mp;language=ENG

According to BOT data, personal housing debt more than doubled during the last decade. You can follow the numbers back to before the 97 crisis. They are interesting when compared to development credit.

Virtually all Thais buy on credit, Thai/Chinese prefer to buy with cash largely because they can.

It is interesting to see the increase in personal housing debt. Unfortunately, the statistic that I am most interested in seeing is what percentage of the housing market is mortgaged. I know in the US that percentage is quite high. Do you know where such information could be obtained?

I am sure that if you look at all the data categories you can extrapolate what ever conclusion you need to make. The BOT info is likely all there is for Thailand. There is no reason to believe that anyone else would be keeping track of such information.