What If?

[lovethailandlongtime]

If ownership rules where changed,would there be massive inflation on the property market/overall economy.

If it did happen,would it have a negative impact on the poorer communities??? or would that be offset by more employment opportunities/cash in circulaton??Would they really be any worse off?

It would certainly open the country up,no end..Its already seen as one of/or not the,most desirable location in SEA.It seems every time I read something about BKK/Thailand(from top end newspaper articals),it seems to shake off a bit more of the "sex tourist destination only" label that it once held..

Im sure we would see many more european retirees,looking toward winding down in LOS..

So,with a change of goverment looking possible if not likely,does this fill at least some of you with hope for the future??

Why wont thaksin give in,and let anyone own their own land??What are the resons for him slamming the door on foreign property investors..Am i missing something here (probably)

I suppose most thais don't see the need for change.if it were to happen,it may even cost him the support of some ...

It would be interesting to know what some of you think would happen,if the unthinkable did actually happen..

Edited March 7, 2006 by lovethailandlongtime

[johnnyk]

Individual foreigners and their concerns are not on Toxin's front burner. Falangs overestimate their place in the scheme of things. Toxin is more concerned about large foreign corporations who will invest in Thailand.

No Thai politician will allow rich individual foreigners to buy up Thailand, political suicide.

Let them "buy" with restrictions, everybody saves face and Thais get money without giving up very much. Not complicated if you don't look at it through western glasses. Look at it through Thai glasses and it makes sense. And Thai glasses are the only ones that matter.

If ownership rules where changed,would there be massive inflation on the property market/overall economy.

If it did happen,would it have a negative impact on the poorer communities??? or would that be offset by more employment opportunities/cash in circulaton??Would they really be any worse off?

Oh yes, massive inflation. More cash in circulation? Inflation=paper.

And who gets fcuked the most by inflation? The poor.

Edited March 8, 2006 by johnnyk

[Carmine6]

Wasn't the 1997 currency crash caused in some part by foreign developers who just dropped and ran when the real estate market topped out?

[Mobi]

Individual foreigners and their concerns are not on Toxin's front burner. Falangs overestimate their place in the scheme of things. Toxin is more concerned about large foreign corporations who will invest in Thailand.

.

Couldn't agree more. However, why not turn this hypothesis on its head? Thaksin has no love of farangs. He can't be unaware that most farangs in this country want him out - to say nothing of the diplomats who are all probably biting their lips to avoid saying something undiplomatic about him.

How about if he decides to be vengeful and has his henchman check out and invalidate all the 49% farang companies, and puts his oar in on the 30 year lease laws? It might not help the country, but he sure would enjoy the sight of all the farangs squirming. Very patriotic too.

Only joking, of course??

[johnnyk]

I really don't think he gives a toss what the falangs think.

As Hitler said when informed the Pope was against him, "How many divisions does he have?"...how many falang voters are there?

The 1997 crash was caused when money lent to Thai enterprises with house-of-cards financial structures was called. Enterprises with idiot relatives running them and otherwise-unemployable offspring stealing from the companies.

Plus standard nepotism, greed, incompetence, mendacity, clueless "planning", overvalued baht etc etc

Interesting link here: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thai/html/financial97_98.html

Edited March 8, 2006 by johnnyk

[GuestHouse]

Taxin relaxing laws on foreigner property ownership.

Have you been mixing the cough mixture with the cooking brandy again?

Pigs will fly first - Taxin is a "Nationalist", he manipulates Thai fears of foreigners to maintain control of power, he is not about to start helping foreigners buy up Thailand - NO THAI POLITICIAN IS.

And I'd avoid discussing the point if I where you on the off chance Taxin calls by this way. If ever the idea of modifying laws relating to foreigners and property does enter his head, it is extremely unlikely that it would be good for foreigners.... He might, for example, start a special tax code for front companies that hold land/property for foreigners....

You might well wind up renting your house of the Thai taxman..

[Thaising]

Any ministers who dare to changes the landowner laws is prepare to nail themselves on the wall. We lucky to own land & company by using proxy.

[steveromagnino]

In the areas where foreigners mostly like, things work fine; condos/leases etc - the massive housing boom in Samui and Pattaya and Phuket seems to work fine with current rules.

Major voting area in Isaan. If allowed to own property easily, one person could theoretically buy up millions of rai at cheap prices and then not let any of the villagers work. Of course....who would actually do that....but it is possible.

And as long as it is possible, the foreigner is a person to be welcomed as a guest, and not as an equal with regards to property ownership. So....no chance of change that I can see. If you really want to own land....become a citizen.

I am not so sure all the foreigners are anti Thaksin; whenever he is around foreigners all I see are the kiss ass brigade...and there are quite a LOT of them. bunch of losers that they are.... bring on the Aristocrat party :-)

Taksin's strategy is to talk big about being all nationalistic, while selling out in ways the average person cannot understand. e.g. listing country assets and privatising them. HOwever, property ownership is way too transparent. I can't see that changing.

I doubt the lease arrangement will change either. Remember that his family and some of his backers are property developers too :-)

[Dragonman]

In the areas where foreigners mostly like, things work fine; condos/leases etc - the massive housing boom in Samui and Pattaya and Phuket seems to work fine with current rules.

Major voting area in Isaan. If allowed to own property easily, one person could theoretically buy up millions of rai at cheap prices and then not let any of the villagers work. Of course....who would actually do that....but it is possible.

And as long as it is possible, the foreigner is a person to be welcomed as a guest, and not as an equal with regards to property ownership. So....no chance of change that I can see. If you really want to own land....become a citizen.

I am not so sure all the foreigners are anti Thaksin; whenever he is around foreigners all I see are the kiss ass brigade...and there are quite a LOT of them. bunch of losers that they are.... bring on the Aristocrat party :-)

Taksin's strategy is to talk big about being all nationalistic, while selling out in ways the average person cannot understand. e.g. listing country assets and privatising them. HOwever, property ownership is way too transparent. I can't see that changing.

I doubt the lease arrangement will change either. Remember that his family and some of his backers are property developers too :-)

I agree! In fact I would like to see the implementation of strict Enterprise Zones around Samui, Phuket & Pattaya with little control on foreign ownership. Whilst there should be more control involving purchases outside these areas. I have worked with Western Governments who wish they did not have open market property sales, due to speculation and survival of the international "financially fittest."

[coldcrush]

Some friendsof mine in Thailand have set up a company and have heavily invested in property in the hope of a change of government and slighty relaxed laws. However the overall expected rise in property investment has only been considered in the south on islands as Samui and areas as Hau Hin. I believe they doubted North and only took a small interest in Chaing Mai.

Edited March 8, 2006 by lopburiguy

[chiangrai57020]

It appears that I am the only one that thinks 'Land Ownership' laws WILL change! Over 35 years ago 1 Rai of land was selling for 250 baht. Let me clarify - I am only talking about Land up in the North - I do not know about elsewhere in Thailand.

Back in the 1930s - 1950s there were very few 'wealthy' Thais. So how can there be so many wealthy Thais today when the average income 'today' is somewhere around 10,000 baht per month? You can just imagine what the average income was during the period of the 60s - 90s!

Where did all the wealth come from? It could be the 3 primary vices! So what happen to all the money that came - assumption - from the vices. Real estate! There had to be something to 'launder' money. Real estate (land) up North was purchased by some wealthy people from Bangkok at a 'song'. Today it is very difficult to find 1 Rai of land for less than 300,000 baht.

So why will the Land Ownership laws change? The wealthy are not going to hang onto all this 'cheap' land they bought. The 'farmers' have gotten smart. They sold cheap before but they will not accept anything less than 300,000 today. If the 'Big' boys can make money off of land, why not the farmers.

Now then, when the wealthy of Bangkok get tired of holding onto all this land - Who is going to buy it? The 'stupid' farang? They will change the law so that we can buy all the land we want for 'astronmical' amounts of 'cash'! Then we can hope that the same people that 'use to' own this land do not change the law back to what it was and then take all the land back.

As for changing the law - no big deal. They simply tell the Thai people - this is good business since. It will put lots of money in your pockets. They will buy this stratagy for a few years and then take all the land back.

Sounds good to me.

Edited March 8, 2006 by chiangrai57020

[Thaipwriter]

If ownership rules where changed,would there be massive inflation on the property market/overall economy.

Yes for sure, prices would double in the non tourist areas overnight and god knows what would happen in the resort locations

If it did happen,would it have a negative impact on the poorer communities??? or would that be offset by more employment opportunities/cash in circulaton??Would they really be any worse off?

Could they be any worse off? the poor are already shafted, the shafting will continue regardless of property value

It would certainly open the country up,no end..Its already seen as one of/or not the,most desirable location in SEA.It seems every time I read something about BKK/Thailand(from top end newspaper articals),it seems to shake off a bit more of the "sex tourist destination only" label that it once held..

Top end newspaper articles overlook the "sex tourist destination only" label but the undercurrent flow stronger than ever. 90% of the farangs who live here came looking for girls and the other 10% are gay.

Im sure we would see many more european retirees,looking toward winding down in LOS..

We will see many millions of retirees heading here in the next few years, the baby boomers in the USA are now realising that they dont have enough income to retire on and face poverty in their old age. The moment the world wakes up to the fact you can retire here and live like a king on pennies you wont be able to move for viagra fuelled coffin dodgers on Sukumvit

So,with a change of goverment looking possible if not likely,does this fill at least some of you with hope for the future??

The government will in my opinion NEVER change the laws to allow farangs to own land. They already have the perfect system of allowing a kind of ownership that is not ownership and they can pull the rug by moving the goalposts at any time they like. They have your money and they still own "your" land.

With a beautiful system like this in place, who in thier right mind would ever change it?

Why wont thaksin give in,and let anyone own their own land??What are the resons for him slamming the door on foreign property investors..Am i missing something here (probably)

yes, see above

I suppose most thais don't see the need for change.if it were to happen,it may even cost him the support of some ...

mai bpen rai, they guys counting the votes are good friends of Mr T.

It would be interesting to know what some of you think would happen,if the unthinkable did actually happen..

The unthinkable happens every day. Dumb farangs arrive here and are parted from their cash by cunning females and a smokescreen of property "ownership" methods. Long it may continue!

[lovethailandlongtime]

If ownership rules where changed,would there be massive inflation on the property market/overall economy.

Yes for sure, prices would double in the non tourist areas overnight and god knows what would happen in the resort locations

If it did happen,would it have a negative impact on the poorer communities??? or would that be offset by more employment opportunities/cash in circulaton??Would they really be any worse off?

Could they be any worse off? the poor are already shafted, the shafting will continue regardless of property value

It would certainly open the country up,no end..Its already seen as one of/or not the,most desirable location in SEA.It seems every time I read something about BKK/Thailand(from top end newspaper articals),it seems to shake off a bit more of the "sex tourist destination only" label that it once held..

Top end newspaper articles overlook the "sex tourist destination only" label but the undercurrent flow stronger than ever. 90% of the farangs who live here came looking for girls and the other 10% are gay.

Im sure we would see many more european retirees,looking toward winding down in LOS..

We will see many millions of retirees heading here in the next few years, the baby boomers in the USA are now realising that they dont have enough income to retire on and face poverty in their old age. The moment the world wakes up to the fact you can retire here and live like a king on pennies you wont be able to move for viagra fuelled coffin dodgers on Sukumvit

So,with a change of goverment looking possible if not likely,does this fill at least some of you with hope for the future??

The government will in my opinion NEVER change the laws to allow farangs to own land. They already have the perfect system of allowing a kind of ownership that is not ownership and they can pull the rug by moving the goalposts at any time they like. They have your money and they still own "your" land.

With a beautiful system like this in place, who in thier right mind would ever change it?

Why wont thaksin give in,and let anyone own their own land??What are the resons for him slamming the door on foreign property investors..Am i missing something here (probably)

yes, see above

I suppose most thais don't see the need for change.if it were to happen,it may even cost him the support of some ...

mai bpen rai, they guys counting the votes are good friends of Mr T.

It would be interesting to know what some of you think would happen,if the unthinkable did actually happen..

The unthinkable happens every day. Dumb farangs arrive here and are parted from their cash by cunning females and a smokescreen of property "ownership" methods. Long it may continue!

Your spot on with the last part...I've seen many silly farang believe they can make a sound property investment in LOS .unfortunetly They are all to often conned into it with great ease..

I've seen at least five examples of the above..

Its a pitty these plonkers don't research sites such as this before they take the plunge..

I have been told by more than thai lawyer,that I could have 100% land ownership here in LOS.

This of course means you can 100% not trust a word that they say in the future..

[steveromagnino]

It appears that I am the only one that thinks 'Land Ownership' laws WILL change! Over 35 years ago 1 Rai of land was selling for 250 baht. Let me clarify - I am only talking about Land up in the North - I do not know about elsewhere in Thailand.

Back in the 1930s - 1950s there were very few 'wealthy' Thais. So how can there be so many wealthy Thais today when the average income 'today' is somewhere around 10,000 baht per month? You can just imagine what the average income was during the period of the 60s - 90s!

Er.... because the lorenz curve of wealth distribution is such that MANY people in Bangkok now have the money to buy property upcountry. Nothing to do with corruption etc etc; more to do with businesses growing of age and the owners getting money. With massively uneven wealth distribution (thailand is on par with USA in this regard) then a few rich people can own a lot. e.g. Crown Property Bureau, take a look at what the Royal family own.

OK, here is the next thing; what rate of return do you think that these wealthy land owners have made over this 35 year period?

Here is your answer....22% IRR in capital gain. That is pretty decent, but I think you'll find that you have WELL overestimated the price of rural land; the bits close to the city, 350k sure, but not the bits further away. I'd guess the average reall apples for apples comparison is somewhere around 50,000b a rai at most. That's a 16% IRR< and let's bear in mind we are in a a bit of an upcycle at the moment which is coming to an end.

The current situation works fine for those wealthy land owners. Most farmers don't own the land; they split the proceeds with the landlord. With the THai owner, they know where they stand. With some foreign owner, there is the risk that the farang might build something else or not let them farm. So I reiterate, the farmers themselves don't want foreign land ownership, and they are the voters (even though they may be influenced by certain land owners).

Just so you dont' think this is a Thailand only issue.....

In NZ, where there was unlimited foreign ownership until recently, foreigners have driven prices up beyond local buying power. Then they are now closing off areas (allowed by law) which previously NZ land owners were happy not to enforce. For instance, Nick's Head, the first part of NZ discovered by Capt Cook is now owned by a foreigner, who ended up having to negotiate with the Crown to allow access during daytime hours by foot; far worse than the previous access by car (bear in mind this is the only nice beach for 200km) but better than the 'no access at all' that many of the other foreign owners have implemented. Hence... strategic land is now reviewed by the crown before sale.

Imagine what would happen in some village areas with large numbers of foreign spouses... potentially a village could be destroyed if a land owner decided 'no access for Thai farmers'.

and that, is what you will not see a change in property ownership.

The rest of your post is fairly typical of your other posts on this board; I suggest you get a deep fat fryer, as you seem to have an unlimited supply of chips on your shoulder.

And re lovethailandlongtime, the sex tourist figure?

instead of spouting opinions disguised as statistics, go to the TAT website and take a look at stats by nationality, family status and gender.

Then explain why all those kids aged 5 and under, or females aged 60 and over, or families from Japan are all sex tourists, because strangely enough I see very few of any of these groups in NEP, patpong or similar.

Your pidgin english name suggests you might just know these sex areas fairly well methinks

[sleepyjohn]

Actually discounting the romantically impaired and the pure stupidly uninformed land buys Ive seen here, ALL the buys which I personally know about and which have been made carefully and with due diligence have resulted in considerable gain, financial and otherwise.

[Mobi]

I can't see anything wrong with the old mooted idea of allowing farangs to buy a maximum of one Rai of land in specifically designated areas, strictly controlled by the relevant authorities to ensure no damage to the environment, and no harm done to local residents etc. It wouldn't be too disimilar to the current condo laws and I can't see that the Thais would worry about Johnny Foreigner buying up their country - as land sales would always be strictly controlled to ensure that didn't happen. Everyone would be a winner, and it would get rid of the current 'fronted company/30 year lease' hypocracy.

I know - it's just a pipe dream. Corruption would rear its ugly head and negate the controls.

[johnnyk]

Mobi, your post outlines what would be good for us but what's in it for the Thais that they don't have already?

The present system works well for them, they hold all the cards, risk nothing and they get the money so why should they bother to change things?

What is good for us and what we might care about doesn't mean much, if anything, to them.

They run the place to suit them and whatever gets them some fairly immediate gain is what they want. If we want to enjoy their country we have to do it on their terms.

As for the 'fronted company/30 year lease' hypocracy', I don't think hypocrisy occurs to them, its a way of life... kinda like in the west.

Edited March 9, 2006 by johnnyk

[GuestHouse]

I predict with some certainty this is going to get the Naivety Award 2006, and it’s only March yet.

If you think Thailand is going to change a system that prevents foreigners buying land, you are sadly mistaken.

Don’t believe what estate agents our bar stool investment analysts are telling you.

Go read and learn about Thai history and politics.

Find out how deeply Thais hold onto the notion of their independence from Western control and how deeply they hold the view that this sets them apart in Asia.

[Mobi]

Mobi, your post outlines what would be good for us but what's in it for the Thais that they don't have already?The present system works well for them, they hold all the cards, risk nothing and they get the money so why should they bother to change things?

What is good for us and what we might care about doesn't mean much, if anything, to them.

They run the place to suit them and whatever gets them some fairly immediate gain is what they want. If we want to enjoy their country we have to do it on their terms.

As for the 'fronted company/30 year lease' hypocracy', I don't think hypocrisy occurs to them, its a way of life... kinda like in the west.

I did answer your question but another crash by Ipstar wiped it out before I posted it. Karma I guess.

Anyway, I was only grasping at straws. The answer is there's not much in it for them, especially since they rescinded the law prohibiting Thai wives of foreigners from owning land. Now even more farangs can get ripped off by their sweethearts.

Its win win all round for Thailand. Time to change my nationality.

[chiangrai57020]

It appears that I am the only one that thinks 'Land Ownership' laws WILL change! Over 35 years ago 1 Rai of land was selling for 250 baht. Let me clarify - I am only talking about Land up in the North - I do not know about elsewhere in Thailand.

Back in the 1930s - 1950s there were very few 'wealthy' Thais. So how can there be so many wealthy Thais today when the average income 'today' is somewhere around 10,000 baht per month? You can just imagine what the average income was during the period of the 60s - 90s!

Er.... because the lorenz curve of wealth distribution is such that MANY people in Bangkok now have the money to buy property upcountry. Nothing to do with corruption etc etc; more to do with businesses growing of age and the owners getting money. With massively uneven wealth distribution (thailand is on par with USA in this regard) then a few rich people can own a lot. e.g. Crown Property Bureau, take a look at what the Royal family own.

OK, here is the next thing; what rate of return do you think that these wealthy land owners have made over this 35 year period?

Here is your answer....22% IRR in capital gain. That is pretty decent, but I think you'll find that you have WELL overestimated the price of rural land; the bits close to the city, 350k sure, but not the bits further away. I'd guess the average reall apples for apples comparison is somewhere around 50,000b a rai at most. That's a 16% IRR< and let's bear in mind we are in a a bit of an upcycle at the moment which is coming to an end.

The current situation works fine for those wealthy land owners. Most farmers don't own the land; they split the proceeds with the landlord. With the THai owner, they know where they stand. With some foreign owner, there is the risk that the farang might build something else or not let them farm. So I reiterate, the farmers themselves don't want foreign land ownership, and they are the voters (even though they may be influenced by certain land owners).

Just so you dont' think this is a Thailand only issue.....

In NZ, where there was unlimited foreign ownership until recently, foreigners have driven prices up beyond local buying power. Then they are now closing off areas (allowed by law) which previously NZ land owners were happy not to enforce. For instance, Nick's Head, the first part of NZ discovered by Capt Cook is now owned by a foreigner, who ended up having to negotiate with the Crown to allow access during daytime hours by foot; far worse than the previous access by car (bear in mind this is the only nice beach for 200km) but better than the 'no access at all' that many of the other foreign owners have implemented. Hence... strategic land is now reviewed by the crown before sale.

Imagine what would happen in some village areas with large numbers of foreign spouses... potentially a village could be destroyed if a land owner decided 'no access for Thai farmers'.

and that, is what you will not see a change in property ownership.

The rest of your post is fairly typical of your other posts on this board; I suggest you get a deep fat fryer, as you seem to have an unlimited supply of chips on your shoulder.

And re lovethailandlongtime, the sex tourist figure?

instead of spouting opinions disguised as statistics, go to the TAT website and take a look at stats by nationality, family status and gender.

Then explain why all those kids aged 5 and under, or females aged 60 and over, or families from Japan are all sex tourists, because strangely enough I see very few of any of these groups in NEP, patpong or similar.

Your pidgin english name suggests you might just know these sex areas fairly well methinks

Wow! You must have travelled to every 'village' and 'city' throughout Thailand! Amazing that you know so much about land prices from 'everywhere'! The only land I know of for 50,000 B is at the bottom of a lake or river! Or along a river that floods every year! And that is outside a major city or town.

I have been in and out of Thailand for 40 years. I have 'lived' in Thailand during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s-2000. I have bought land in each of years that I lived here. I do know what the price of land 'was' and 'is'. And, I also stand by my original comments about the wealth - and if you do any 'reading at all', from various sources - books, magazines, internet throughout the 'years' you 'might' understand where I come up with the information.

As for your comment about 'chips-on-my-shoulder', you are correct. I only ask that I be treated fair in Thailand - not constantly being taken advantage of because I am a 'foreigner'. The picture I have is that we are 'all' rich 'foreign' and therefore we are free game.

[chiangrai57020]

It appears that I am the only one that thinks 'Land Ownership' laws WILL change! Over 35 years ago 1 Rai of land was selling for 250 baht. Let me clarify - I am only talking about Land up in the North - I do not know about elsewhere in Thailand.

Back in the 1930s - 1950s there were very few 'wealthy' Thais. So how can there be so many wealthy Thais today when the average income 'today' is somewhere around 10,000 baht per month? You can just imagine what the average income was during the period of the 60s - 90s!

Er.... because the lorenz curve of wealth distribution is such that MANY people in Bangkok now have the money to buy property upcountry. Nothing to do with corruption etc etc; more to do with businesses growing of age and the owners getting money. With massively uneven wealth distribution (thailand is on par with USA in this regard) then a few rich people can own a lot. e.g. Crown Property Bureau, take a look at what the Royal family own.

OK, here is the next thing; what rate of return do you think that these wealthy land owners have made over this 35 year period?

Here is your answer....22% IRR in capital gain. That is pretty decent, but I think you'll find that you have WELL overestimated the price of rural land; the bits close to the city, 350k sure, but not the bits further away. I'd guess the average reall apples for apples comparison is somewhere around 50,000b a rai at most. That's a 16% IRR< and let's bear in mind we are in a a bit of an upcycle at the moment which is coming to an end.

The current situation works fine for those wealthy land owners. Most farmers don't own the land; they split the proceeds with the landlord. With the THai owner, they know where they stand. With some foreign owner, there is the risk that the farang might build something else or not let them farm. So I reiterate, the farmers themselves don't want foreign land ownership, and they are the voters (even though they may be influenced by certain land owners).

Just so you dont' think this is a Thailand only issue.....

In NZ, where there was unlimited foreign ownership until recently, foreigners have driven prices up beyond local buying power. Then they are now closing off areas (allowed by law) which previously NZ land owners were happy not to enforce. For instance, Nick's Head, the first part of NZ discovered by Capt Cook is now owned by a foreigner, who ended up having to negotiate with the Crown to allow access during daytime hours by foot; far worse than the previous access by car (bear in mind this is the only nice beach for 200km) but better than the 'no access at all' that many of the other foreign owners have implemented. Hence... strategic land is now reviewed by the crown before sale.

Imagine what would happen in some village areas with large numbers of foreign spouses... potentially a village could be destroyed if a land owner decided 'no access for Thai farmers'.

and that, is what you will not see a change in property ownership.

The rest of your post is fairly typical of your other posts on this board; I suggest you get a deep fat fryer, as you seem to have an unlimited supply of chips on your shoulder.

And re lovethailandlongtime, the sex tourist figure?

instead of spouting opinions disguised as statistics, go to the TAT website and take a look at stats by nationality, family status and gender.

Then explain why all those kids aged 5 and under, or females aged 60 and over, or families from Japan are all sex tourists, because strangely enough I see very few of any of these groups in NEP, patpong or similar.

Your pidgin english name suggests you might just know these sex areas fairly well methinks

Wow! You must have travelled to every 'village' and 'city' throughout Thailand! Amazing that you know so much about land prices from 'everywhere'! The only land I know of for 50,000 B is at the bottom of a lake or river! Or along a river that floods every year! And that is outside a major city or town.

I have been in and out of Thailand for 40 years. I have 'lived' in Thailand during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s-2000. I have bought land in each of years that I lived here. I do know what the price of land 'was' and 'is'. And, I also stand by my original comments about the wealth - and if you do any 'reading at all', from various sources - books, magazines, internet throughout the 'years' you 'might' understand where I come up with the information.

As for your comment about 'chips-on-my-shoulder', you are correct. I only ask that I be treated fair in Thailand - not constantly being taken advantage of because I am a 'foreigner'. The picture I have is that we are 'all' rich 'foreign' and therefore we are free game.

One thing I forgot to add. I purchased 14 Rai of land for 250 B per Rai in 1967 in a village up North, today 1 Rai of land in the same village will NOT sell for less than 100,000 B per Rai. That's appears to be a 400% increase NOT the 22% you seem to indicate.

[backflip]

"If ownership rules where changed, would there be massive inflation on the property market/overall economy."

Wouldn't that depend upon HOW the rules were changed, and for whom? Why would you think that the governement of Thailand would change the land ownership rules?

[steveromagnino]

One thing I forgot to add. I purchased 14 Rai of land for 250 B per Rai in 1967 in a village up North, today 1 Rai of land in the same village will NOT sell for less than 100,000 B per Rai. That's appears to be a 400% increase NOT the 22% you seem to indicate.

Yes you are right, that would be an annual rate of return of 17%, indeed considerably less than the 22% I indicated earlier. We abbreviate to IRR (internal rate of return on a series of cash flows). That is not a particularly bad return, but not as good as the other example you gave. And of course buying 1 rai you will probably pay a premium vs. 14 rai as you well know...so your point of telling me is???

Regarding your snide 'you must have gone everywhere' if you take this sort of attitude I am not surprised you get treated poorly. I said 'I guess' 'I think' etc in qualifying that comment??! Re-read it, then comment again; or are you going to deny me the right to have an opinion?

BTW my family is a considerable land owner in Isaan; we are still in the process of adding to our rubber growing area; we are paying around 8,000b per rai. It all depends on access to water, roading, workers, etc - as I am sure you well know.

(Thailand has more than the north you know.)

Since you are a Thai citizen, and can own land, then surely you must be able to ask yourself then your motives are for doing so?

Unless of course you are doing this through some sort of company....hmmm.....in which case, you are asking to be treated fairly in what regard; that you have far more money than the people around you and wish it to be reduced or that you have far more money than the people around you and wish to be treated fairly (i.e. the same as people even richer than you?)

[backflip]

Good Lord, can no one do simple math? The total price increase is not 400%, it's 40,000%, and the annualized rate of price increase (over 39 years) is 16.6%

[steveromagnino]

Good Lord, can no one do simple math? The total price increase is not 400%, it's 40,000%, and the annualized rate of price increase (over 39 years) is 16.6%

yes, that is what I thought would be easily understood from the IRR = 17% bit, but obviously not

(but ok, you got one more decimilitialelle point )

[chiangrai57020]

Good Lord, can no one do simple math? The total price increase is not 400%, it's 40,000%, and the annualized rate of price increase (over 39 years) is 16.6%

yes, that is what I thought would be easily understood from the IRR = 17% bit, but obviously not

(but ok, you got one more decimilitialelle point )

Gee! I really blew it on the math test. But with only a high school education and math being my weekest subject - well, OK, English as well, I am still having trouble trying to figure out the % increase on an investment I had. Maybe you can help me!

You see in 1992 I purchased 1,000 share of stock for $19 per share - that must be $19,000 - Right. And then I cashed in all my shares in Jan 2005 and made $7,000,000 (yes, millions) before taxes. What is the rate of increase? I probably did not provide enough information - but I think you get the point. Even 'dumb people' can make money and not throw it away on something he cannot own.

[meom]

19,000 dollar becomes 7 mil after 13 yrs.

That's about 57.6% increase per year if I count right

[chiangrai57020]

19,000 dollar becomes 7 mil after 13 yrs.

That's about 57.6% increase per year if I count right

Ever hear of 2 for 1 stock splits?

[meom]

19,000 dollar becomes 7 mil after 13 yrs.

That's about 57.6% increase per year if I count right

Ever hear of 2 for 1 stock splits?

Yes I've heared about it but other than that I don't have a clue whatsoever about stocks, investing etc

[steveromagnino]

19,000 dollar becomes 7 mil after 13 yrs.

That's about 57.6% increase per year if I count right

Ever hear of 2 for 1 stock splits?

Well if you provide info of all bonuses, share splits, rights issues and dividends, I am happy enough to calculate your total return and explain how that is done. It is standard procedure to be able to compare different stocks who may not run their shares the same way (div yields may vary, etc). However, if they paid no dividend, and only split, then that has no effect on the total value of your stocks, therefore Meom's calculation is indeed correct.

You are right, making money is not the sole domain of the rich; and for the share market, it is possible for very rich people to lose, and very poor people to win. It tends to be though that the rich have access to knowledge that the poor do not. Hence the rich tend to stay rich (e.g. the land owners) while the poor tend to stay poor (the subsistance farmers). Even when the poor here get money, since they have never been taught how to use it properly, they often end up worse off with debt and no long term assets or sustainable cashflow. So perhaps Thailand's poor are a little different to the 'poor' in a country like New Zealand, where the poor actually do have access to all that knowledge, and mostly choose not to use it for factors other than education (cultural, social pressures, that sort of thing).

Based on your own financial performance and the magnitude of these numbers plus your real estate holdings, I am guessing that you are already at least somewhat rich; and you either got it through

- rich parents

- hardwork

- luck

- a brilliant idea well implemented

- crime

or some combination.

My guess is probably, based on your attitude, the 2,3,4th ones. But I could be wrong

Allan Bond, Richard Branson, neither had a great education and look how far they got.

There are lots of things lots of people cannot own. It is not a god given right to get to own things. If you want to own something, buy shares or something.

You know the way the rules are set up here; get citizenship and then start owning!