Thai Baht: Tempers Rise Over B O T Rate Policy

[NeverSure]

We have evidence of defaults in real estate construction loans in Bangkok, which is what I've been predicting for months. Now I have more than my own crystal ball to support my beliefs.

Now I will say that it is systemic, that Thailand is hugely overbuilt, there is a condo bubble, and Thai banks all have an average of 40% of their loans in it.

We are seeing the beginning of it and I have been saying "get back to me in five years." Well, it only took five weeks and this is the beginning.

[yoshiwara]

First, I'm opposed to any borrowing by anyone.

That's just plain weird. And a guaranteed disaster. The trouble is that with that statement all the other stuff just collapses like a pack of cards. Indefensible from anyone claiming an understanding of finance.

[NeverSure]

First, I'm opposed to any borrowing by anyone.

That's just plain weird. And a guaranteed disaster. The trouble is that with that statement all the other stuff just collapses like a pack of cards. Indefensible from anyone claiming an understanding of finance.

One such statement which is totally irrelevant to the main topic about crashing banks, does not an argument make. It's just your opinion and my opinion and is off topic. I am opposed to borrowing money or ever paying anyone a dime in interest. I am opposed to being in the slavery of debt.

That's my opinion and only an opinion. If my government held that opinion, it might not be going broke. The same would be true in Europe. Oh, how I wish they had always been opposed to debt.

You are grasping at straws, trying to find something, even if off topic, to criticize. You have completely and totally lost this debate about why two banks went broke, and how it is a reflection of the overbuilt real estate market in Thailand.

You are just another background noise.

Edited April 28, 2013 by NeverSure

[yoshiwara]

First, I'm opposed to any borrowing by anyone.

That's just plain weird. And a guaranteed disaster. The trouble is that with that statement all the other stuff just collapses like a pack of cards. Indefensible from anyone claiming an understanding of finance.

One such statement which is totally irrelevant to the main topic about crashing banks, does not an argument make. It's just your opinion and my opinion and is off topic. I am opposed to borrowing money or ever paying anyone a dime in interest. I am opposed to being in the slavery of debt.

That's my opinion and only an opinion. If my government held that opinion, it might not be going broke. The same would be true in Europe. Oh, how I wish they had always been opposed to debt.

You are grasping at straws, trying to find something, even if off topic, to criticize. You have completely and totally lost this debate about why two banks went broke, and how it is a reflection of the overbuilt real estate market in Thailand.

You are just another background noise.

Very strange indeed. Without debt there wouldn't be any banking whatsoever and capitalism would collapse overnight. When one knows that someone is holding such views the only sensible thing to do is to edge slowly backwards towards the door with a friendly wave and repeatedly muttering "yes dear". "Yes dear". Edited April 28, 2013 by yoshiwara

[Tep]

You do not make any reference to my statements on the role of SFI's so I conclude you did not or cannot read the documents I referred you to.

The article linked in you post provided a perfectly rational explanation for that banks financial position and does not refute my statements on the policy directed lending priorities for the Islamic Bank or on the position regarding subsidies to maintain the banks operation.

I repeat my assertion that you have no knowledge of the lending portfolios of either of the banks to which refer despite your less than copious 'research'. These 2 SFI's are not indicators of anything except circumstances specific to each institution, your insults and your ideology notwithstanding.

[NeverSure]

First, I'm opposed to any borrowing by anyone.

That's just plain weird. And a guaranteed disaster. The trouble is that with that statement all the other stuff just collapses like a pack of cards. Indefensible from anyone claiming an understanding of finance.

One such statement which is totally irrelevant to the main topic about crashing banks, does not an argument make. It's just your opinion and my opinion and is off topic. I am opposed to borrowing money or ever paying anyone a dime in interest. I am opposed to being in the slavery of debt.

That's my opinion and only an opinion. If my government held that opinion, it might not be going broke. The same would be true in Europe. Oh, how I wish they had always been opposed to debt.

You are grasping at straws, trying to find something, even if off topic, to criticize. You have completely and totally lost this debate about why two banks went broke, and how it is a reflection of the overbuilt real estate market in Thailand.

You are just another background noise.

Very strange indeed. Without debt there wouldn't be any banking whatsoever and capitalism would collapse overnight. When one knows that someone is holding such views the only sensible thing to do is to edge slowly backwards towards the door with a friendly wave and repeatedly muttering "yes dear". "Yes dear".

You think capitalism would collapse overnight. I say debt crashed capitalism.

Capitalism should be someone investing his own time and money, or a group of people investing their money, maybe even in the form of stock if enough capital is needed, and investing it.

The leaches called bankers are a drain on the economy and capitalism. When they go broke they drain even more capital out of the system

Now, I'm putting you on ignore because you can't stay on topic. You have a need to "win something" no matter what it is and you keep coming up short.

The topic is about interest rate policies in Thai banks, and in my case how this, and too much borrowing affected banks and borrowers.

[NeverSure]

You do not make any reference to my statements on the role of SFI's so I conclude you did not or cannot read the documents I referred you to. The article linked in you post provided a perfectly rational explanation for that banks financial position and does not refute my statements on the policy directed lending priorities for the Islamic Bank or on the position regarding subsidies to maintain the banks operation. I repeat my assertion that you have no knowledge of the lending portfolios of either of the banks to which refer despite your less than copious 'research'. These 2 SFI's are not indicators of anything except circumstances specific to each institution, your insults and your ideology notwithstanding.

Your statements are off topic. I have posted links and proven my points. Now you go on ignore because I'm tired of you coming back even after I paint my proof in bold and underline it. I'm tired of non-stop posts that even when I prove them wrong with links and text bolded and underlined, just keep haunting me.

You don't know enough to engage this conversation.

[NeverSure]

I've posted my links, bolded and underlined what broke the banks, shown that it is Bangkok real estate speculation, so I'm unsubscribing. We're just going in irrelevant circles.

You geniuses can pat each other on your own backs.

Edited April 28, 2013 by NeverSure

[Tep]

You have been provided links to the MOF reviews of the 2 banks you claim have crashed and are precursors to a melt down of Thailand. I have explained the nature of the institutions to you without google links as I have worked with these SOE's and the people involved with them for years. These points are inconvenient for your ideologically driven assertions but are entirely on topic. I repeat. You cannot use these 2 SFI's as indicators of any wider issues in the financial sector and certainly not to support your abnormal views on debt finance.

[Naam]

Simply explain to me how Thailand has something like US$150 billion in

money, and where that fits on its financial statement. Show me the line.

Tell me for a fact what the offset is on the other side of the ledger.

When you can answer that question, you will have the truth.

for the first part of your question google "International Monetary Fund, Thailand".

the "other side of the ledger" i leave to you because you seem to have indepth

knowledge of all BoT ledgers.

but of course anything positive is (according to you) fraud whereas all negative

assumptions, drawn out of thin air, must be true. well in line with the resident poor

boys who have problems to make end meets and who never go to bed without their

daily prayer "LORD, let this xxxxx country fall into the economic abyss and devalue

the Baht as well. every day noodle soup and a single Chang on the stairs in front

of 7/11 is unbearable. YOU HEAR ME LORD!?"

Naam, it's easy to take pot shots from the peanut gallery, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about, nor would anyone else reading that.

Let's get serious and debate the issues, if you can.

there's no serious debate possible with you as far as Thailand is concerned.

[chiang mai]

Neversure's theory that the two Thai banks collapsed because the value of their underlying assets has fallen seems improbable, most commentators that I have read seem to think a more likely cause of the failure of these two largely unregulated banks might be found in corruption and mismanagement. But since I can't read Thai and the documents that Tep has provided I guess it's a case of wait and see what any investigation reveals.

[NeverSure]

Simply explain to me how Thailand has something like US$150 billion in

money, and where that fits on its financial statement. Show me the line.

Tell me for a fact what the offset is on the other side of the ledger.

When you can answer that question, you will have the truth.

for the first part of your question google "International Monetary Fund, Thailand".

the "other side of the ledger" i leave to you because you seem to have indepth

knowledge of all BoT ledgers.

but of course anything positive is (according to you) fraud whereas all negative

assumptions, drawn out of thin air, must be true. well in line with the resident poor

boys who have problems to make end meets and who never go to bed without their

daily prayer "LORD, let this xxxxx country fall into the economic abyss and devalue

the Baht as well. every day noodle soup and a single Chang on the stairs in front

of 7/11 is unbearable. YOU HEAR ME LORD!?"

Naam, it's easy to take pot shots from the peanut gallery, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about, nor would anyone else reading that.

Let's get serious and debate the issues, if you can.

there's no serious debate possible with you as far as Thailand is concerned.

You have assumed the role of King of the financial forum. You have presumed it for too long. You know a lot about international markets and I give you that. But when it comes to macroeconomics, you don't have a clue.

You're used to making drive-by pot shots, most with no substance, believing you are clever but taking no chances of making predictions. You also don't take the time to teach anyone anything. It's enough to be smug, and sarcastic, and play it safe from the peanut gallery.

You are a wealth of information about the past, and the global present, but you don't know a thing about what's really happening in Thailand. Like so many others who are mesmerized by Thailand, you can't see the forest for the trees.

If you have a lot tied up in Thailand you're going to lose your ass. If you don't because you're too smart for that, then it would be nice if you mentioned it to others.

I do not accept your self appointed role as King of this forum section. I don't think you're any help at all.

You say it isn't possible to have a serious debate with me. You've been ducking it so far because you know I'll eat your lunch.

Now, if you want to debate, get busy. If the best you can do as usual is make personal criticisms and that only, then get out of the way because at least I've been posting my beliefs and reasons.

Your last post is worthless. Worthless.

[NeverSure]

Neversure's theory that the two Thai banks collapsed because the value of their underlying assets has fallen seems improbable, most commentators that I have read seem to think a more likely cause of the failure of these two largely unregulated banks might be found in corruption and mismanagement. But since I can't read Thai and the documents that Tep has provided I guess it's a case of wait and see what any investigation reveals.

ALWAYS when a bank goes under it's due to mismanagement. Often it's due to an overly exuberant view of a situation such as the value of collateral.

Corruption in Thailand is a given. If that's the only reason two banks failed, then they will all fail. Get real. There's also an economic reason they failed.

The quotes are there at least on the IBank. It lost its butt on Bangkok real estate developments. It's a quote.

We also had a link showing that on average Thai banks have 40% of their capital tied up in real estate loans. That's an atomic bomb to a bank. The assets are too illiquid. They are a ball and chain. If the loan defaults in a market with thousands of vacant units, the bank is screwed.

There are thousands of vacant units with underlying bank loans and you haven't seen the last bank fail.

40%!!!

My God.

[chiang mai]

And in one fell swoop NS ailienates the entire population of the economics forum and looses any support and good will he might possibly get (except for one secret backer via PM of course). Does the man want a serious debate, hmm, doubtful, he seems more inclined to ailinate and verbally abuse than to rationally discuss! Does he want to appoint himself as king of the financial forum, possibly, but that must surely be an irrational desire given the building animosity towards him, hmm a quandry, probably best to ignore him and perhaps he'll get bored and simply go away, most attention seekers do once the spotlight is extinguished.

[Naam]

it is always amusing when people resort to personal attacks when they can't present facts.

[farang000999]

NeverSure banks fail every day in every country, how can you say that any time a bank fails it means that any bank in that country will fail? Especially when someone is obviously knowledgeable about the situation is clearly letting you know that these banks have lower requirements from the biggest banks in Thailand?

[morrobay]

And in one fell swoop NS ailienates the entire population of the economics forum and looses any support and good will he might possibly get (except for one secret backer via PM of course). Does the man want a serious debate, hmm, doubtful, he seems more inclined to ailinate and verbally abuse than to rationally discuss! Does he want to appoint himself as king of the financial forum, possibly, but that must surely be an irrational desire given the building animosity towards him, hmm a quandry, probably best to ignore him and perhaps he'll get bored and simply go away, most attention seekers do once the spotlight is extinguished.

Speak for yourself about who NeverSure alienates and about ' building animosity toward him??', Jim. In my book NeverSure has the facts and knowledge that I havent seen around here.for awhile. . Is the above diatribe the best you can do in the rational discussion department. ?

Edited April 29, 2013 by morrobay

[morrobay]

it is always amusing when people resort to personal attacks when they can't present facts.

?? Who is resorting to personal attacks ?? NeverSure has the facts , you and CM have the attacks !

[NeverSure]

it is always amusing when people resort to personal attacks when they can't present facts.

This is personal attack #2, following closely:

"there's no serious debate possible with you as far as Thailand is concerned." - Naam.

I have spent hours, and written volumes, posting links and supporting my "facts" and this is the best you can do - personal attacks.

It really is the best you can do and you and I both know it. Pompous one liners have gotten you this far, but you're a fraud. You don't post research or, if you're so smart, teach people anything helpful. You resort to one-line drive-by shootings, and believe you'll be crowned King of the whatever.

I read your stuff and I know better.

[NeverSure]

NeverSure banks fail every day in every country, how can you say that any time a bank fails it means that any bank in that country will fail? Especially when someone is obviously knowledgeable about the situation is clearly letting you know that these banks have lower requirements from the biggest banks in Thailand?

I understand what you're saying, and I understand your reasoning. But four clear facts remain.

1. These banks, like all Thai banks have far too much of their asset base in one category - the very illiquid real estate category.

2. Real estate developments in Bangkok went bust.

3. There is alleged corruption, which is systemic in Thailand.

4. Thailand is officially an emerging economy, and therefore interest rates for borrowing, even by the government with bonds, are high. That expense adds up fast over the course of a loan if the collateral doesn't move quickly. Interest rates paid by banks are high, an expense they must cover, adding to the temptation to take risk.

As an investor, the corruption in Thailand alone would push me away. So would the new minimum wage potential impact on exports, the high baht which Thailand actually can't control (it is bid up by others, partly due to the unavoidable high interest rates) and the total lack of understanding and mismanagement of the economy evidenced in part by the car loan fiasco, the overheated real estate market and the rice scheme.

Thailand really has little control over its economy right now. The major powers are deliberately holding their currency values low which then make the baht expensive by comparison (the baht is a victim of the other countries' actions.) Thailand can't set its interest rates because it's an emerging economy and the market says what it must pay to attract deposits.

Please note something very significant: What solvent country do you know of that will seize and hold your cash in its banks? Tell me why and you'll know the truth about something.

[chiang mai]

And in one fell swoop NS ailienates the entire population of the economics forum and looses any support and good will he might possibly get (except for one secret backer via PM of course). Does the man want a serious debate, hmm, doubtful, he seems more inclined to ailinate and verbally abuse than to rationally discuss! Does he want to appoint himself as king of the financial forum, possibly, but that must surely be an irrational desire given the building animosity towards him, hmm a quandry, probably best to ignore him and perhaps he'll get bored and simply go away, most attention seekers do once the spotlight is extinguished.

Speak for yourself about who NeverSure alienates and about ' building animosity toward him??', Jim. In my book NeverSure has the facts and knowledge that I havent seen around here.for awhile. . Is the above diatribe the best you can do in the rational discussion department. ?

You haven't read this read (and the others), I can tell.

[NeverSure]

And in one fell swoop NS ailienates the entire population of the economics forum and looses any support and good will he might possibly get (except for one secret backer via PM of course). Does the man want a serious debate, hmm, doubtful, he seems more inclined to ailinate and verbally abuse than to rationally discuss! Does he want to appoint himself as king of the financial forum, possibly, but that must surely be an irrational desire given the building animosity towards him, hmm a quandry, probably best to ignore him and perhaps he'll get bored and simply go away, most attention seekers do once the spotlight is extinguished.

Speak for yourself about who NeverSure alienates and about ' building animosity toward him??', Jim. In my book NeverSure has the facts and knowledge that I havent seen around here.for awhile. . Is the above diatribe the best you can do in the rational discussion department. ?

You haven't read this read (and the others), I can tell.

The issue with you is that you don't have the knowledge or the background to be in this discussion as a debater. You should be in it as a learner.

But you keep imposing yourself as knowledgeable, and getting your azz kicked. You are about as stubborn as it gets in proving your lack of experience and education.

Instead of making it personal, and continually coming back with nonsense attacks, why don't you pay attention and see if there's something here that you hadn't thought of?

[yoshiwara]

so I'm unsubscribing. We're just going in irrelevant circles.

You geniuses can pat each other on your own backs.

I was just about to pat myself on the back when you came back.

So, back to the weird tunes....according to your debt-free nirvana all the Thai banks should dissolve themselves as without debt they would be redundant. Have you written a letter to Yingluck proposing that the PTP should advocate the paying off of all Thai debts both individual and corporate? BTW, since you are against debt I guess you don't have a credit card or insurance for that matter. What a world eh?

[Tep]

As an investor, the corruption in Thailand alone would push me away. So would the new minimum wage potential impact on exports, the high baht which Thailand actually can't control (it is bid up by others, partly due to the unavoidable high interest rates) and the total lack of understanding and mismanagement of the economy evidenced in part by the car loan fiasco, the overheated real estate market and the rice scheme.

Real Analysts provide not only a coherent argument but numbers, benchmarks and historical data. For the first time you talk about indicators apart from irrelevant data about two SFI's but you provide no data to demonstrate the relevance of these to your core argument. You still talk about loan portfolios of Thai banks without any knowledge of the composition of such portfolios, yet that information is available in real analyst reports. These analysts don't need to rely on using bold typeface to make their points either.

Thailand is a middle income country facing the same issues of other countries at that stage of development. Your ideologically driven statements against debt finance and inability to provide real numbers are not disguised by your insults towards those who take you to task on these matters.

Find real and relevant numbers and then a fact based debate can take place.

[yoshiwara]

As an investor, the corruption in Thailand alone would push me away. So would the new minimum wage potential impact on exports, the high baht which Thailand actually can't control (it is bid up by others, partly due to the unavoidable high interest rates) and the total lack of understanding and mismanagement of the economy evidenced in part by the car loan fiasco, the overheated real estate market and the rice scheme.

Real Analysts provide not only a coherent argument but numbers, benchmarks and historical data. For the first time you talk about indicators apart from irrelevant data about two SFI's but you provide no data to demonstrate the relevance of these to your core argument. You still talk about loan portfolios of Thai banks without any knowledge of the composition of such portfolios, yet that information is available in real analyst reports. These analysts don't need to rely on using bold typeface to make their points either.

Thailand is a middle income country facing the same issues of other countries at that stage of development. Your ideologically driven statements against debt finance and inability to provide real numbers are not disguised by your insults towards those who take you to task on these matters.

Find real and relevant numbers and then a fact based debate can take place.

The useful stuff is the update on what has been happening to the two banks in question. As I observed earlier I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand and is a warning sign of clouds up ahead. Worth further investigation. However it is all trashed by the surrounding voodoo theories of finance and a simplistic understanding of economics from someone unlikely (but hey! not impossible...) to have studied the subject. I think the Mr Angry blasts comes with the territory. Edited April 29, 2013 by yoshiwara

[chiang mai]

And in one fell swoop NS ailienates the entire population of the economics forum and looses any support and good will he might possibly get (except for one secret backer via PM of course). Does the man want a serious debate, hmm, doubtful, he seems more inclined to ailinate and verbally abuse than to rationally discuss! Does he want to appoint himself as king of the financial forum, possibly, but that must surely be an irrational desire given the building animosity towards him, hmm a quandry, probably best to ignore him and perhaps he'll get bored and simply go away, most attention seekers do once the spotlight is extinguished.

Speak for yourself about who NeverSure alienates and about ' building animosity toward him??', Jim. In my book NeverSure has the facts and knowledge that I havent seen around here.for awhile. . Is the above diatribe the best you can do in the rational discussion department. ?

You haven't read this read (and the others), I can tell.

The issue with you is that you don't have the knowledge or the background to be in this discussion as a debater. You should be in it as a learner.

But you keep imposing yourself as knowledgeable, and getting your azz kicked. You are about as stubborn as it gets in proving your lack of experience and education.

Instead of making it personal, and continually coming back with nonsense attacks, why don't you pay attention and see if there's something here that you hadn't thought of?

Am off to the market now to buy Learner plates and shall return shortly, I priomise to wear them at all times, grovel grovel burp!

But more seriously NS, you've given us all your theory and projections, what's your time frame? Or are you planning on leaving this open ended that this Thai financial armagedon will happen at some point?

Edited April 29, 2013 by chiang mai

[Phronesis]

Neversure's theory that the two Thai banks collapsed because the value of their underlying assets has fallen seems improbable, most commentators that I have read seem to think a more likely cause of the failure of these two largely unregulated banks might be found in corruption and mismanagement. But since I can't read Thai and the documents that Tep has provided I guess it's a case of wait and see what any investigation reveals.

ALWAYS when a bank goes under it's due to mismanagement. Often it's due to an overly exuberant view of a situation such as the value of collateral.

Corruption in Thailand is a given. If that's the only reason two banks failed, then they will all fail. Get real. There's also an economic reason they failed.

The quotes are there at least on the IBank. It lost its butt on Bangkok real estate developments. It's a quote.

We also had a link showing that on average Thai banks have 40% of their capital tied up in real estate loans. That's an atomic bomb to a bank. The assets are too illiquid. They are a ball and chain. If the loan defaults in a market with thousands of vacant units, the bank is screwed.

There are thousands of vacant units with underlying bank loans and you haven't seen the last bank fail.

40%!!!

My God.

Yep...my DEAR God....

I dated two girls here in Phuket last month. One was a mining engineer and the other a stock broker. Both were on a salary of 20KTHB per month. The stockbroker is also making good bonuses at the moment because the SET is going gangbusters.

Anyway, both of these girls had just purchased new cookie cutter spec homes in two different concrete and lightbulb estates here in Phuket. Different locations but exactly the same ugly cement cookie cutter estates.

Both girls had purchased their properties with zero deposit. The engineer had borrowed 2.7MTHB and the broker 2.55MTHB.

On separate evenings, while at dinner, I asked both of these girls:

1. Do you know what the potential rental return on the property is? Answer: What is a rental return?

2. Do you know what interest rate you are paying on the money you have borrowed? Answer: NO

Neversure is absolutely correct. When the property bubble bursts here there is going to be blood on the streets.

And sure 40% of bank equity tied up in residential property loans is very alarming.

BUT WHAT REMAINDER OF THEIR EQUITY IS TIED UP IN MOTOR VEHICLE LOANS.

This later point is the elephant in the room...

[NeverSure]

Neversure's theory that the two Thai banks collapsed because the value of their underlying assets has fallen seems improbable, most commentators that I have read seem to think a more likely cause of the failure of these two largely unregulated banks might be found in corruption and mismanagement. But since I can't read Thai and the documents that Tep has provided I guess it's a case of wait and see what any investigation reveals.

ALWAYS when a bank goes under it's due to mismanagement. Often it's due to an overly exuberant view of a situation such as the value of collateral.

Corruption in Thailand is a given. If that's the only reason two banks failed, then they will all fail. Get real. There's also an economic reason they failed.

The quotes are there at least on the IBank. It lost its butt on Bangkok real estate developments. It's a quote.

We also had a link showing that on average Thai banks have 40% of their capital tied up in real estate loans. That's an atomic bomb to a bank. The assets are too illiquid. They are a ball and chain. If the loan defaults in a market with thousands of vacant units, the bank is screwed.

There are thousands of vacant units with underlying bank loans and you haven't seen the last bank fail.

40%!!!

My God.

Yep...my DEAR God....

I dated two girls here in Phuket last month. One was a mining engineer and the other a stock broker. Both were on a salary of 20KTHB per month. The stockbroker is also making good bonuses at the moment because the SET is going gangbusters.

Anyway, both of these girls had just purchased new cookie cutter spec homes in two different concrete and lightbulb estates here in Phuket. Different locations but exactly the same ugly cement cookie cutter estates.

Both girls had purchased their properties with zero deposit. The engineer had borrowed 2.7MTHB and the broker 2.55MTHB.

On separate evenings, while at dinner, I asked both of these girls:

1. Do you know what the potential rental return on the property is? Answer: What is a rental return?

2. Do you know what interest rate you are paying on the money you have borrowed? Answer: NO

Neversure is absolutely correct. When the property bubble bursts here there is going to be blood on the streets.

And sure 40% of bank equity tied up in residential property loans is very alarming.

BUT WHAT REMAINDER OF THEIR EQUITY IS TIED UP IN MOTOR VEHICLE LOANS.

This later point is the elephant in the room...

You "dated" two girls in Poo Kay. How tactful you are. haha. Kidding.....

Nice post.

[NeverSure]

You haven't read this read (and the others), I can tell.

The issue with you is that you don't have the knowledge or the background to be in this discussion as a debater. You should be in it as a learner.

But you keep imposing yourself as knowledgeable, and getting your azz kicked. You are about as stubborn as it gets in proving your lack of experience and education.

Instead of making it personal, and continually coming back with nonsense attacks, why don't you pay attention and see if there's something here that you hadn't thought of?

Am off to the market now to buy Learner plates and shall return shortly, I priomise to wear them at all times, grovel grovel burp!

But more seriously NS, you've given us all your theory and projections, what's your time frame? Or are you planning on leaving this open ended that this Thai financial armagedon will happen at some point?

I've never met anyone who could truly time things without a lot of inside information we don't have.

Last month, during these "discussions," I said something like "let's meet in five years and discuss this again."

Now that I see the Thai government's actions and lack of actions, condo and bank failures in my face, and know that Thai banks have 40% of their assets tied up in high yield but illiquid real estate loans, I'd say a lot sooner. It could break at any time, or hold off a couple of years. As soon as one major domino falls, the rest will fall fast.

I hope expats are diversified. I hope they aren't betting the farm on Thailand, as in having interest bearing accounts plus big investments in the SET plus big investments in condos. I hope they have that money scattered around the world and diversified. The ones who are the most smug about how much they've made in this overheated Thai economy and who think the past few years is a guarantee of the next few years may find themselves back home on the streets.

The ones who are diversified will be able to bring their foreign investment money back at far, far better exchange rates, and they'll have (maybe) something to show for it.

[NeverSure]

@Chiang mai,

I should have added the old saying which got to be an old saying because it's true: Buy low and sell high.

Things are high in Thailand right now. The SET, real estate, the Baht...

So what's the rest of that equation?