Patong property market

[Will1]

The properties will increase again In the furture, But when Is the guestion?

You really think so ? I'm not so sure, and I speak as someone heavily invested in Phuket property. Much will depend on the attributes of a particular property. Have to say I am not looking forward to improving 2nd market properties prices in the near to long term.

Yes, I do belive so. Just like they have done before. Just like all over the world this has happened and In london they continue to rise and full, It could be 10 0r 20 years In Thailand and unfortunately most of you won't get to see this.

[iluvbeaches]

That's one thing I don't understand. Why do so many people put everything they have into one property then have to fire sale it once they run out of funds.

Real estate is pretty illiquid of an asset it should be obvious that if you buy property you should be able to afford holding on to it for 7-15 years until market conditions present themselves. If you hold on to pretty much any piece of real estate and either rent it out or straight up sell it after 10 years I think you are pretty much guaranteed a decent return. Well unless you overpaid or bought a crap place to begin with.

Just my opinion.

[LivinginKata]

That's one thing I don't understand. Why do so many people put everything they have into one property then have to fire sale it once they run out of funds.

Real estate is pretty illiquid of an asset it should be obvious that if you buy property you should be able to afford holding on to it for 7-15 years until market conditions present themselves. If you hold on to pretty much any piece of real estate and either rent it out or straight up sell it after 10 years I think you are pretty much guaranteed a decent return. Well unless you overpaid or bought a crap place to begin with.

Just my opinion.

Quite honestly I very much doubt that "many people put everything they have into one property then have to fire sale it once they run out of funds". I would think that most folks fully appreciate the risks of 'purchasing' here in Thailand. Many prefer to rent, a few prefer to 'buy' for their own quality of lifestyle. Anyone that gets into a fire sale situation really has screwed up big time.

[NamKangMan]

That's one thing I don't understand. Why do so many people put everything they have into one property then have to fire sale it once they run out of funds.

Real estate is pretty illiquid of an asset it should be obvious that if you buy property you should be able to afford holding on to it for 7-15 years until market conditions present themselves. If you hold on to pretty much any piece of real estate and either rent it out or straight up sell it after 10 years I think you are pretty much guaranteed a decent return. Well unless you overpaid or bought a crap place to begin with.

Just my opinion.

A diminishing 30 year land lease, and extremely poor construction methods, and you really think you have an appreciating asset on Phuket????

[iluvbeaches]

Nobody buys 30 year leases on houses in Phuket. Don't be naive. I know a guy who has three places in Patong and he owns them the company route since 1999-2000.

A 30 year lease is like prepaying a hotel room. Only for people who think things like time shares are worth something.

[NamKangMan]

Nobody buys 30 year leases on houses in Phuket. Don't be naive. I know a guy who has three places in Patong and he owns them the company route since 1999-2000.

A 30 year lease is like prepaying a hotel room. Only for people who think things like time shares are worth something.

Ahhh, the company loop hole. Tell me, what would your friend do if they shut that loop hole down? How worthless would his properties become, overnight?

What about all the condo's, sitting on Thai owned land, with 51% of the condo's in the block Thai owned, and they are usually the family of the owner/developer. You can be out voted at any time. What will become of these after 30 years? Will condo owners have to pay again to lease the same land for another 30 years?

So many other risks and unknowns in this 3rd World Country. Some land titles are not even genuine. The document was created after a corrupt payment was made to an official. It's a joke. Why bother buying?

Renting offers flexibility, security, affordability, choice and you keep your capital "liquid." It's a no brainer.

Edited June 25, 2013 by NamKangMan

[Colonel_Mustard]

Nobody buys 30 year leases on houses in Phuket. Don't be naive. I know a guy who has three places in Patong and he owns them the company route since 1999-2000.

A 30 year lease is like prepaying a hotel room. Only for people who think things like time shares are worth something.

Ahhh, the company loop hole. Tell me, what would your friend do if they shut that loop hole down? How worthless would his properties become, overnight?

What about all the condo's, sitting on Thai owned land. What will become of these after 30 years? Will condo owners have to pay again to lease the land for another 30 years?

So many other risks and unknowns in this 3rd World Country. Some land titles are not even genuine. The document was created after a corrupt payment was made to an official. It's a joke. Why bother buying?

Renting offers flexibility, security, affordability, choice and you keep you capital "liquid." It's a no brainer.

Each to their own I say.

I have a house and land in my wife's name. It allows me to be able to live in the place I want for as long as I choose and to be able to have everything the way I like it and not have to move at the whim of an owner. It works for me but I do understand the attraction on renting and if I didn't have kids, I probably would have gone that route.

Btw the company route doesn't have to be a loop hole and I believe it to be perfectly legal if the land is owned by a company that is genuinely trading rather than a company set up purely to hold the land. Problem is then what if the company starts to have financial problems? I assume it could be seized as an asset of that company. You'd need to get advice of a reliable lawyer first.

[iluvbeaches]

Don't get me wrong I agree with you. I don't own or will ever buy a house and land in Thailand. But I say it now and say it again some people have the infrastructure of doing this and making a lot of money doing it. There is no benefit to Thais or the Thai government getting in the way of this in places like Phuket because it makes everybody rich. As long as you pay your taxes and run it like a business as he does it is a legitimate business.

It's no more than the extra interest you get on high yield company bonds. You are compensated for the extra risk. Some people are not as risk averse as you or I. Same in any investment form.

[NamKangMan]

Nobody buys 30 year leases on houses in Phuket. Don't be naive. I know a guy who has three places in Patong and he owns them the company route since 1999-2000.

A 30 year lease is like prepaying a hotel room. Only for people who think things like time shares are worth something.

Ahhh, the company loop hole. Tell me, what would your friend do if they shut that loop hole down? How worthless would his properties become, overnight?

What about all the condo's, sitting on Thai owned land. What will become of these after 30 years? Will condo owners have to pay again to lease the land for another 30 years?

So many other risks and unknowns in this 3rd World Country. Some land titles are not even genuine. The document was created after a corrupt payment was made to an official. It's a joke. Why bother buying?

Renting offers flexibility, security, affordability, choice and you keep you capital "liquid." It's a no brainer.

Each to their own I say.

I have a house and land in my wife's name. It allows me to be able to live in the place I want for as long as I choose and to be able to have everything the way I like it and not have to move at the whim of an owner. It works for me but I do understand the attraction on renting and if I didn't have kids, I probably would have gone that route.

Btw the company route doesn't have to be a loop hole and I believe it to be perfectly legal if the land is owned by a company that is genuinely trading rather than a company set up purely to hold the land. Problem is then what if the company starts to have financial problems? I assume it could be seized as an asset of that company. You'd need to get advice of a reliable lawyer first.

"I have a house and land in my wife's name." - you lost me after that. :)

[NamKangMan]

Don't get me wrong I agree with you. I don't own or will ever buy a house and land in Thailand. But I say it now and say it again some people have the infrastructure of doing this and making a lot of money doing it. There is no benefit to Thais or the Thai government getting in the way of this in places like Phuket because it makes everybody rich. As long as you pay your taxes and run it like a business as he does it is a legitimate business.

It's no more than the extra interest you get on high yield company bonds. You are compensated for the extra risk. Some people are not as risk averse as you or I. Same in any investment form.

It really is as simple as why "buy" something that you can never truly "own" in your name, and are just renting for 30 years anyway? Why not just simply rent for 30 years and keep your capital.

Also, the construction methods here are so poor that most of these properties will need constant maintenance.

Many "owners" of properties here believe they are sitting on an appreciating asset, rather than a depreciating asset, and it's not until they try to sell that they see the reality.

Also, a big thing for me is, anyone can die at anytime. It would be a big problem leaving a Thai property to your surviving family back home (kids) - they probably will not ever see anything from it, upon your death.

Each to their own. There is a saying, "Don't buy anything in Thailand that you are not prepared to lose." I say, don't buy and then you don't have to worry about losing anything, except one months rent.

It makes for a better night's sleep. :)

[iluvbeaches]

Glad your sleeping well.

My point was that there are are many people without Thai wives who make a bunch of money and maybe don't care about leaving things for people back home. To believe otherwise is ignoring the truth. A lot of foreign owners running businesses with a house and non forged land titles are doing fine. But you need to have the infrastructure to make it work.

Anyways I'm done with this topic I just think people get caught up with nuances and Thailand has a lot of gray area that is ingrained in the culture. Might not be for me but to say the people who are successful doing it are idiots is just plain silly.

[IrishIvan]

Nobody buys 30 year leases on houses in Phuket. Don't be naive. I know a guy who has three places in Patong and he owns them the company route since 1999-2000.

A 30 year lease is like prepaying a hotel room. Only for people who think things like time shares are worth something.

Ahhh, the company loop hole. Tell me, what would your friend do if they shut that loop hole down? How worthless would his properties become, overnight?

What about all the condo's, sitting on Thai owned land. What will become of these after 30 years? Will condo owners have to pay again to lease the land for another 30 years?

So many other risks and unknowns in this 3rd World Country. Some land titles are not even genuine. The document was created after a corrupt payment was made to an official. It's a joke. Why bother buying?

Renting offers flexibility, security, affordability, choice and you keep you capital "liquid." It's a no brainer.

Each to their own I say.

I have a house and land in my wife's name. It allows me to be able to live in the place I want for as long as I choose and to be able to have everything the way I like it and not have to move at the whim of an owner. It works for me but I do understand the attraction on renting and if I didn't have kids, I probably would have gone that route.

Btw the company route doesn't have to be a loop hole and I believe it to be perfectly legal if the land is owned by a company that is genuinely trading rather than a company set up purely to hold the land. Problem is then what if the company starts to have financial problems? I assume it could be seized as an asset of that company. You'd need to get advice of a reliable lawyer first.

"I have a house and land in my wife's name." - you lost me after that.

It never ceases to amaze me why Farang men buy properties in a Thai womans name. I mean where did these people met? In a nightclub or bar most likely. Would you honestly buy a western woman a house that you met in a pub or nightclub 6 months to a year earlier? If the answer is no, then why do it in LOS?? A lot of older farangs that settle here have already done this before, but have lost the house to a farang woman in farang land... why not just buy someone you hate a house and get it all over with straight up, and then rent for gods sake?

Edited June 25, 2013 by IrishIvan

[Colonel_Mustard]

Nobody buys 30 year leases on houses in Phuket. Don't be naive. I know a guy who has three places in Patong and he owns them the company route since 1999-2000.

A 30 year lease is like prepaying a hotel room. Only for people who think things like time shares are worth something.

Ahhh, the company loop hole. Tell me, what would your friend do if they shut that loop hole down? How worthless would his properties become, overnight?

What about all the condo's, sitting on Thai owned land. What will become of these after 30 years? Will condo owners have to pay again to lease the land for another 30 years?

So many other risks and unknowns in this 3rd World Country. Some land titles are not even genuine. The document was created after a corrupt payment was made to an official. It's a joke. Why bother buying?

Renting offers flexibility, security, affordability, choice and you keep you capital "liquid." It's a no brainer.

Each to their own I say.

I have a house and land in my wife's name. It allows me to be able to live in the place I want for as long as I choose and to be able to have everything the way I like it and not have to move at the whim of an owner. It works for me but I do understand the attraction on renting and if I didn't have kids, I probably would have gone that route.

Btw the company route doesn't have to be a loop hole and I believe it to be perfectly legal if the land is owned by a company that is genuinely trading rather than a company set up purely to hold the land. Problem is then what if the company starts to have financial problems? I assume it could be seized as an asset of that company. You'd need to get advice of a reliable lawyer first.

"I have a house and land in my wife's name." - you lost me after that.

I'm very happy with my choices as I married a woman I trust completely. Married for 12 years and 3 kids and our house has served us well and if things did go wrong at any time, I could walk away from it with no regrets. However, I can imagine why people in certain kind of relationships would be worried by the prospect.

[hansgruber]

It never ceases to amaze me why Farang men buy properties in a Thai womans name. I mean where did these people met? In a nightclub or bar most likely. Would you honestly buy a western woman a house that you met in a pub or nightclub 6 months to a year earlier? If the answer is no, then why do it in LOS?? A lot of older farangs that settle here have already done this before, but have lost the house to a farang woman in farang land... why not just buy someone you hate a house and get it all over with straight up, and then rent for gods sake?

Because a young and pretty thing won't stick around with a old warty, leatherskinned farang because he is handsome.
Only thing to make them stay is to shower them with iPad, iPhone and then a motorcy followed by land.

Once the showering in gifts stop, its selloff time and they get the boot. Rinsed and repeated many times over the decades.

[KarenBravo]

I have a property in my wife's name.

She has given me a thirty year lease, so, I cannot be thrown out.

If we ever decide to sell, we cancel the lease and the sale goes through.

I'm with Col Mustard. Depends on the woman you're with. Been with mine over fifteen years, now.

[eezergood]

I have a property in my wife's name.

She has given me a thirty year lease, so, I cannot be thrown out.

If we ever decide to sell, we cancel the lease and the sale goes through.

I'm with Col Mustard. Depends on the woman you're with. Been with mine over fifteen years, now

+1

Edited June 26, 2013 by eezergood

[KarenBravo]

As an aside......a land paper with a registered lease notated on the back cannot be used as collateral against a loan.

From what I have seen, the downfall of most expats who have a house in the woman's name, but, no lease, is when the missus uses the land title as collateral for a loan that can never be repaid, thus, losing the house.

[eezergood]

As an aside......a land paper with a registered lease notated on the back cannot be used as collateral against a loan.

From what I have seen, the downfall of most expats who have a house in the woman's name, but, no lease, is when the missus uses the land title as collateral for a loan that can never be repaid, thus, losing the house.

Again, depends on the lady

[NamKangMan]

Glad your sleeping well.

My point was that there are are many people without Thai wives who make a bunch of money and maybe don't care about leaving things for people back home. To believe otherwise is ignoring the truth. A lot of foreign owners running businesses with a house and non forged land titles are doing fine. But you need to have the infrastructure to make it work.

Anyways I'm done with this topic I just think people get caught up with nuances and Thailand has a lot of gray area that is ingrained in the culture. Might not be for me but to say the people who are successful doing it are idiots is just plain silly.

So, all those vacant properties that are not selling are making a "bunch of money" are they. :) :)

[NamKangMan]

I have a property in my wife's name.

She has given me a thirty year lease, so, I cannot be thrown out.

If we ever decide to sell, we cancel the lease and the sale goes through.

I'm with Col Mustard. Depends on the woman you're with. Been with mine over fifteen years, now.

You've covered yourself with the 30 year lease. Some guys just put the house and land all in the girl's name - crazy.

[manly100]

Under Thai Law property purchased after marriage is split 50/50 at divorce. You need a pre nup to control child support and force the sale of all assets and equal division of funds, but all in all the law is the law. But get the title deed and lock it away where she can't get at it just to be on the safe side. You don't need a 30 year lease on a house you bought after marriage as that's like leasing your property to your self.

[stevenl]

Under Thai Law property purchased after marriage is split 50/50 at divorce. You need a pre nup to control child support and force the sale of all assets and equal division of funds, but all in all the law is the law. But get the title deed and lock it away where she can't get at it just to be on the safe side. You don't need a 30 year lease on a house you bought after marriage as that's like leasing your property to your self.

You might need the lease on the land though.

[steelepulse]

Under Thai Law property purchased after marriage is split 50/50 at divorce. You need a pre nup to control child support and force the sale of all assets and equal division of funds, but all in all the law is the law. But get the title deed and lock it away where she can't get at it just to be on the safe side. You don't need a 30 year lease on a house you bought after marriage as that's like leasing your property to your self.

Because of this, I don't see how this is much different than back home, except back home sometimes the wife gets it all while the husband still has to pay even after losing everything.

[xylophone]

Nobody buys 30 year leases on houses in Phuket. Don't be naive. I know a guy who has three places in Patong and he owns them the company route since 1999-2000.

A 30 year lease is like prepaying a hotel room. Only for people who think things like time shares are worth something.

Ahhh, the company loop hole. Tell me, what would your friend do if they shut that loop hole down? How worthless would his properties become, overnight?

What about all the condo's, sitting on Thai owned land. What will become of these after 30 years? Will condo owners have to pay again to lease the land for another 30 years?

So many other risks and unknowns in this 3rd World Country. Some land titles are not even genuine. The document was created after a corrupt payment was made to an official. It's a joke. Why bother buying?

Renting offers flexibility, security, affordability, choice and you keep you capital "liquid." It's a no brainer.

Each to their own I say.

I have a house and land in my wife's name. It allows me to be able to live in the place I want for as long as I choose and to be able to have everything the way I like it and not have to move at the whim of an owner. It works for me but I do understand the attraction on renting and if I didn't have kids, I probably would have gone that route.

Btw the company route doesn't have to be a loop hole and I believe it to be perfectly legal if the land is owned by a company that is genuinely trading rather than a company set up purely to hold the land. Problem is then what if the company starts to have financial problems? I assume it could be seized as an asset of that company. You'd need to get advice of a reliable lawyer first.

I think you may be wrong on your belief that, "Btw the company route doesn't have to be a loop hole and I believe it to be perfectly legal if the land is owned by a company that is genuinely trading rather than a company set up purely to hold the land. Problem is then what if the company starts to have financial problems".

Going the company route usually means that the farang is granted (buys) the controlling interest in the company from the "Thai shareholders" (usually friends of the lawyer) so thereby "owning" the company and by association, the land and house. This is not legal and can be stopped any time the Govt decides to investigate these set ups.

I'm pretty sure I'm right on this and any other comments would be welcome.

BTW, have bought and sold two houses in Patong, and made a profit, BUT three years ago, and would never do it again! Even similar townhouses to mine have been on the market for over 4 yrs, and have not sold despite the price dropping from 5.5million baht to 4.25m baht.

Renting is the only way to go in my opinion (and from my experience).

[LivinginKata]

Nobody buys 30 year leases on houses in Phuket. Don't be naive. I know a guy who has three places in Patong and he owns them the company route since 1999-2000.

A 30 year lease is like prepaying a hotel room. Only for people who think things like time shares are worth something.

Ahhh, the company loop hole. Tell me, what would your friend do if they shut that loop hole down? How worthless would his properties become, overnight?

What about all the condo's, sitting on Thai owned land. What will become of these after 30 years? Will condo owners have to pay again to lease the land for another 30 years?

So many other risks and unknowns in this 3rd World Country. Some land titles are not even genuine. The document was created after a corrupt payment was made to an official. It's a joke. Why bother buying?

Renting offers flexibility, security, affordability, choice and you keep you capital "liquid." It's a no brainer.

Each to their own I say.

I have a house and land in my wife's name. It allows me to be able to live in the place I want for as long as I choose and to be able to have everything the way I like it and not have to move at the whim of an owner. It works for me but I do understand the attraction on renting and if I didn't have kids, I probably would have gone that route.

Btw the company route doesn't have to be a loop hole and I believe it to be perfectly legal if the land is owned by a company that is genuinely trading rather than a company set up purely to hold the land. Problem is then what if the company starts to have financial problems? I assume it could be seized as an asset of that company. You'd need to get advice of a reliable lawyer first.

I think you may be wrong on your belief that, "Btw the company route doesn't have to be a loop hole and I believe it to be perfectly legal if the land is owned by a company that is genuinely trading rather than a company set up purely to hold the land. Problem is then what if the company starts to have financial problems".

Going the company route usually means that the farang is granted (buys) the controlling interest in the company from the "Thai shareholders" (usually friends of the lawyer) so thereby "owning" the company and by association, the land and house. This is not legal and can be stopped any time the Govt decides to investigate these set ups.

I'm pretty sure I'm right on this and any other comments would be welcome.

BTW, have bought and sold two houses in Patong, and made a profit, BUT three years ago, and would never do it again! Even similar townhouses to mine have been on the market for over 4 yrs, and have not sold despite the price dropping from 5.5million baht to 4.25m baht.

Renting is the only way to go in my opinion (and from my experience).

It's perfectly legal for a company to buy a property so long as that property is a business plan used as a legitimate trading unit. As far as I can see the 'problems' associated with companies were more about the high number of shareholders/directors from legal/accountant entities.

A foreigner (or group of foreigners) can only hold a minority share, 49% Max. Actually a company holding land can only have 40% foreign shareholding. At least that's what the Phuket land office told me 12 years ago, so I had to reduce my company shareholding from 49% to 40% when we registered land in the company name. However there only needs to be one executive director with signatory power, and that can be a foreigner = by default complete control. However the majority Thai shareholders can have a board meeting and vote for executive change.

At least that's my understanding of it all, and I may be wrong.

[IrishIvan]

As I understand it the company must be trading, it cant be a shell company^^^

[NamKangMan]

Nobody buys 30 year leases on houses in Phuket. Don't be naive. I know a guy who has three places in Patong and he owns them the company route since 1999-2000.

A 30 year lease is like prepaying a hotel room. Only for people who think things like time shares are worth something.

Ahhh, the company loop hole. Tell me, what would your friend do if they shut that loop hole down? How worthless would his properties become, overnight?

What about all the condo's, sitting on Thai owned land. What will become of these after 30 years? Will condo owners have to pay again to lease the land for another 30 years?

So many other risks and unknowns in this 3rd World Country. Some land titles are not even genuine. The document was created after a corrupt payment was made to an official. It's a joke. Why bother buying?

Renting offers flexibility, security, affordability, choice and you keep you capital "liquid." It's a no brainer.

Each to their own I say.

I have a house and land in my wife's name. It allows me to be able to live in the place I want for as long as I choose and to be able to have everything the way I like it and not have to move at the whim of an owner. It works for me but I do understand the attraction on renting and if I didn't have kids, I probably would have gone that route.

Btw the company route doesn't have to be a loop hole and I believe it to be perfectly legal if the land is owned by a company that is genuinely trading rather than a company set up purely to hold the land. Problem is then what if the company starts to have financial problems? I assume it could be seized as an asset of that company. You'd need to get advice of a reliable lawyer first.

I think you may be wrong on your belief that, "Btw the company route doesn't have to be a loop hole and I believe it to be perfectly legal if the land is owned by a company that is genuinely trading rather than a company set up purely to hold the land. Problem is then what if the company starts to have financial problems".

Going the company route usually means that the farang is granted (buys) the controlling interest in the company from the "Thai shareholders" (usually friends of the lawyer) so thereby "owning" the company and by association, the land and house. This is not legal and can be stopped any time the Govt decides to investigate these set ups.

I'm pretty sure I'm right on this and any other comments would be welcome.

BTW, have bought and sold two houses in Patong, and made a profit, BUT three years ago, and would never do it again! Even similar townhouses to mine have been on the market for over 4 yrs, and have not sold despite the price dropping from 5.5million baht to 4.25m baht.

Renting is the only way to go in my opinion (and from my experience).

"This is not legal and can be stopped any time the Govt decides to investigate these set ups." - that's my understanding, and I have stated that on this forum as well.

All I get in reply is, "Why would the Thai Government do that?"

I say to that, "Why wouldn't they" and "What's stopping them from doing so?"

There is no security in "owning" a property here.

[NamKangMan]

@ LIK

What about the Thai "nominees?" What's stopping them from "lining up" against you in a vote. You only hold 49%, they hold 51%.

It's hardly a wise business decision to pay 100% of the price, to own 49% of the product.

[stevenl]

As I understand it the company must be trading, it cant be a shell company^^^

Yes, if it is an active company it is legal, if not active/shell it is illegal.

[hansgruber]

You can always buy 40 million baht in government bonds, that allows you to purchase a residence up to one rai in your name. Needs interior ministry approval but it's simple with the bonds.