'Premier' banking accounts in Thailand

[Savilesghost]

14 hours ago, Oorinara said:

Does anyone know the minimum relationship balance to become Citigold in Thailand nowadays?

It used to be THB 2 million in around 2013/14 but may have been increased to 3 million thereafter.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I know Singapore is USD 200k minimum balance

Why dont you mail Citi in  BKK and ask ? 

[Oorinara]

I know Singapore is USD 200k minimum balance

Why dont you mail Citi in  BKK and ask ? 

Yes, thanks. I asked and was told that it's THB 3 million nowadays.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Oorinara]

Citigold minimum relationship balance shall be increased from THB 3 million to THB 5 million effective Apr 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[sas_cars]

Citigold minimum relationship balance shall be increased from THB 3 million to THB 5 million effective Apr 2017.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Lol. And you hardly get any real benefits being a premier.

[fletchsmile]

On 1/19/2017 at 6:24 PM, Oorinara said:

Yes, thanks. I asked and was told that it's THB 3 million nowadays.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

THB 3 million will be from Thailand to get Premier/Premium

 

SGD 200k will be from Singapore

 

StanChart has the same thresholds for these 2 countries. SGD 200k is approx THB 5mn, but it's the qualification thresholds in the country you're banking in where you hold your accounts that count.

[Oorinara]

Citigold in HK requires HKD 1.5 million, approximately 6.8 million. Unlike HSBC, premier status in one jurisdiction doesn't qualify for the same in another jurisdiction .


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[sas_cars]

Citigold in HK requires HKD 1.5 million, approximately 6.8 million. Unlike HSBC, premier status in one jurisdiction doesn't qualify for the same in another jurisdiction .


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Being an hsbc premier member for last few years, i don't really see the perks worthwhile. And assuming it's the better premier account comparing with citigold. Better keep your money and do something better.

[fletchsmile]

20 hours ago, sas_cars said:

 

Being an hsbc premier member for last few years, i don't really see the perks worthwhile. And assuming it's the better premier account comparing with citigold. Better keep your money and do something better.

 

The transaction benefits like bit better rates discounts etc are hardly worth it as you say. The benefits though are on the relationship side

 

For me the biggest benefit is getting a dedicated relationship manager (RM) who is a go to person, and who has got to know me and our family. We have a Thai RM who is great and been very useful over the years, including when we're outside Thailand. My Singapore RM is also very good, although we haven't been with her as long, and again given I'm based in Thailand not Singapore it's very useful to have an RM.

 

I also like getting invited to financial events now and again, and being made aware of new products that may be of interest. These are more nice to haves though and not worth meeting the thresholds juts for these.

 

Not quite sure what you mean about "keep your money and do something better". The SGD 200k and THB 3m are just the amounts of assets you hold via the bank. Doesn't need to be cash, it can be mutual funds, ETFs, equity stocks etc. Banks will also often count liabilities as well, e.g a mortgage, although the thresholds for liabilities can differ.

 

Cheers

Fletch :)

[trajan]

For K Bank Wisdom account, I understand that I need to have deposits and/or investments of Baht10 million or more.

 

Does anyone know which funds/debentures I can buy which would be eligible to meet the minimum?

 

I asked at the bank and they seem to have said 25 funds are eligible, but I cant seem to find details on those funds.

 

Thanks!

[ExpatJ]

On 2/23/2017 at 10:35 AM, fletchsmile said:

The transaction benefits like bit better rates discounts etc are hardly worth it as you say. The benefits though are on the relationship side

 

For me the biggest benefit is getting a dedicated relationship manager (RM) who is a go to person, and who has got to know me and our family. We have a Thai RM who is great and been very useful over the years, including when we're outside Thailand. My Singapore RM is also very good, although we haven't been with her as long, and again given I'm based in Thailand not Singapore it's very useful to have an RM.

 

I also like getting invited to financial events now and again, and being made aware of new products that may be of interest. These are more nice to haves though and not worth meeting the thresholds juts for these.

 

Not quite sure what you mean about "keep your money and do something better". The SGD 200k and THB 3m are just the amounts of assets you hold via the bank. Doesn't need to be cash, it can be mutual funds, ETFs, equity stocks etc. Banks will also often count liabilities as well, e.g a mortgage, although the thresholds for liabilities can differ.

 

Cheers

Fletch :)

 

 

I have also been premier HSBC for many years- for me the big benefit is being able to open an account anywhere, with residency in that country. I have indo, singapore and thai (before they closed). But i have to say i have not been impressed with the relationship managers , especially the Singapore based ones . Just last month my RM tried to get me to invest in one of their funds that had 5% annual fees and 1.5% 'entry ' fee- unbelievable- hand over cash and immediately lose 6.5% of it (no wonder HSBC posted a 3 billion USD profit loss last quarter) . 

[Pib]

Sounds like a relationship manager is really just to stroke the customer's ego while steering the customer towards the bank's various products?

[fletchsmile]

37 minutes ago, ExpatJ said:

 

 

I have also been premier HSBC for many years- for me the big benefit is being able to open an account anywhere, with residency in that country. I have indo, singapore and thai (before they closed). But i have to say i have not been impressed with the relationship managers , especially the Singapore based ones . Just last month my RM tried to get me to invest in one of their funds that had 5% annual fees and 1.5% 'entry ' fee- unbelievable- hand over cash and immediately lose 6.5% of it (no wonder HSBC posted a 3 billion USD profit loss last quarter) . 

Yes HSBC have always been big on charging fees for their services. Think you may mean 5% entry and 1.5 annual rather than the other way round as written though :)

 

These are the old-fashioned fees of decades back, that as you highlight no-one who knows what they are doing would pay. Always worth asking your RM for discounts though. Singapore still has a lot of these old-fashioned charging structures around. 

 

The HSBC choice on unit trusts and mutuals often isn't that great either. Often they push their sister company HSBC asset management funds rather than offer best of breed. 

 

Personally for Singapore:

- On unit trusts I always ask my RM for a discount, and I won't buy if the initial charge is more than 1%

- Investment trusts offer competitive alternatives for GBP denominated active managed funds, with no initial charge and are traded like normal shares. So only 0.2% brokerage entry for me. no RM involvement at all here for me. 

These are my first two choices, then:

- ETFs offer a last resort at a low cost, for the average investor who can't identify anything better/ doesn't know what they are doing/ can't be bothered and is happy with slightly below index performance after charges. I've a couple I bought for low cost in sectors where there was no clear active fund manager who consistently outperforms or adds value. Usually my ETFs underperform (after charges/ total return) versus if I find a comparable active managed fund I like in the sector. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by fletchsmile

[fletchsmile]

18 minutes ago, Pib said:

Sounds like a relationship manager is really just to stroke the customer's ego while steering the customer towards the bank's various products?

I guess you've never had a good RM then 

 

It's worth knowing the difference between RMs that are pushed towards recommending their own company affiliated products (at the extreme tied agents) and those that can recommend from a wide range of funds/ products. Unlike HSBC for example, Stan Chart does not run any of its own mutual funds/ unit trusts.

 

Also if you know your stuff. Then the RM will know that you know your stuff. That puts a whole different perspective on what a (good) RM will suggest to you, and how your relationship functions. 

 

Another point to add is what you choose to use your RM for. I focus mainly on using them for execution/ support, rather than advice on which products to buy. Although they do occasionally suggest new products that may be of interest, and I keep an open mind.

Edited April 6, 2017 by fletchsmile

[ExpatJ]

I meant to say open accounts in countries where i am non-resident..that;'s a   great service by HSBC. 

 

On ETFs, they consistently outperform manage funds- which is why we are currently seeing  outflows by investors (average and institutional) from managed funds into ETFs - there is just no way managed funds can attract customers any more with their fees (that are higher than ETFs) and with their lower returns than the non-managed ETFs index funds. 

 

If you  are paying too much on  fees (1% annual fee +) on your ETFs you may have been ill advised (i aim to pay 0.2 % or less in annual ETF fees with no entry fees /exit fees)

Edited April 6, 2017 by ExpatJ
correction

[ExpatJ]

12 minutes ago, ExpatJ said:

 

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by ExpatJ

[fletchsmile]

23 minutes ago, ExpatJ said:

I meant to say open accounts in countries where i am non-resident..that;'s a   great service by HSBC. 

 

On ETFs, they consistently outperform manage funds- which is why we are currently seeing  outflows by investors (average and institutional) from managed funds into ETFs - there is just no way managed funds can attract customers any more with their fees (that are higher than ETFs) and with their lower returns than the non-managed ETFs index funds. 

 

If you are  think you are paying too much fees on your ETFs you may have been ill advised (i aim to pay 0.2 % or less in annual ETF fees with no entry fees /exit fees)

We've been over that many times. LOL

 

ETFs are often lowest cost. 

 

For the average investor: most/ average index funds will outperform most/ average active managed funds after charges.

 

The optimal answer is don't be an average investor and don't buy most / average managed funds. Do your research, know your stuff and pick and choose. But if you don't and you don't know what you are doing, you are better off with an ETF

 

I can assure you that the best run managed/active funds still attract customers. Their total returns (after slightly higher) charges exceed ETFs and index funds. 

 

Each to their own. Average performing ETFs suit me only when I can't identify anything better. I aim for above average performance.

 

Like the football match. Chelsea vs Leyton Orient. The average person who knows nothing says statistically there are 2 teams, so both have an equal chance of winning. Given that they can also draw, the average person who knows nothing wouldn't want to bet on Chelsea winning even at odds of 1:1.

 

Anyone knowing anything about football would of course choose Chelsea to win at odds of 1:1 . There are parallels in investing LOL

 

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by fletchsmile

[ExpatJ]

 

 

Warren Buffet had a bet with a leading hedge fund manager - the hedge fund manager claimed as you do that managed funds do best if you know what you are doing. Buffet picked 5 ETFs, the hedge guy 5 managed funds- buffet won easily over a 10 yr horizon.  A nice , true story but obviously a snap shot (though if a hedge fund manager cant pick winning managed funds than a bit tricky for the likes of you and me!)

 

But the fact is that expert financial advisors are now using ETfs over managed funds- not retail investors, but expert financial advisors whose full time job is to analyse managed/ETF funds and pick the winners- 80% + now use ETfs instead of managed funds. can google the cnbc article more-investors-are-making-the-switch-to-passively-managed-etfs

 

But that still leaves a small minority of experts who still believe there is something in managed funds, and you also do, so yes  there is something still worth pushing in managed funds and certainly if people are keen no harm in trying (its your money!)..

 

 

 

 

[fletchsmile]

3 hours ago, ExpatJ said:

 

 

Warren Buffet had a bet with a leading hedge fund manager - the hedge fund manager claimed as you do that managed funds do best if you know what you are doing. Buffet picked 5 ETFs, the hedge guy 5 managed funds- buffet won easily over a 10 yr horizon.  A nice , true story but obviously a snap shot (though if a hedge fund manager cant pick winning managed funds than a bit tricky for the likes of you and me!)

 

But the fact is that expert financial advisors are now using ETfs over managed funds- not retail investors, but expert financial advisors whose full time job is to analyse managed/ETF funds and pick the winners- 80% + now use ETfs instead of managed funds. can google the cnbc article more-investors-are-making-the-switch-to-passively-managed-etfs

 

But that still leaves a small minority of experts who still believe there is something in managed funds, and you also do, so yes  there is something still worth pushing in managed funds and certainly if people are keen no harm in trying (its your money!)..

 

 

 

 

... and of course Warren Buffet made all his money in tracker funds/ ETFs.

 

... worth noting that hedge fund managers don't usually put all their money in other people's active funds. Think about it. Nor does Buffet. They both choose their own investments not other people's funds. It was probably one of those bets for fun.

 

My largest Thai holding UOB Good Corporate Governance fund. Held 10 years+. Show me the ETF/Thai index tracker fund that beats it. LOL

 

My largest UK equity income holding fund. Neil Woodford. Held 25 years+. Formerly Perpetual Income now Woodford Income. Show me the ETF/index fund that beats him. LOL

 

Indeed obviously tricky for the likes of you. Please don't assume we're in the same boat though :)

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by fletchsmile

[ExpatJ]

2 hours ago, fletchsmile said:

... and of course Warren Buffet made all his money in tracker funds/ ETFs.

 

... worth noting that hedge fund managers don't usually put all their money in other people's active funds. Think about it. Nor does Buffet. They both choose their own investments not other people's funds. It was probably one of those bets for fun.

 

My largest Thai holding UOB Good Corporate Governance fund. Held 10 years+. Show me the ETF/Thai index tracker fund that beats it. LOL

 

My largest UK equity income holding fund. Neil Woodford. Held 25 years+. Formerly Perpetual Income now Woodford Income. Show me the ETF/index fund that beats him. LOL

 

Indeed obviously tricky for the likes of you. Please don't assume we're in the same boat though :)

 

 

 

 

I wasn't attacking you personally, just pointing out that professional investors are shifting their funds into ETfs away from managed funds.

 

Thats nice you picked out a couple of funds that performed well the last 10 years- i could pick out a dozen ETFs that did better over the same time period, but not much point.

 

But again, no hard feelings (sincerely) , but i think it is fair to  you are in a minority though at this point-just in the last few months alone there was @300 billion USD taken from managed funds and put into ETFs. 

 

 

[fletchsmile]

2 hours ago, ExpatJ said:

 

I wasn't attacking you personally, just pointing out that professional investors are shifting their funds into ETfs away from managed funds.

 

Thats nice you picked out a couple of funds that performed well the last 10 years- i could pick out a dozen ETFs that did better over the same time period, but not much point.

 

But again, no hard feelings (sincerely) , but i think it is fair to  you are in a minority though at this point-just in the last few months alone there was @300 billion USD taken from managed funds and put into ETFs. 

 

 

No you couldn't find a Thai equity index/ETF that beats Thai Good Corporate Governance over 10 years. No you couldn't find an equity index ETF in the same sector that beats Woodford over 25 years either. Simply put they have easily and consistently outperformed their indices and most of their peers over those periods. But be my guest to try. They are also not just picked out with hindsight. Even on Thai Visa you could see my posts going back years on these 2 funds. I've demonstrated before the millions of baht worse off I'd be with an index tracker compared to these and others.

 

You're right that there is a trend towards more ETFs and passive management, and they are in favour for now. It's an interesting trend that you point out. Many reasons for that, including average performance, fees/costs etc. Marketing also plays a big part.

 

Other less obvious reasons include the GFC and the new (ab)normal with distortions caused by central banks. The rising tides have indeed raised all boats, making it more difficult in the last 10 years for active stock pickers to differentiate. It will be interesting to see whether that reverts back towards active funds more once things "normalise". My own view is that it will swing back more towards active fund managers in certain areas, but your average active fund will still underperform your average ETF/index tracker. 

 

The other thing that worries me with the trend is that index funds become self-fulfilling as they become more popular. At some point I see a problem with that. Shares of companies get bought that are not good value and over time that will show.

 

Let's not also forget that passive fund managers will say their funds are best, active will say theirs are best. Share tipster/ subscriptions will tell you theirs make sense. RMs from banks will say their bank's fund are best.

 

The key for me is knowing your stuff. US for example my largest holding is a passive index tracker for most large caps - I can't find a good active fund worth paying for. On US small caps I prefer active managed, on Thai funds active managed and UK equity income active managed.

 

All have their place, but just take with a pinch of salt, that no one solution is best in all cases, and the bias of those putting their story. Don't be blinded by their marketing :)

 

A decent RM from Priority Banking can help sometimes with this stuff. Sadly in my view (and again on average) if you're mass retail your chances of a good RM are lower than if you are Priority Banking, which in turn are lower than if you are Private banking.

But to be honest I prefer relying on my own 30+ years of investing and they just make suggestions anyway :)

 

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by fletchsmile