Is The Pattaya Property Market Going Tits Up?

[suiging]

Don't you all think this is thread has gone awry.

First the real driver of Pattaya is the phenomenal growth of industry here, both manufacturing and tourist. Please also note that the tourists that count aren't European at all but Asian and you wont see them in Soi 8 or the like or at Jomtien beach. They are out shopping up a storm and the local economy with it.

Pattaya is now a city of over 1million and growing fast in my estimation. I guess 5000 a year more or less of European residents hardly effects anything but the very top end, which is, in the scale of things, minute.

The long term prospects for the Eastern Seaboard are very, very good.

As for the company ownership brouhaha, we all know it will pass and besides there are ways around it if you choose such as a lease, a company with all Thai shareholders where the alien holds blank signed share transfers and so on.

Calm down and realise that the market has levelled off a bit, that there is a lot of ill-built crap on the market which will never move, good times or bad, but otherwise this is a very attractive market for a long term buyer of good property.

Excellent post. Long term prospects will be enhanced if, fingers crossed, this has the " Cowboys" on the run and driven out of the market. A return to growth through natural demand from industry/tourism, can not be a bad thing for us all. The fundamentals for Pattaya/Thailand have not changed, nor has the law. If panic sets in, it will be self generated. Those who wish to invest and live by the rules ( which have not changed and as we speak, there are new ways to " live '" within them ) will be allowed to do so. TIT. This is political, aimed at a perceived rape of natural assets by " devil farang speculators ", not Joe Bloggs from Chonburi, who employs local workers, spending his hard earned retirement pennies in the land of Smiles rather than Bradford. It will blow over, and if a few of the troglodytes who are overcharging for breeze block <deleted> are hounded out, so much the better.

[Gary A]

How do you know you can't own a house in Thailand? Many, including lawyers told me I could. It so happens that I don't trust and happen to dislike lawyers. I also don't believe the bar room lawyers. I wanted to know first hand by researching it myself. I THINK it paid off for me. It works better here to do your own homework.

Rimmer, I have spent a considerable amount of time researching a way to own a house. I'm sorry now that I deleted all the information. It is still available if you spend some time looking for it. To sum it up the law specifically states that forming a company for the purpose of a farang owning a house is NOT legal. There is one legal way but it limits you to no more than one rai and it involved a very large investment. I too have bought land here in the Kingdom and would have liked to have been protected BUT I was forced to forget it and it is in my wife's name. I figured if worse comes to worse it would be gone anyways so why pay for a bogus company, pay an accountant and file tax returns. My condo and car are in my name and were both bought before we married.

What is to resarch if Farangs cannot own houses in Thailand

[thailand_property_search]

Technically. If you set up a business and it buys a house. You do not own it, the company does. You can rent it to yourself for a pittance but then the company will be liable for tax on that income (at the paperwork level anyway).

Also the company is required to submit tax returns and various documentation by a qualified accountant (along with a yearly audit) which in most cases makes it more expensive than renting normally.

Where a lot of people get caught out is that in signing documentation (as the director and signatory) you are in considered to be "working" and as you are highly visible to the authorities through the paper chain, if you don't have a work permit...your buggered.

The most ecomincal way (I think) is for farang not to buy a house at all, but get yer missus to obtain a motgage and pay the motgage while your with her (it's cheaper than renting). If things go tits up with her (or you find yourself in difficulties) you can just leave and let the next farang take over the rent. No fuss. No mess, and it's likely you will still be on good terms with her after.

[Lazy Sod]

Problem with the mortgage i(n the wife's name) method is that you will be the guarantor. If the marriage fails and you stop paying the mortgage the bank will come after you as the guarantor. I looked into this myself and was told it could get nasty, you not only lose what you've already paid for the house but you have to keep paying the mortgage payments whilst the ex and her family live in "your" house.

You would think that the bank would simply take back the house if you stopped paying the mortgage, and so all you would lose were the payments to date, but I've been told no, the bank will go after the guarantor for a long time before they will consider repossessing the house. If anybody has personal experience of being a guarantor of a problem loan in Thailand then I'd like to hear what happened, as this is only what I was told by the bank and lawyer.

[thailand_property_search]

Why does a mortgage need a guarantor? The whole point is a mortgage is it's a secured loan with the house as collateral. And why is a lawyer involved? I personally know of 2 people that went this route, and they were not required to guarantee the payments.

If (and a big if) a guarantor is required, then let mumy and daddy sign on the dotted line. The whole purpose of this method is not to involve the farang at all. Of course. If the bank know there is a farang, they want you involved since they know you have money and are less likely to default. So they will come up with excuses so that they can get your money.

Perhaps input from one of the professionals on mortgages is in order.

[Pattaya_Fox]

Why does a mortgage need a guarantor? The whole point is a mortgage is it's a secured loan with the house as collateral. And why is a lawyer involved? I personally know of 2 people that went this route, and they were not required to guarantee the payments.

If (and a big if) a guarantor is required, then let mumy and daddy sign on the dotted line. The whole purpose of this method is not to involve the farang at all. Of course. If the bank know there is a farang, they want you involved since they know you have money and are less likely to default. So they will come up with excuses so that they can get your money.

Perhaps input from one of the professionals on mortgages is in order.

Surely the mortgagor should not provide a mortgage unless they feel that the mortgagee is able to repay the mortgage..... ....save that is unless the amount of equity in the property is large enough to allay any fears of a loss should such repossession be the final option.

They do not lend money with a view to having to repossess the property, they lend money in order to make profit on the capital advanced.

Should the parents not have enough assets or income to support the mortgage or if there were no parents then the farang would have to be the obvious choice as guarantor if one were required.

A situation which could be extremely costly for the guarantor should a separation with the partner happen, especially if the equity in the property was very small which could be the case if the purchase price and valuation of the property was too high in the first place or if property prices fell.

[Phil Conners]

AFAIK very few girls married to farangs (i.e. not hi-so hi-income Thais) are able to get more than 50% of the house value morgage.

[Phil Conners]

(duplicate post)

Edited June 10, 2006 by madsere