Jump to content

Getting better dividends than fixed deposit accounts in Thailand


Recommended Posts

Hello...

I am a rather novice investor, aged 33. I have money invested in mutual funds through Aberdeen that do not pay dividends and I also have money invested through Kasikorn Bank that pay 2.85%/annually. I would like to see annual dividends of around 5% on money invested in Thailand. Any ideas for a secure investment that would be suitable?

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UOB (formerly ING) has a fund called Big Cap Dividend LTF.

As the name suggests it invests in large cap Thai stocks paying divs. It s historic yields have been above 5%each year.

Although an LTF which you can tax relief on a non tax payer can also buy just like any Thai mutual fund. Just that like other non LTFs you get no tax relief.

Capital gains are tax free.

For divs you can elect to pay a flay 10% or be taxed at your Thai marginal rate of tax.

That leads into why you need divs as mutual funds paying them can cause you a small extra tax charge.

Instead you can sell a small number of units in a non div paying fund to generate 5%. Bit more admin but more tax efficient.

Most of my Thai mutual funds dont pay a div and I sell a few if I want "income". Thai Big Cap is an exception.

I believe the xd date to get the div from the ING fund is 31 May but you shiuld check on their website if interested.

BTW yield on the SET index is around 3%. This achieves higher by focusing on big caps with good divs

Cheers

Fletch:)

Sent from my GT-I9152 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited by fletchsmile
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any ideas for a secure investment that would be suitable?

They key word here is "secure". Once you move beyond bank deposits you take on more risk. And broadly speaking, the higher the return, the greater the risk to your capital. (The higher return is required to compensate investors for the greater risk they are taking on.)

If you invest in Thai equities as some have suggested, yes you can get a higher level of income than from a bank account, but if the stock market crashes you could lose 30%, 40% or more of your money.

If you invest in Thai bonds and interest rates rise, then the value of the bonds will fall in much the same way as equities (unless you hold to maturity).

People's attitudes to risk vary. But personally, if I would be concerned about losing 30% of this money I'd leave it in the bank. It's just not worth the risk for the fractionally better return.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say there is risk to your capital falling in value, but there's also the opportunity for it to increase in value. For cash you can only expect compounding interest. For equities the total return should take into consideration potential capital upside, and not just compare the div rate vs interest rate.

For Thai Big Cap Div fund the div rate has averaged over 5% per year, exceeding cash. In addition I have a 150% capital gain in 5 years since holding it. i.e additional div income, and even taking out over 5% per year my capital is worth 2.5 times what it was at the start.

THB 100k invested 5 years ago would be worth 250k now, plus you'd have had divs of more than 5k a year (25k).

Cash earning 3% a year would have returned 16k in compound interest, and the original cash worth 100k.

Attitude to risk is key. For me though the risks justify the rewards.

For someone age 33 they have time on their side to take equity risk to build superior returns.

Just a few additional points:

(1) Timescale is indeed important here. If there's a chance you'll need the money within a few years, then the stock market is not the way to go. The SET last year fell from 2400 to 1800 last year (25%). That would be a major blow if you were relying on the money. If you're investing for 20 or 30 years things might be better. After all, it took 25 years for the Dow Jones index to recover from the Great Crash of 1929*.

(2) It's important to have a significant cash reserve - perhaps six months' expenditure - for emergencies, so one isn't forced to distress sell one's investments. If one doesn't have good insurance policies, this reserve might need to be even larger.

(3) Some people would be sorely tempted to sell out after a 25% fall in fear the market will fall further. Such people would miss out on at least part of any subsequent recovery. This sort of irrational behaviour is very common; many investors lack the nerves of steel required to ride out such a crash.

(4) As for risk justifying rewards, that's true to an extent. Assuming that markets are efficient, investments will be priced relative to a risk free investment such that one is fully compensated for the risk. However, with mutual funds, whilst the price of the underlying investments might be fair, the investment manager is taking a cut of the returns without taking on any risk. The consequence is that the investor is taking on uncompensated risk. It's a dilemma: use collective investments, take on uncompensated risk, but be well diversified, versus directly investing, taking only a fair share of risk, but (probably) not being adequately diversified.

* Yes, I know the logic of this is flawed, but I think it makes a relevant point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@likewise

I put the money into the fixed deposit account last month before the drop. I saw that their offers dropped to 2% as well.

@fletchsmile

Thanks for your knowledgable response and helpfulness as always, it's very much appreciated. One of the reasons I thought it would be worthwhile to make investments that pay dividends is because it would be nice to retire early, maybe in 10-15 years. I do not specifically need money from dividends right now as I am generating it through my job but it would be nice to retire early and from what I have read online together with my income calculations, this would likely be possible if I were earning 5% a year. It seems you are saying that in general, Aberdeen and other mutual funds in Thailand that do not pay dividends give a better ROI than some of the other investments that do pay dividends. I suppose that at the time I retired (and did not have income anymore) I could shift much of the money I have in non-dividend paying investments into dividend paying investments. Would that be a sensible approach?

Another thing is that so far the Aberdeen mutual funds I have invested in (five total) have not gained much and some have even lost money. Of course I have only been at it for about a year and I understand mutual funds should be invested in for at least 10 years.

Thanks for mentioning the UOB Big Cap Dividend LTF and will look into putting some money into it.

Cheers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave

Yes like for like an identical Thai equity fund that pays a dividend will have a lower ROI than one that doesn't because of the tax.

The cost on say a high yield fund paying 6% is approx 0.6% a year being 10% of 6%. If you are taking income out anyway it doesn't matter as much. But if you leave it to compound, longer term 0.6% pa will mount up. So unless you really want the cash income now, better as you say to take one that doesn't pay a div, and switch if you really want to down the line when you actually need the income, and yes as you say a sensible approach

On your funds, some will be up, some down and some flat over 1 year. As AyG says time horizon is key. You're accepting short term volatility / ups and downs / risk to capital for longer term rewards. One positive you realise in hndsight is that it helps develop your experience and risk attitude, so does you good to know what it's like to lose or be down sometimes. 1 year isn't a good time horizon to measure long term intentions. At least 3 years, preferably 5 or 10 up, and see how things have gone then.

As long as what you are invested in still fits your long term objectives (seems yes from what you say) and as long as the investments haven't changed in nature (haven't done), then better to remain invested than try and time things, or sell out a long term investment for short term disappointment. Even the best investments I have made have under perfomed on some time frames.

BTW In terms of cash:

- Stan Chart have an online e-saver account paying 2.7%. All online no passbook/ATM but convenient to use if alongside another account. I park my kids school annual fees there as its instant access and low risk. I don't want to take risk with this money.

- TMB have some good rates. Often available under to Thais though. Their ME account pays 3% and in some conditions up to 3.25%, but only available to Thais. I've thought about parking some of the wife's cash there, as other accounts have dropped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember that switching to high interest rate currencies, there is always the risk of loosing on the exchange rate later on when you will need to convert it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say there is risk to your capital falling in value, but there's also the opportunity for it to increase in value. For cash you can only expect compounding interest. For equities the total return should take into consideration potential capital upside, and not just compare the div rate vs interest rate.

For Thai Big Cap Div fund the div rate has averaged over 5% per year, exceeding cash. In addition I have a 150% capital gain in 5 years since holding it. i.e additional div income, and even taking out over 5% per year my capital is worth 2.5 times what it was at the start.

THB 100k invested 5 years ago would be worth 250k now, plus you'd have had divs of more than 5k a year (25k).

Cash earning 3% a year would have returned 16k in compound interest, and the original cash worth 100k.

Attitude to risk is key. For me though the risks justify the rewards.

For someone age 33 they have time on their side to take equity risk to build superior returns.

Just a few additional points:

(1) Timescale is indeed important here. If there's a chance you'll need the money within a few years, then the stock market is not the way to go. The SET last year fell from 2400 to 1800 last year (25%). That would be a major blow if you were relying on the money. If you're investing for 20 or 30 years things might be better. After all, it took 25 years for the Dow Jones index to recover from the Great Crash of 1929*.

(2) It's important to have a significant cash reserve - perhaps six months' expenditure - for emergencies, so one isn't forced to distress sell one's investments. If one doesn't have good insurance policies, this reserve might need to be even larger.

(3) Some people would be sorely tempted to sell out after a 25% fall in fear the market will fall further. Such people would miss out on at least part of any subsequent recovery. This sort of irrational behaviour is very common; many investors lack the nerves of steel required to ride out such a crash.

(4) As for risk justifying rewards, that's true to an extent. Assuming that markets are efficient, investments will be priced relative to a risk free investment such that one is fully compensated for the risk. However, with mutual funds, whilst the price of the underlying investments might be fair, the investment manager is taking a cut of the returns without taking on any risk. The consequence is that the investor is taking on uncompensated risk. It's a dilemma: use collective investments, take on uncompensated risk, but be well diversified, versus directly investing, taking only a fair share of risk, but (probably) not being adequately diversified.

* Yes, I know the logic of this is flawed, but I think it makes a relevant point.

(1) I think there's an error somewhere in the SET numbers you re picking up.

SET started last year a tad under 1400 peaked around 1600 and ended the year down around 7% just under 1300

Your points on tolerance of risk and timeframe are still valid though. If someone is investing in the SET more reminders are:

-that the worst years in the 2000s were down over 40% in 2000 and 2008

- best year in 2003 more than doubled

-6 years down; 8 years up despite a very tough decade in global markets

- simple average of about 14% annual gain. Not compounding

- Total gain 270% 1 jan 2000 to 31 Dec 2013

-All above are just the index or capital side and exclude a div income of around 3% to 4% on top

(4) Not sure where you are going with your "uncompensated risk" theory. An investor in unit trusts or mutual funds is simply paying fees in exchange for among others:

-a reduced risk via diversification among others

-hopefully management expertise by someone who knows more than them with more experience and resources

-lower individual transaction fees on buy and sells due to economies of scale etc

The fund management house does actually take business risk. They make a management charge to the funds under management. If the fees generated by the funds dont exceed their own cost base they make a loss. The fund management house like any business has overheads as well as salaries and income. A single fund particularly if new and smaller will not always even cover the salary of a single fund manager. Hence one manager may manage several funds. If there are significant withdrawals or other reasons AUM decrease their revenue decreases and may not cover cost base. This is one reason why you see fund closures. Aberdeen Thai technology was a good example of this around 2000 ish. The fund became too small after losses on tech stocks and too narrow a market with not enough AUM to cover costs and be economically viable.

The fund management house business for mutual funds is largely a service business. They provide investment expertise and management in exchange for fees. These services cost money to run. While costs like trustee, transaction, custody, audit are directly passed to the fund, others like the salary of the manager running the fund is different. The fund management house pays it and recharges an amount to the fund. If fees generated by the fund dont cover their own salaries and overheads the fund management house make a loss. Hence for unit trusts their business is largely a service one subject to business risk like any other service where income generated may not always exceed costs.

The point you make on emergency money is an important one.

Cheers

Fletch :)

Sent from my GT-I9152 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited by fletchsmile
Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) I think there's an error somewhere in the SET numbers you re picking up.

SET started last year a tad under 1400 peaked around 1600 and ended the year down around 7% just under 1300

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. My figures were for the SET100 index, and I was looking at the fall from peak to trough.

On the same basis, the fall in the SET was also about 25%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) I think there's an error somewhere in the SET numbers you re picking up.

SET started last year a tad under 1400 peaked around 1600 and ended the year down around 7% just under 1300

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. My figures were for the SET100 index, and I was looking at the fall from peak to trough.

On the same basis, the fall in the SET was also about 25%.

Ok understand where you re coming from

SET100 started under 2100 peaked around 2400 and ended just over 1900.

and you picked the peaks and troughs of last year :)

Fair enough and highlights the importance of not putting someone s money in all at one go and risk of trying to time the marke especially in Thailand :)

Cheers

Fletch :)

Sent from my GT-I9152 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough and highlights the importance of not putting someone s money in all at one go and risk of trying to time the marke especially in Thailand smile.png

Actually, I take a contrary view. Since it's not possible to time the market, better to put it all in at once. Then, if the market goes up, you make a gain, rather than having some of your money lingering in a bank account being eroded by inflation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also cut out the middleman and his fees by opening a brokerage account and buying high yield stocks like AIS, DTAC, Supalai. Lumpini, Kiatnakin Phatra etc for yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also cut out the middleman and his fees by opening a brokerage account and buying high yield stocks like AIS, DTAC, Supalai. Lumpini, Kiatnakin Phatra etc for yourself.

Thanks... have you kept money in these stocks in the long term? Or more traded these stocks in the short term?

Link to post
Share on other sites

(4) Not sure where you are going with your "uncompensated risk" theory. An investor in unit trusts or mutual funds is simply paying fees in exchange for among others:

-a reduced risk via diversification among others

-hopefully management expertise by someone who knows more than them with more experience and resources

-lower individual transaction fees on buy and sells due to economies of scale etc

The fund management house does actually take business risk.

The fund management house business for mutual funds is largely a service business. They provide investment expertise and management in exchange for fees. These services cost money to run. While costs like trustee, transaction, custody, audit are directly passed to the fund, others like the salary of the manager running the fund is different. The fund management house pays it and recharges an amount to the fund. If fees generated by the fund dont cover their own salaries and overheads the fund management house make a loss. Hence for unit trusts their business is largely a service one subject to business risk like any other service where income generated may not always exceed costs.

Yes, fund managers take on business risk, but I don't care about that. That's their problem. I don't see why I should compensate them for it. What I care about is market risk.

Consider an hypothetical case: I could either buy an ETF for the S&P 500 paying a tiny percentage for the privilege. Or I could buy a mutual fund which mirrors the index, yet charges me 1.5% per annum for the privilege. In both cases the market risk would be the same, but my returns from the mutual fund would be less thanks to the annual management charge; I would not be being fully compensated for the market risk I'm taking if I bought the mutual fund. (The 1.5% annual management charge may seem high by USA standards, but is very common in the UK.)

Now what about the case of actively managed funds? It's widely reported that 80% of actively managed funds underperform their benchmark in any given year thanks to closet index tracking and the fund charges. And many of these funds are closet index trackers. In those cases the failure for reward to match risk taken is exacerbated.

There is an additional problem with fund managers. Many, when it comes close to bonus time, will see that their funds aren't meeting their targets, so will take on additional risk in the hope that one last big gamble will help them meet their targets so they can take home a nice, fat bonus. If the gamble doesn't pay off and he/she doesn't hit his/her targets, he/she doesn't get the bonus, but the investors will take a negative hit. The risk is very much one sided.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against active management, but active managers who can consistently outperform their benchmarks after costs are a rare breed.

(And as a footnote, I worked for several years with fund managers, first with an investment bank, and then with the investment arm of a well known UK insurance company. I was singularly unimpressed with the intellectual acuity of 90% of the fund managers I worked with. I certainly wouldn't ever have put my money with any of the 90%.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also cut out the middleman and his fees by opening a brokerage account and buying high yield stocks like AIS, DTAC, Supalai. Lumpini, Kiatnakin Phatra etc for yourself.

Thanks... have you kept money in these stocks in the long term? Or more traded these stocks in the short term?

I have held these stocks for a number of years. Wish I had sold all last March and bought back at much lower prices but market timing is difficult and I am still happy with dividends I am getting from them, even in this poor economic environment.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we're straying off DaveMac's original topic a bit. Not necessarily to disagree, but just in the interests of sharing thoughts I'd add the following in blue (as I'm not sure on multi quoting :) ), I think are relevant also

(4) Not sure where you are going with your "uncompensated risk" theory. An investor in unit trusts or mutual funds is simply paying fees in exchange for among others:
-a reduced risk via diversification among others
-hopefully management expertise by someone who knows more than them with more experience and resources
-lower individual transaction fees on buy and sells due to economies of scale etc

The fund management house does actually take business risk.

The fund management house business for mutual funds is largely a service business. They provide investment expertise and management in exchange for fees. These services cost money to run. While costs like trustee, transaction, custody, audit are directly passed to the fund, others like the salary of the manager running the fund is different. The fund management house pays it and recharges an amount to the fund. If fees generated by the fund dont cover their own salaries and overheads the fund management house make a loss. Hence for unit trusts their business is largely a service one subject to business risk like any other service where income generated may not always exceed costs.

Yes, fund managers take on business risk, but I don't care about that. That's their problem. I don't see why I should compensate them for it. What I care about is market risk.

A fund manager will also be managing liquidity risk, operational risk and depending on the investment credit risk. In addition to a generally stronger risk management framework than individuals. Not to mention cutting down your admin and economies of scale benefits.

Consider an hypothetical case: I could either buy an ETF for the S&P 500 paying a tiny percentage for the privilege. Or I could buy a mutual fund which mirrors the index, yet charges me 1.5% per annum for the privilege. In both cases the market risk would be the same, but my returns from the mutual fund would be less thanks to the annual management charge; I would not be being fully compensated for the market risk I'm taking if I bought the mutual fund. (The 1.5% annual management charge may seem high by USA standards, but is very common in the UK.)

I'd agree an ETF will usually outperform a passive index fund. Both are relatively new in Thailand though and there aren't the same choices as in US or UK. I rarely use tracker funds, only when I can't access an ETF.

The simpler way of looking at things is just that you are paying more for access to the same risk and reward profiles. Of the 3 variables: risk, return, and cost; the standard deviations/ risk are similar gross returns in % terms similar, it's just the cost that varies.

Now what about the case of actively managed funds? It's widely reported that 80% of actively managed funds underperform their benchmark in any given year thanks to closet index tracking and the fund charges. And many of these funds are closet index trackers. In those cases the failure for reward to match risk taken is exacerbated.

My answer to that one is "don't invest in the 80% of actively managed funds that under perform their benchmark"

There is an additional problem with fund managers. Many, when it comes close to bonus time, will see that their funds aren't meeting their targets, so will take on additional risk in the hope that one last big gamble will help them meet their targets so they can take home a nice, fat bonus. If the gamble doesn't pay off and he/she doesn't hit his/her targets, he/she doesn't get the bonus, but the investors will take a negative hit. The risk is very much one sided.

True. On the other hand there are opposite factors: a fund manager who has hit his bonus by beating his targets (often benchmark related) will be less inclined to take unnecessary risks, thereby more likely to lock in gains. Additionally a well governed fund with a mature fund manager will have appropriate controls in place to mitigate this. This goes back to not selecting "an average fund" or "80% of actively managed funds". Top quality established fund managers with a long solid history don't gamble it away for a single year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against active management, but active managers who can consistently outperform their benchmarks after costs are a rare breed.

This is the bit that I wish more people would study emerging markets and Thailand in particular for. People generally quote S&P 500 data, and make assumptions about "perfect markets" like when this topic was raised above. What gets overlooked though is Thailand and EMs are far from perfect markets, they are still developing, and not necessarily highly liquid with a broad range of quality companies either. Artificial elements such as government influence, political influence, corruption etc also play their part much more in EMs for good and bad. A decent fund manager understands these imperfections well. More so also than individuals.

I haven't found it difficult at all over the last 15 years to identify Thai fund management houses that have consistently (not every year but over longer periods) outperformed the market. I would note the gap is closing though and it is getting harder as the market improves. All the Thai equity funds I hold are there because over time they have outperformed the SET. I have similar success with most other EM funds.I hold.

On the other hand, It's much more difficult to find US funds that outperform the index, and I'm more inclined towards ETFs for that. Horses for courses...

(And as a footnote, I worked for several years with fund managers, first with an investment bank, and then with the investment arm of a well known UK insurance company. I was singularly unimpressed with the intellectual acuity of 90% of the fund managers I worked with. I certainly wouldn't ever have put my money with any of the 90%.)

Yes I've spent my fair time working for/with investment/merchant banks fund managers etc, and while I hear what you say my experience is a bit more positive.. Perhaps skewed by the insurance company. I wouldn't touch most insurance companies with a barge pole when it comes to managing investments. Fine for insurance not when mixed with investments. Similarly for retail banks in the UK with "fund management arms", these make up a large proportion of the almost guaranteed "losers" relative to the market. Some of Standard Life's funds spring to mind as exceptions with solid performance. Not many others though.

Anyway welcome the thoughts and discussion

Hope Dave doesn't mind the wandering a bit :)

Cheers

Fletch :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope Dave doesn't mind the wandering a bit smile.png

Cheers

Fletch smile.png

No, not at all, I'm learning a lot from this discussion so thanks to both of you!

My remaining questions on your posts I already sent to you via PM a couple days back, thanks again for any help.

Best,

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife (Thai) made a deposit today at Kasikornbank with the proceeds of the sale of her townhouse.

They have given her 3% for 6 months. The deposit is just over 2 million baht.

I can't match this up with any rates published on the K-Bank website, almost all of of them are below 2%.

So I am at a loss to explain why they have given her such a high rate.

Any ideas? Should I be concerned? Well, I am a bit concerned actually, as she can't explain it either but says its safe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Websites dont always have full info on a wide range of things. Particularly promotions.

I saw a few days back they had some special rates of 2.5% to 3.25%. Mainly for time deposits of 12m to 24m.

So your rate looks good and a bit high for a 6m but not unrealistic for KBank. As mentioned TMB have a ME acc available for Thais only paying up to 3.25% and that s not a TD.

I d be worried only to the extent your wife didnt know why and didnt ask so possibly doesnt know any other special terms and conditions or even what exactly she has.

Cheers Fletch :)

Sent from my GT-I9152 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited by fletchsmile
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a bit more digging. It appears she has not put the money into a fixed deposit as I thought she was going to, but rather an Enhanced Foreign Fixed Income Fund. It is a 7 day promotion.

I looked it up on the Kasikorn website and found that there are no guarantees with it whatsoever. They invest in China, Turkey and Brazil.

I think I would rather that she had just put it into a term deposit at 1.7%, then I wouldn't be worried about it for the next 6 months.

I'm not sure we can even keep a track of this fund over the 6 months.

Edited by alleykat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a bit more digging. It appears she has not put the money into a fixed deposit as I thought she was going to, but rather an Enhanced Foreign Fixed Income Fund. It is a 7 day promotion.

I looked it up on the Kasikorn website and found that there are no guarantees with it whatsoever. They invest in China, Turkey and Brazil.

I think I would rather that she had just put it into a term deposit at 1.7%, then I wouldn't be worried about it for the next 6 months.

I'm not sure we can even keep a track of this fund over the 6 months.

That's very different than cash, and if an Emerging Markets Bond fund your capital is by no means guaranteed. There's also a good chance that this is not a fixed term either and you are simply invested until you sell. Without knowing the fund fact and details it's hard to say, but you could be at risk for something like losses of 5% to 10% a year in a bad year - worse if you hit a crisis year. Of course there's also the chance of making that and more on the upside. How would you feel about losing 100k in say 6 months if things went against you or making 100k etc

Suggest you look up on either KBank's website or Kasikorn Asset Management Website to identify the fund you're invested in, look up the fund fact sheet and see exactly what you've got. I'm not that familiar with KBank's website. For KAM, I don't find it a great website to navigate around.

You can look up prices daily on their website, and the following links might help

http://www.kasikornasset.com/EN/MutualFund/NAV/Pages/NAV.aspx

for prices

http://www.kasikornasset.com/EN/MutualFund/ProductsFundFacts/Pages/Default.aspx

for funds

http://www.kasikornasset.com/en/pages/K-GEMBOND.aspx

for example of a fund details

http://www.kasikornasset.com/EN/FundDocuments/Fund%20Fact/K-GEMBOND_ENG.pdf

for example of a factsheet

Once you understand what you've got, then decide what you're going to do.

Personally if my wife had just sold her house and someone had got her to invest in an emerging markets fixed income fund with all the proceeds I'd be having a word with the bank and the person who sold it first thing. Particularly if she went in for a savings account.

Seriously consider going back tomorrow and saying you don't want to go ahead with this, and saying you don't think it's appropriate.

If / when going back, be prepared for the fact the person who sold it may not want to deal with it. If so ask to see their manager. If still not satisfied ask for the branch manager and where to make complaints.

Watch out for them playing on your wife and talking to her in Thai to politely ask her to help them, not cause problems, save face etc. Anything like my wife she will often not want to cause hassle. You may need to be assertive and insist.

Not saying you will have a problem. Just some tips on thinking things thru. Plus try and remain calm and not too confrontational.

BTW: You're wife should have discussed and filled quite a few forms to do this. KYC (Know Your Customer) forms, risk profiling forms, etc

Cheers

Fletch smile.png

Edited by fletchsmile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...