A Potential Solution To The Farang Land Ownership Conundrum

[thaigene2]

I posted this as a response on another thread. Though it might be interesting to hear other views and expert opinions in the main property forum..

I get the impression that the foreign buyers are pretty worried/confused and holding back on decisions to buy a place here following the recent news that you CANNOT own land (to put a house on)..and that's bad news for Thailand, tourism, the future of medical retirements etc..

If the Thais have such a bee in their bonnet over the land issue, why don't they just revise the leasing laws and allow foreigners to buy a house and land from a seller, then register the property with a 999 year lease at the Land Registry (so the land is listed as actually owned by the Crown/State) but there is an iron-clad gaurantee that the foreigner owns the buildings on the site and has unrestricted rights to its use and improve the property like any other owner could.

No need for Thai GFs or wives to own the properties, no need to worry about in-laws trying to get her to dump you so the Clampets can all move in, nor for worrying about short 30 year leases and declining values, etc..You and your kids and their kids and their kids will have full rights to the land and buildings. If they (or you) ever want to sell the remainder of the lease to a foreigner - or if a Thai buyer comes along, the Thai buyer can then reclaim the Freehold from the Land Registry for a 30 Baht stamp duty. If it's a foreign buyer little changes..he just assumes the lease with 912 years or whatever is left and goes about his enjoyment of the place.

Simple.

My consultancy fee to the Thai Govt for sorting that little mess out is one 999 year lease in Hua Hin - beach front of course. Otherwise one of their lovely hi-so Thai-Chin daughters will do..(above 18 please) - without a dowry of course. They can PM me with the details.

Edited September 2, 2006 by thaigene2

[Dragonman]

Even the suggestion of 99 year lease (with the State) has been looked upon with scorn by the Senate, who only 7 years ago refused the Ministry of Interior suggestion for 50 year lease.

I'm afraid that despite not really being suitable for me, or other farangs, I still support restriction on "outside" ownership, as I have seen the consequences in other Countries where I have been involved in Property Law.

[thaigene2]

Even the suggestion of 99 year lease (with the State) has been looked upon with scorn by the Senate, who only 7 years ago refused the Ministry of Interior suggestion for 50 year lease.

I'm afraid that despite not really being suitable for me, or other farangs, I still support restriction on "outside" ownership, as I have seen the consequences in other Countries where I have been involved in Property Law.

Hi Dragonman

I must say I respect your posts in the 'higher' category and will be interested to see the responses (if any) of your competitors.

What do you mean 'outside' ownserhip? And more to the point what exactly do you support in Thai reforms? I used to think the Cyprus law on foreign ownsership was good - something like you had to actually live in the property at least 6 months per year and couldn't sub-let. This was to assure rich Brits and Germans weren't buying up land to rent out. This appears fair to me.

[trajan]

Even the suggestion of 99 year lease (with the State) has been looked upon with scorn by the Senate, who only 7 years ago refused the Ministry of Interior suggestion for 50 year lease.

correct... a 999 yr lease idea probably wouldn't even be considered...a 99 yr lease idea was roundly rejected....but there are some rare instances of 50 year registered leases (under special exception)...e.g. the Sky Villas/The Ascott Bangkok at South Sathorn...

[Charma]

Even the suggestion of 99 year lease (with the State) has been looked upon with scorn by the Senate, who only 7 years ago refused the Ministry of Interior suggestion for 50 year lease.

I'm afraid that despite not really being suitable for me, or other farangs, I still support restriction on "outside" ownership, as I have seen the consequences in other Countries where I have been involved in Property Law.

I too can see the potential detriment that uncontrolled buying rights may have on the local population. The company ownership issue has shown exactly what foreign & Thai developers are prepared to do, given the freedom, and locals would inevitably be pushed into less desireable locations as the best places get eaten up in spiralling exchanges amongst farangs. However, the thirty year lease just is not quite enough for most. Foreigners are retiring earlier nowadays, with 50 being a late start in many cases. Someone taking a thirty year lease at that point then faces the prospect of losing their home just when they need it the most. If the government had allowed even a fifty year lease, it would have been enough for many to see their days out peacefully. Thirty leaves you in no-mans land and is the reason why many struggle to find a way round it.

[GuestHouse]

There is no benefit whatsoever in changing the current laws.

Stop dreaming, it aint going to happen.

[Thaiquila]

Even the suggestion of 99 year lease (with the State) has been looked upon with scorn by the Senate, who only 7 years ago refused the Ministry of Interior suggestion for 50 year lease.

I'm afraid that despite not really being suitable for me, or other farangs, I still support restriction on "outside" ownership, as I have seen the consequences in other Countries where I have been involved in Property Law.

I too can see the potential detriment that uncontrolled buying rights may have on the local population. The company ownership issue has shown exactly what foreign & Thai developers are prepared to do, given the freedom, and locals would inevitably be pushed into less desireable locations as the best places get eaten up in spiralling exchanges amongst farangs. However, the thirty year lease just is not quite enough for most. Foreigners are retiring earlier nowadays, with 50 being a late start in many cases. Someone taking a thirty year lease at that point then faces the prospect of losing their home just when they need it the most. If the government had allowed even a fifty year lease, it would have been enough for many to see their days out peacefully. Thirty leaves you in no-mans land and is the reason why many struggle to find a way round it.

You make some great points, but I don't think retiring at 50 or younger is all that common. Certainly not the majority of people from the west are retiring that early. I am, but I don't know even one peer I grew up with other than me who is even close to retiring, even those that could afford to.

I do agree, a 30 year lease at 50 is risky if you end up living longer than you planned.

[thaigene2]

Exactly. And more to the point, why would anybody agree to a 30 year lease in the first place? If it's your Thai wife who owns the freehold then fine (well, sort of 'fine'). But if you are a farang couple moving here what kind of deal are you getting into? 8 or 10 million baht for a place that isn't yours? A declining asset as each year passes? That's the equiv of 28,000 Baht per month in rental terms - because at the end of the day that's all you're doing - renting. But you're paying that rent all up front!! All 30 years of it!

If you aren't married to a Thai who can own the Freehold I see absolutely no benefit whatsoever to doing that. It really borders on the irrational.

[Dragonman]

Even the suggestion of 99 year lease (with the State) has been looked upon with scorn by the Senate, who only 7 years ago refused the Ministry of Interior suggestion for 50 year lease.

I'm afraid that despite not really being suitable for me, or other farangs, I still support restriction on "outside" ownership, as I have seen the consequences in other Countries where I have been involved in Property Law.

Hi Dragonman

I must say I respect your posts in the 'higher' category and will be interested to see the responses (if any) of your competitors.

What do you mean 'outside' ownserhip? And more to the point what exactly do you support in Thai reforms? I used to think the Cyprus law on foreign ownsership was good - something like you had to actually live in the property at least 6 months per year and couldn't sub-let. This was to assure rich Brits and Germans weren't buying up land to rent out. This appears fair to me.

By outside ownership I mean that even within a Country wages can differ considerably and some Countries have found to their cost that total freedom to purchase land and buildings mean that "locals" are priced out of the market even by their fellow Countrymen, let alone foreigners with considerably larger disposable income.

My suggestions would be:-

Defined Enterprise Zones in Tourist areas such as Pattaya, Koh Samui & Phuket. Farang ownership would be totally allowed in these areas. However no ownership of more than 1 rai. ( foreigners pay an annual "home ownership" tax to the district equal to current annual Company set up charges )

A Local Plan defining areas where only development of low cost accomodation for thais can take place.

Every Developer in these Zones has to provide "planning gains" , for thais only, on a site outside the Zones. This could be in the form of low cost rental accomodation, playing fields, etc.

Foreigners with thai spouses are allowed Joint Ownership of properties outside the Zones. Community Property Laws to apply on divorce.

Relaxing of the foreigner limits in Condos to 100% in the Enterprise Zones.

People may say that this will create wealthy farang ghettos. But every Country has such, and they can actually stimulate National economies when created in a controlled manner.

[Charma]

You make some great points, but I don't think retiring at 50 or younger is all that common. Certainly not the majority of people from the west are retiring that early. I am, but I don't know even one peer I grew up with other than me who is even close to retiring, even those that could afford to.

I do agree, a 30 year lease at 50 is risky if you end up living longer than you planned.

I think that early retirement is a particular feature in relation to Thailand and other Asian countries where the low cost of living makes this much more possible.

Dragonman puts forward an extremely attractive package of measures that would attract massive investment from overseas, resrtict development to a few key areas and bring huge benefits to locals. Unfortunately, I cannot see the Thais adopting such positive and sensible measures in the current anti-foreigner climate that exists.

[Mobi]

With all due respect, It beggars belief that the OP really thought that he was the first person to think of a solution to the property owning conumdrum in LOS.

There are so many proposals to solve this issue to everyone's satifaction - for both Thais and foreigners - that they would fill a small legal tome.

At the end of the day, the powers that be don't need our help in drafting legislation - they are more than capapable of coming up with a solution, if they ever wanted to - but here's the rub - right now, and probably for a long time to come they simply don't want to.

Just face facts and accept it.

When the political situation becomes stabilised - and that may be many moons away - and if there is a noticeable down turn in the economy, and in particular in the building and construction sector, then the governmenmt of the day may have a look at it - but don't hold your breath. They are perfectly happy the way it is, and they probably derive great pleasure in watching us all squirm.

BTW, according to a number of farang "property" journalists, apparently there is no slowdown in the property market at all, not even in the farang sector. So you might just as well piss in the wind if you believe anyone is going to look at amending the land laws in the near future.

[thedude]

The real reason why there is no interest to make foreign ownership of land legal is because it would force land prices up beyond the reach of Thai nationals. Its political suicide.

Having said that, it has already happened in places like Phuket. How many upper income Thais can afford to buy a 60 million baht holiday home facing the Andaman?

Why should even successful Thai nationals be deprived access to his/her own country's prime land?

Many allude to how the government is shooting themselves in the foot because precious foreign demand for Thai real estate will be sacrificed.

This is a very naive perception considering that politicians don't get voted in by farangs.

[Mobi]

The real reason why there is no interest to make foreign ownership of land legal is because it would force land prices up beyond the reach of Thai nationals. Its political suicide.

Having said that, it has already happened in places like Phuket. How many upper income Thais can afford to buy a 60 million baht holiday home facing the Andaman?

Why should even successful Thai nationals be deprived access to his/her own country's prime land?

Many allude to how the government is shooting themselves in the foot because precious foreign demand for Thai real estate will be sacrificed.

This is a very naive perception considering that politicians don't get voted in by farangs.

I don't disagree with anything you have said, and as you can see from my previou post, I think it highly unlikely that any politician will be rushing out to change the law for any number of reasons.

However, it would be reasonably simple to pass a law allowing a 'resident' farangs to own, or have a long lease or some other means of tenure security, on a small plot of land - say not exceeding one rai, where he can build a house for he and his family to live in. They could even have prohibited zones - say in prime sites in Phuket, Samui etc, to prevent desirable locations getting beyond the pockets of locals. All things are possible to keep everyone happy, but there is a distinct lack of will or incentive, so forget it.

[steveromagnino]

Many allude to how the government is shooting themselves in the foot because precious foreign demand for Thai real estate will be sacrificed.

This is a very naive perception considering that politicians don't get voted in by farangs.

Exactly.

And in fact once the depth of profiteering by many of the current TRT politicians in places like Phuket comes out, then you'll see a backlash against further selling off of the country's assets. A very easy heart string to pull.

There is one development in Jomtien next to Pinnacle with almost exclusively foreign ownership, currently under construction, that the Democrats may use as a case study; it is built 8 storeys high with about 1m set back from the property line; nothing near the legal requirement, and solely because the land owner is a TRT backer.

Once stuff like this comes out, how likely is it that foreigners will get the chance to own land, given that for condos this right has been abused with 100% foreign ownership; with land using bogus companies, and this has been going on since 2001?! The politicians involved will get off ok, but some scape goat will be found. In the case of this Jomtien development, if possible my guess is it may end up being torn down.

BTW, lest you think Thailand is alone; NZ have started controlling foreign owned seafront property, because exactly the same things has happened there, where NZers cannot even access land that previously was their right to access.

Foreign ownership of land is not necessarily a positive for a country; for large chunks of rural/seaside Thailand foreign ownership is bringing nothing to them at all other than minimum wage jobs.

[womble]

The real reason why there is no interest to make foreign ownership of land legal is because it would force land prices up beyond the reach of Thai nationals. Its political suicide.

Having said that, it has already happened in places like Phuket. How many upper income Thais can afford to buy a 60 million baht holiday home facing the Andaman?

Why should even successful Thai nationals be deprived access to his/her own country's prime land?

Many allude to how the government is shooting themselves in the foot because precious foreign demand for Thai real estate will be sacrificed.

This is a very naive perception considering that politicians don't get voted in by farangs.

This is a very one sided view as it doesn't take into account benefits the foriegners may bring to the economy as a whole. I agree that specualtion is dangerous and chiefly benefits those speculating, but if ownership is only allowed for a single dwelling of a foriegn national who is resident in thailand it could be a positive thing for the economy as a whole.

Many areas of central London and indeed many of the worlds capital cities are priced beyond most locals as the price is too high due to investment from overseas. But with them they bring business, expertise, spend money and ultimatley create jobs, which is all welcome.

Many countries have realised the benefits foriegn ownership can bring and relaxed laws.

A prime example and close to home is Vietnam, currently enjoying one of the worlds highest paced growth, and this is directly a result of liberalision of said laws.

Edited September 5, 2006 by womble

[johnnyk]

BTW, lest you think Thailand is alone; NZ have started controlling foreign owned seafront property, because exactly the same things has happened there, where NZers cannot even access land that previously was their right to access.

Had this in PEI and Nova Scotia, Canadian seaside provinces.

Back in the early 80s there was a non-Canadian who owned 14 miles of seafront in southwest Nova Scotia and wouldn't let anyone near the shore. People were somewhat annoyed at her and the gov't of the day paid her off so the actual citizens could access the seashore. No one wept for the <deleted>.

[Dragonman]

A prime example and close to home is Vietnam, currently enjoying one of the worlds highest paced growth, and this is directly a result of liberalision of said laws.

As far as I am aware Vietnam has not yet introduced it's new Housing Bill, drafted June, which in Chapter 11 looks at Foreign Ownership. Although there is a desire by the Government to implement provisions in order to prevent the corruption and illegal developments taking place by foreigners. Vietnamese Property Laws over the past 10 years have been more complex than Thailand!

[womble]

A prime example and close to home is Vietnam, currently enjoying one of the worlds highest paced growth, and this is directly a result of liberalision of said laws.

As far as I am aware Vietnam has not yet introduced it's new Housing Bill, drafted June, which in Chapter 11 looks at Foreign Ownership. Although there is a desire by the Government to implement provisions in order to prevent the corruption and illegal developments taking place by foreigners. Vietnamese Property Laws over the past 10 years have been more complex than Thailand!

I thought it was law, interesting so the lands rises are being driven up from illegal specualtion from foreign investors similar to Thailand and a highly leveraged local market, mirror image of the Thailand property boom.

There's gonna be a big bang at the end of this bubble.

So I concede thats not a good example or indeed an example at all.

Panama however is. With some of the worlds most liberal laws for foreign investment, this is a place that has been performing well lately and should continue to do so.

[think_too_mut]

There is no benefit whatsoever in changing the current laws.

Stop dreaming, it aint going to happen.

Furthermore, in agreement....

What is the benefit of being gentrified out of their own country?

There are people who's mandate is to make sure laws never change, at least not in the direction that would enable Gunter, a sheet metal worker from Dusseldorf, who managed to scrap and hide 20-40K US$ of life savings from his alcoholic habbit, to own part of Thailand.

He won't make Thais erase that line in the national anthem that says "every inch of Thailand is owned by Thais".

However, not to leave the crumbs unscooped - ViewTalay in Pattaya was invented, nearly 10,000 rooms already and more to come.

[bluedragon]

Nicaragua appears to have some very liberal laws concerning retirement and home ownership.

BD

[Dragonman]

A prime example and close to home is Vietnam, currently enjoying one of the worlds highest paced growth, and this is directly a result of liberalision of said laws.

As far as I am aware Vietnam has not yet introduced it's new Housing Bill, drafted June, which in Chapter 11 looks at Foreign Ownership. Although there is a desire by the Government to implement provisions in order to prevent the corruption and illegal developments taking place by foreigners. Vietnamese Property Laws over the past 10 years have been more complex than Thailand!

I thought it was law, interesting so the lands rises are being driven up from illegal specualtion from foreign investors similar to Thailand and a highly leveraged local market, mirror image of the Thailand property boom.

There's gonna be a big bang at the end of this bubble.

So I concede thats not a good example or indeed an example at all.

Panama however is. With some of the worlds most liberal laws for foreign investment, this is a place that has been performing well lately and should continue to do so.

Yes Panama, Nicaragua and Turkey are good examples of recent liberalisation of property laws. Vietnam will shortly be a good comparison for the thai Government to consider.

With regard to Vietnam it is interesting to see the Socialist Government ministers travelling to Canada & USA, as well as elsewhere and actually requesting foreigners train them in Government Management. Unlike Thailand who seem to have the idea that nobody can teach them anything, and totally ignore any suggestions from foreigners, at all levels.

[steveromagnino]

Yes Panama, Nicaragua and Turkey are good examples of recent liberalisation of property laws. Vietnam will shortly be a good comparison for the thai Government to consider.

With regard to Vietnam it is interesting to see the Socialist Government ministers travelling to Canada & USA, as well as elsewhere and actually requesting foreigners train them in Government Management. Unlike Thailand who seem to have the idea that nobody can teach them anything, and totally ignore any suggestions from foreigners, at all levels.

If we look at Japan they ignore most of what foreigners have to say. Ditto for Chinese. And the reality most of what foreigners have to say is, simply, a load of rubbish. Most of what ANYONE has to say is usually a load of rubbish; witness the drivel coming out of Porter's mouth for evidence of that.

Offering a few cheap apartments and dodgy villas to english teachers and retirees makes little difference.

The real key is when leaders start listening to the few people who actually really matter, and start altering the way a country runs as a result. This Vietnam example is a great one; go and listen to the best; why they would be going to Canada and USA, well, I guess both those countries are good at certain aspects of what they do. Then implement.

Can't see how freeing up land ownership changes much given that foreigners here in Thailand have found ways to circumvent the laws here for many years already.

There are Thai people perfectly capable of laying out the road map for country development. However, these aren't the people in power, and never will be.

The people in power currently are travelling overseas all the time. Just that none of it is to do with actually learning anything; it is about doing some deals :_)

[thaigene2]

With regard to Vietnam it is interesting to see the Socialist Government ministers travelling to Canada & USA, as well as elsewhere and actually requesting foreigners train them in Government Management. Unlike Thailand who seem to have the idea that nobody can teach them anything, and totally ignore any suggestions from foreigners, at all levels.

So true. Yet they send their kids off to get 'taught' at Universities in these countries. Then they come back with Harvard MBA's with a great new idea to 'Open a chain of coffee shops'! But make sure no farangs can compete with them...

Does anyone have any idea what the Thai partners bring to these 'joint-ventures' like Tesco-LOTUS or John Lewis-CENTRAL? My guess is simply the RIGHT to do biz in LOS.

Offering a few cheap apartments and dodgy villas to english teachers and retirees makes little difference.

The real key is when leaders start listening to the few people who actually really matter, and start altering the way a country runs as a result. This Vietnam example is a great one; go and listen to the best; why they would be going to Canada and USA, well, I guess both those countries are good at certain aspects of what they do. Then implement.

I agree Steve. Thailand is a great place - and we only point out the arrogance because we see others about to overtake them. It's time to shake off the imperiousness because others are about to win the race! Please Thailand wake up - we're on your side!!

[steveromagnino]

Does anyone have any idea what the Thai partners bring to these 'joint-ventures' like Tesco-LOTUS or John Lewis-CENTRAL? My guess is simply the RIGHT to do biz in LOS.

....

...Please Thailand wake up - we're on your side!!

Yep, Thailand needs a few good men. Regarding Tesco Lotus, The Tesco guys came out here and actually specifically stated that they learned a lot from the Lotus people who were doing a pretty decent job before the economy tanked and they had to sell out.

Not sure about John Lewis.... but I can say Ahold the TOps partner were pretty inept; the people who make Central successful are pretty much almost all Thai. There are some Thai staff and partners here that are indespensible, and some that are just there for the name.

If you compare Big C, Carrefour and Tesco Lotus, Lotus almost always rates highest with consumers and there are some specifics I could bore you with as to what they do better. Much of this is because of the Thai partner at the beginning and much of it is because of the systems they operate as well AFAIK.

The biggest thing that some western and foreign companies have is not great staff, great ideas or even great products. It is great systems and processes. That's why you look at the greatest management consulting firm McKinsey. McKinsey itself is head and shoulders above the other consultancies, so how come so many McKinsey partners/staff leave the place and aren't anywhere near as good?

It is because they think their success was due to their brains. That was just one part; most of the success was due to the system and the way McKinsey is set up to leverage off their brain power. Take out the system, and they are just another smart ass management consultant.

That's why so many foreigners and so many Thais suck at management once they come work here after working abroad. Because here many companies don't have systems and processes; they have people running around doing random stuff. And few managers/leaders are good at setting up a 'way of doing things'. Coming from say USA, Japan or England they are good at working within a system where there is already a way of doing things. But since few understand this, instead they start looking for the reasons why they cannot make a difference like they could somewhere else e.g. the west. And that's why I'd say people coming from an SME background, from smaller countries and from places where there aren't tons of systems and processes in place tend to do best in Thailand. And for MNEs, their whole competitive advantage is that they actually have laid out how they do things and can replicate it - the Japanese are particularly good at this.

Since there is no easy way to regulate who these people are when they come in, I cannot see the benefit of selling a whole bunch of people real estate in case there are a few that might actually make a difference up in here. HOwever, if that is the case, then either enforce the rules rigourously (no loopholes) or change slightly and enforce (e.g. condo ownership up to 100% of a building ok in certain area). But letting foreigners own land now while the country is in transition serves no major benefit other than making a few selected people, a few Thai politicians and a few developers many of them not Thai either, rich.

Encouraging escalation of real estate prices, incidentally, has no where near the benefit on an economy compared to encourage investment in profitable businesses. So... surely it is more important to create a climate with knowledge transfer and get away from this bulls&*t tourism/real estate passive investment crutch that TRT have been using for the last 5 years.

nice post Thaigene :-)

[womble]

Some good stuff here, thanks Thaigene2 and steveromagnino

[Mobi]

Nepotism, family and personal obligations in the hiring of staff play a huge role in the inefficiency of Thai working practices. Add to this the ridiculous insistance on university qualifications (many of which have been bought and not earned) - even for the lowliest of jobs , and the dreaded "face" factor and having to respect any one older than you, then it is a recipe for a badly run business.

BTW, when I lived in Bangkok, all my farang friends rated Carrefour above Lotus, and down here in Pattaya, we have had threads to discuss the best stores, and Carrefour has come out on top every time.

I think Lotus works better for Thais - it aims at a slightly lower market.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Mobi D'Ark

[h5n1]

all this goes to show just how much we are not wanted.

the land isnt going anywhere. without outside bidders the prices stay low, the wealthy thais buy ALL the choice property and the rest of the thai people can be damned.

it never ceases to amaze me the apologists for the thai govt (farang) esp on this board.

does anyone know of anywhere that is sa really desirable place to live that isnt priced out of the middle class???

i mean the folly of not even allowing condos to be 100% owned by foreigners....

one word for foreign landowner: sucker

what thailand misses out on:

if i could own land and have a ten year visa (as i have for india)....

i would buy a nice condo

join a golf club

buy a sailboat

buy a nice bike

hire at least 3 part time staff

spend 3x the money i currently do.

give money to charity

....maybe even get married (and support some failing thai males child??)

but i cant - so i wont and i would urge all not to put a penny into thailand.

do EXACTLY like taksin wants - come for holiday and spend a bit of money.

there was earlier discussion about 'thai management' - thais know nothing about management, im shocked at how poorly the tourism industry is run decades after it has become th emothers milk of thailand.

and that is all thailand will ever be - beaches, babes and beer so it better figure that out and start catering to it.

raw sewage still being pumped into pattaya bay - says it all really....

ps: mobi > i like big c myself. carrefour is pricey and too fancy and for all the stuff it nevcer has what im after. tesco is too out of the way to walk. i also do not like the food court (mai aroi) but many do).

Edited September 7, 2006 by h5n1

[Papa_Lazarou]

I'd like to know how Lehman Brothers structures their purchases of hotels.

Not the Grande Asset deal, which is done via nominees, but the direct purchases of hotels eg the buildings it bought from Natural Park.

[womble]

"if i could own land and have a ten year visa (as i have for india)...."

I didn't think foreigners could own land in India?

[steveromagnino]

all this goes to show just how much we are not wanted.

i mean the folly of not even allowing condos to be 100% owned by foreigners....

if i could own land and have a ten year visa (as i have for india)....

i would buy a nice condo

join a golf club

buy a sailboat

buy a nice bike

hire at least 3 part time staff

spend 3x the money i currently do.

give money to charity

....maybe even get married (and support some failing thai males child??)

there was earlier discussion about 'thai management' - thais know nothing about management, im shocked at how poorly the tourism industry is run decades after it has become th emothers milk of thailand.

only problem with your tirade... you CAN own a nice condo 100%. You can in fact do EVERY SINGLE THING on your list.

It is a fact you can own a condo outright. Up to 49% of a building can be foreign owned in fact.

There are plenty of competent Thai managers; there are also plenty of incompetent ones. Same as most parts of the world. I can assure you there are some who know a whole lot more about mgt than some of the useless foreigner managers out here of which there are MANY. For whatever reason, BKK is like a magnet for useless expat managers. I guess that's why any manager (thai or foreign) who is even half decent shines like a star here. The specific skills to be a good manager in a developing country are very different to the skills in a big developed market as I said before.

But I do agree with you; tourism industry here is abismally run with all the wrong aims. I hope for the day that arrival target is dropped back to under 10m, and the country stops selling itself out for quick tourism dollars.

>>I'd like to know how Lehman Brothers structures their purchases of hotels.

Really not sure, but my guess is either through a Treaty of Amity company or getting specific BOI priveleges and excemption or perhaps they also use a nominee structure. Alternatively, they may use some sort in interest bearing instrument, so in effect they are a debt holder rather than outright owner, but debt payment is some sort of bizarre interest bearing loan.

I'll look into this, I think I can find out, and is an interesting question. :-)