Is it better to rent or buy if you can afford to buy and have spare cash ?

[ldnguy]

Well, there aren't many people in the whole world that can afford to buy a new house every time they move. There must be about 30 million houses in Thailand. They can't just be abandoned or knocked down every time someone wants to move. Do you think someone's going to by a 15 million house then if they need to over in a few year jut abandon it (because of the claim no-one will but because it's old) and then just fork out another 15 million for the next house. The people on here that think Thais do that are completely bonkers. Thai people do not abandoned old houses at all. They buy and sell them just like we do in the West. And yes, they do sell if priced correctly.

Most of the Thais I know, have a house worth 500k, sitting on a bit of land worth 1M (tops).

It costs the same as a new car to build a new house on the old land.

15M ...... you gotta be joking.

Come to Bangkok and you'll see plenty. But the same principle still applies. For someone that can only afford a 500K house, how can they abandon it and buy a new one every time they want to move. The whole thing myth about Thais not buying non-new houses is just ridiculous. Most Thais buy non-new houses, not new ones.

[ldnguy]

Anybody with any real sense would rent in these current conditions. I am a purchaser of condos for the long haul. I waited 12 years to buy my first properties here which came about because of the favourable exchange rate after the Asian crisis (and the significant divergence with uk property in prime areas). Bargains. I got impatience and bought another when the property frenzy took hold around 2007 not in a Top area and outside Bangkok, mistake. Don't expect to make much on it..I am close to buying again when sterling hits 58, the baht gets to 40..second hand condos in areas I know and buildings I know, with high Thai occupancy.

Not sue what you mean by "these current conditions", but exchange rate is good right now and there are some properties I've seen that are available at good prices. Like you I think I'll jump in if GBP gets to anywhere near 60. It was 46 when I first came to Thailand, so a 15 million house now costs £273K instead of £326K. So that's down £53K. Seems like quite a bargain to me. Of course, prices could go a little low, but wit the GBP so strong I think the risk is very limited. In any case, it would be a home not an investment so wouldn't really matter if prices dropped.

Go for it, if it something you really want, as long as it's not a high proportion of your total wealth.

Current conditions - rentals very cheap harder to justify buying, plus there is so much crap going on in this country at the moment.

If you really want go for it, underbid, don't be afraid to walk away..everything in your favour..Thai property can be one of the most illiquid assets out there and as said on other threads the company route may leave you open to some risk I for one would never use it, but each to his own.

Of course you already know all the short comings of buying a landed property.

Just know all the facts and make an intelligent guess.

60 doubtful but if things carry one the same, interest rates rise early next year who knows. In my eyes 60 is a " gift" that won't last too long.

Good luck, if it goes " tits" up later. You can write about it on here and get loads of sympathy !

Is it a Villa?

It would be in Bangkok so might be a townhouse or possibly a detached house, which I'd prefer. Depends what comes up. Townhouses I've seen would be easy to rent out if renovated due to the areas I'd buy in. Not much downside risk that I can see. But life is a risk. I wouldn't buy via company, so would put in wife's name. I know some will ask what happens if she leaves me, well I guess she'll get the house. I wouldn't want that to happen but that's life. After all, it's only money.

[hhgz]

Renting v buying has nothing to do with your "spare cash". It has to do with whether you want to own something, or not. Most posters have never owned property, never will own property, and advocate against investing in real estate. It's up to you to assess your level of risk. I bought my first condo in BKK a decade ago for $155K. I sold it a decade later for $275K. Not a California-level of return, but certainly better than "no matter what you do, you'll lose your entire investment" perspective.

[MaeJoMTB]

I believe Thais buy into new projects because they can get a mortgage close to 100% of the price of the condo or house.

They would be lucky to get any bank to give a mortgage over 60% of the assessed market value for an old property. So they need to save up for a substantial down payment, and many can't.

Yep, the Thai misses bought new too,

She got 90% home loan on a new development.

Best she was offered on a used home was 50%.

Edited September 27, 2015 by MaeJoMTB

[alonzokim]

Why would you buy a house or condo in BKK or in any other Thai city or built up area?

Renting is cheap, and you never know what the future brings: unpleasant neighbours, a karaoke joint, a cement factory,...

A house in the country side could be different though.

I had a small house built in a dream location for 700.000 baht.

It will not last for generations, and my wife could walk away with it (it is on her land),but the huge garden and small swimming pool (free mountain water) are things that I could only dream about in Farangland.

So even if money was not a concern, I would never buy a unit in a built up area.

I completely agree with you.

[fey]

Dont buy in asia. To many risks with your money and no rule of law for recourse. No legal safeguards like in the usa.

Was a recent thread on someone who had his signature forged, taken to a quack lawyer and his property taken from under him. Watch that video.

[Robert24]

Dont buy in asia. To many risks with your money and no rule of law for recourse. No legal safeguards like in the usa.

Was a recent thread on someone who had his signature forged, taken to a quack lawyer and his property taken from under him. Watch that video.

that is a bit one dimensional. If rule of law is an important factor whether you want to buy property, there are a number of countries that can offer that. For example Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan.

[WorkingTourist]

Was a recent thread on someone who had his signature forged, taken to a quack lawyer and his property taken from under him. Watch that video.

Some clarification needed, because you cannot lose your property based on a forged signature.

The guy wanted to invest in houses. As you may know, foreigners are not allowed to own land in Thailand.

To circumvent the law, he created a Thai company to buy the land and houses. But as you may also know, Thai companies must be majority Thai owned and nominee shareholders are not allowed. This basically means that the foreigner cannot provide all of the capital for the company. If the foreigner is made director or have more than 39% of the shares, the government require documentation, such as bank statements, from all the other Thai shareholders to show, that they do have enough capital to pay for their respective shares.

Based on the video, he had set himself up as director of this company, and that is where the forged signature comes in, as his wife, which was also a shareholder, forged his signature to change director and then had the company sell its assets.

This lady got a prison sentence, presumably for forging the signature. So saying “no rule of law for recourse” does not seem to be entirely correct.

The “problem” is that the guy is now fighting to get back the company assets which were sold, and he is not getting much support from the authorities, but I can see their dilemma, because he newer owned these assets in the first place, he owned a minority stake in a company that owned these assets, and technically he can not own these assets, so even if the Thai authorities wanted to help him, they can’t actually transfer ownership of the land in question to him, as that is not permitted by Thai law, and again, he never actually owned it.

So basically a minority shareholder ended up with valueless shares because fraud was committed in the company he was a shareholder in. The person in the company that committed the fraud was sentenced to jail.

Compare that to the West, countless of people have lost money on holding stocks in a company that committed fraud, they are rarely compensated, and far too often the people responsible for the fraud doesn’t even end up in jail.

[trogers]

Was a recent thread on someone who had his signature forged, taken to a quack lawyer and his property taken from under him. Watch that video.

Some clarification needed, because you cannot lose your property based on a forged signature.

The guy wanted to invest in houses. As you may know, foreigners are not allowed to own land in Thailand.

To circumvent the law, he created a Thai company to buy the land and houses. But as you may also know, Thai companies must be majority Thai owned and nominee shareholders are not allowed. This basically means that the foreigner cannot provide all of the capital for the company. If the foreigner is made director or have more than 39% of the shares, the government require documentation, such as bank statements, from all the other Thai shareholders to show, that they do have enough capital to pay for their respective shares.

Based on the video, he had set himself up as director of this company, and that is where the forged signature comes in, as his wife, which was also a shareholder, forged his signature to change director and then had the company sell its assets.

This lady got a prison sentence, presumably for forging the signature. So saying no rule of law for recourse does not seem to be entirely correct.

The problem is that the guy is now fighting to get back the company assets which were sold, and he is not getting much support from the authorities, but I can see their dilemma, because he newer owned these assets in the first place, he owned a minority stake in a company that owned these assets, and technically he can not own these assets, so even if the Thai authorities wanted to help him, they cant actually transfer ownership of the land in question to him, as that is not permitted by Thai law, and again, he never actually owned it.

So basically a minority shareholder ended up with valueless shares because fraud was committed in the company he was a shareholder in. The person in the company that committed the fraud was sentenced to jail.

Compare that to the West, countless of people have lost money on holding stocks in a company that committed fraud, they are rarely compensated, and far too often the people responsible for the fraud doesnt even end up in jail.

Seen this rather often. The one who cried loudest for protection of the Law is the one who had intentionally broke it...

[Robert24]

Was a recent thread on someone who had his signature forged, taken to a quack lawyer and his property taken from under him. Watch that video.

Some clarification needed, because you cannot lose your property based on a forged signature.

The guy wanted to invest in houses. As you may know, foreigners are not allowed to own land in Thailand.

To circumvent the law, he created a Thai company to buy the land and houses. But as you may also know, Thai companies must be majority Thai owned and nominee shareholders are not allowed. This basically means that the foreigner cannot provide all of the capital for the company. If the foreigner is made director or have more than 39% of the shares, the government require documentation, such as bank statements, from all the other Thai shareholders to show, that they do have enough capital to pay for their respective shares.

Based on the video, he had set himself up as director of this company, and that is where the forged signature comes in, as his wife, which was also a shareholder, forged his signature to change director and then had the company sell its assets.

This lady got a prison sentence, presumably for forging the signature. So saying “no rule of law for recourse” does not seem to be entirely correct.

The “problem” is that the guy is now fighting to get back the company assets which were sold, and he is not getting much support from the authorities, but I can see their dilemma, because he newer owned these assets in the first place, he owned a minority stake in a company that owned these assets, and technically he can not own these assets, so even if the Thai authorities wanted to help him, they can’t actually transfer ownership of the land in question to him, as that is not permitted by Thai law, and again, he never actually owned it.

So basically a minority shareholder ended up with valueless shares because fraud was committed in the company he was a shareholder in. The person in the company that committed the fraud was sentenced to jail.

Compare that to the West, countless of people have lost money on holding stocks in a company that committed fraud, they are rarely compensated, and far too often the people responsible for the fraud doesn’t even end up in jail.

I think you make a make a wrong assumption. I don't think authorities have a dilemma because they may consider his company a nominee for circumventing the laws. The real issue is a civil case that allows him to sue to get his properties back. Think about in a different way. Someone steals your mobile phone and sells it afterwards to a third party. The person who steals the phone will be dealt with by the criminal law with theft. The person who bought the phone will have to give it back even though he may not have known the phone is stolen. That is the tricky part, which is now part of a civil case in court. I don't think there is any discussion about a nominee company. Even if authorities would rule that his company was purely set up for circumventing the law, they will give him time to change ownership structure or sell the properties within a given timeline (usually 12 months). But bear in mind this case is still in court and has not been ruled about to my knowledge.

[WorkingTourist]

I think you make a make a wrong assumption. I don't think authorities have a dilemma because they may consider his company a nominee for circumventing the laws. The real issue is a civil case that allows him to sue to get his properties back. Think about in a different way. Someone steals your mobile phone and sells it afterwards to a third party.

I disagree with it being as clear cut as someone stealing your mobile phone.

It’s more like buying a timeshare with two partners, each chipping in 1/3 of the price, and then have your two partners sell the timeshare without compensating you. In such situation, I doubt you can claim that it’s stolen goods that must be returned to the rightful owner, as on paper the majority owner is the one that sold the item.

The best route of action would be to sue the partner(s), unfortunately for the guy, his partner/wife seems to be broke.

[Chewbacka]

The only secure way to own property here is to buy a condo under a foreign freehold title. The Condominium Act 1979 sets out the provision for non-Thais to own condos very clearly. Buying one can be a good investment for foreigners living here as unlike a house or land you always have an option for an exit strategy:

1. Sell the condo after a period of time and hopefully make a capital gain. Even if the capital gain is not too high then at least XX years of rental expenditure has been saved. Also, unlike a house or land, the proceeds from the sale of a condo under foreign freehold ownership means that funds can be repatriated easily.

2. Rent out the condo and receive a return on your investment.

3. Pass on the condo in a will to next of kin.