They made a horror movie about Bangkok’s famous Ghost Tower and it sounds scary AF

By Coconuts Bangkok

 

Stills from the movie. Courtesy of GDH Films.

 

A Thai production house is releasing a horror flick next month featuring Bangkok’s famous, spooky abandoned building, nicknamed the “Ghost Tower.”

 

The building is notable among foreigners and Thais alike. Foreigners, especially, love to sneak in and take bucket list vacation pictures or even perform tricks in the dangerous, crumbling building, like these famous parkour dudes who made a viral video inside and were later prosecuted for their antics since trespassing is a punishable offense.

 

The 49-story building, a project started in 1990 and whose official name isSathorn Unique Tower, was supposed to be a symbol of class and culture in downtown Bangkok but when the 1997 financial crisis hit, the tower, 80 percent complete, was left as a derelict structure and went on to be marred by graffiti, debris, and more than a few haunted rumors.

 

Full Story: https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/made-horror-movie-bangkoks-famous-ghost-tower-sounds-scary-af/

 

-- © Copyright Coconuts Bangkok 2017-8-9

The scary part is that this building is not yet demolished and the site redeveloped, after 20 years.

 

How long can bad assets be kept in the accounts of a lending bank?

3 minutes ago, trogers said:

The scary part is that this building is not yet demolished and the site redeveloped, after 20 years.

 

How long can bad assets be kept in the accounts of a lending bank?

 

And that shows that the  credibility of Thai banks is fake, because repossessed buildings are added to the balance sheet as assets.

10 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

 

And that shows that the  credibility of Thai banks is fake, because repossessed buildings are added to the balance sheet as assets.

And you think Western banks are any better?

Wake up!

Banks are sometimes called legalised criminal institutions, and I guess there might be some truth in that.

10 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

10 hours ago, trogers said:

The scary part is that this building is not yet demolished and the site redeveloped, after 20 years.

 

How long can bad assets be kept in the accounts of a lending bank?

And that shows that the  credibility of Thai banks is fake, because repossessed buildings are added to the balance sheet as assets.

 

If it's been sitting on the books for 20-27 years, the land itself is probably worth more than the land and building combined was worth when it was entered into the ledger.

 

1 hour ago, hansnl said:

And you think Western banks are any better?

Wake up!

Banks are sometimes called legalised criminal institutions, and I guess there might be some truth in that.

 

As far as I'm aware in Western banks repossessed real estate are considered liabilities, not assets

23 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If it's been sitting on the books for 20-27 years, the land itself is probably worth more than the land and building combined was worth when it was entered into the ledger.

 

 

Anything is worth what someone effectively pays for it at a sale. When it is that long on the books it's obvious that there is no interested buyer for the price they want/need.

 

In my area land has increased 4 fold since I purchased my plot 8 years ago, and still rising, but since I bought only 2 plots have been sold of the probably +100 for sale.

 

I know hundreds if not thousands of shophouses, built more than 5 year ago and claimed to be worth 80-100K/sqm, still sitting empty today.

 

A repossessed building should be a liability for a financial institution, not an asset.

 

 

51 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If it's been sitting on the books for 20-27 years, the land itself is probably worth more than the land and building combined was worth when it was entered into the ledger.

 

Unfortunately, this site faces the chicken and egg scenario.

 

The building is causing the land value of its neighborhood to remain low.

 

Demolish the building and redevelop the site will help land value to rise. But it is a risk that a developer would have to undertake, and the rewards is a rise in property value.

 

The bank cannot hope to realise the increase in land value without undertaking this risk. There is no free lunch.

Plenty of future ghosts when the building collapses onto a busy road

57 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

 

As far as I'm aware in Western banks repossessed real estate are considered liabilities, not assets

Because the Western bank has to bear the cost in property tax, maintenance and public insurance on foreclosed properties. A reason why they try selling them quickly through auctions.