111 replies to this topic
Posted 2009-11-27 22:38:14
 pkrv, on 2009-11-27 19:36:52, said:
I should not reply to this topic it is not really in my area of experteese - But my brain is melting over the leashold issue, pure and simple - promise not to intrude into other matters  .
Why do people give greater value to paying 30 years rent up front (leasehold) rather than just renting - I really, really (did I mention really) don't get it.
Simple concepts such as, is not just simply paying rent more flexible? come to mind.
Sorry brain just melted out of left ear.
You usually do not rent a piece of land for 3 years and then spend a couple of millions of Baht to build a house of your choice on it, and then hope the land owner will renew the rental contract for a further 3 years 9 times over... 
Thus, the desire to have a 30-year lease over the land - to build a home for the remaining period of our lives.
Posted 2009-11-27 23:10:02
trogers, on 2009-11-27 15:38:14, said: pkrv, on 2009-11-27 19:36:52, said: I should not reply to this topic it is not really in my area of experteese - But my brain is melting over the leashold issue, pure and simple - promise not to intrude into other matters .
Why do people give greater value to paying 30 years rent up front (leasehold) rather than just renting - I really, really (did I mention really) don't get it.
Simple concepts such as, is not just simply paying rent more flexible? come to mind.
Sorry brain just melted out of left ear.
You usually do not rent a piece of land for 3 years and then spend a couple of millions of Baht to build a house of your choice on it, and then hope the land owner will renew the rental contract for a further 3 years 9 times over...
Thus, the desire to have a 30-year lease over the land - to build a home for the remaining period of our lives.
Edited by pkrv, 2009-11-27 23:30:07.
Posted 2009-11-27 23:57:08
pkrv, on 2009-11-27 16:10:02, said: trogers, on 2009-11-27 15:38:14, said: pkrv, on 2009-11-27 19:36:52, said: I should not reply to this topic it is not really in my area of experteese - But my brain is melting over the leashold issue, pure and simple - promise not to intrude into other matters .
Why do people give greater value to paying 30 years rent up front (leasehold) rather than just renting - I really, really (did I mention really) don't get it.
Simple concepts such as, is not just simply paying rent more flexible? come to mind.
Sorry brain just melted out of left ear.
You usually do not rent a piece of land for 3 years and then spend a couple of millions of Baht to build a house of your choice on it, and then hope the land owner will renew the rental contract for a further 3 years 9 times over...
Thus, the desire to have a 30-year lease over the land - to build a home for the remaining period of our lives.
Should have added a 
Posted 2009-12-01 16:21:59
[quote name='chiangmaibruce' date='2009-09-04 17:15:38' post='2989183']
Of course something could be done. There would be a few admin issues to sort out like "what is a genuine marriage?", "how much and what type of property should be permitted?", "what proof should be required?", etc. But all quite do-able.
Now pinch yourself. All those anti-foreigner articles in the Post throughout August, and continuing to today. The infamous Thailand Research Foundation "study" saying that foreigners own/control 90%+ of Phuket beachfront. How many voices of reason did you then hear in response? You know, people speaking up in defence of truth, sense, justice? Now take out the farang voices ... anyone left? Oh yes, the Phuket Lands Dept ... but they only spoke up to cover their butts.
Expect no progress on this issue in the near future, and certainly not while the political situation remains so unsettled. The best you can hope for is that things don't slip any further backwards than where they are now. I say this with no sense of bitterness, it is simply reality in Thailand at the present time. I suspect that resolving the current confusion is somewhere on the government's to-do list, but right now they have far more pressing issues to resolve.
Have to say that if falangs didn't control 90% of Phukets' west coast, they wouldn't be much there, bar Jet skis, restaurants and bars.
I think they do have a point about the land, that would all belong the the Arabs by now, and no-one ever mentions that Oz did exactly the same thing to stop the Japanese owning all the good bits of Oz.
There may be a political reversal if things get as bad as they did in 97, we currently manage a property fund from 97 that is 100% foreign owned and controlled.
Posted 2009-12-28 20:46:38
pkrv, on 2009-11-27 17:10:02, said: trogers, on 2009-11-27 15:38:14, said: pkrv, on 2009-11-27 19:36:52, said:
Why do people give greater value to paying 30 years rent up front (leasehold) rather than just renting .........................Simple concepts such as, is not just simply paying rent more flexible? come to mind.
........................
You usually do not rent a piece of land for 3 years and then spend a couple of millions of Baht to build a house of your choice on it, and then hope the land owner will renew the rental contract for a further 3 years 9 times over...
Thus, the desire to have a 30-year lease over the land - to build a home for the remaining period of our lives.
Me thick. I'm not advocating 30 year leasing, but I thought that was a good explanation of why some people do.
Are you saying it's a nonsensical answer to your Q, or that it's (IYO) still a nonsensical thing to do?
Please explain in more than one word.
Posted 2009-12-29 17:16:39
mickba, on 2009-12-28 20:46:38, said: pkrv, on 2009-11-27 17:10:02, said: trogers, on 2009-11-27 15:38:14, said: pkrv, on 2009-11-27 19:36:52, said:
Why do people give greater value to paying 30 years rent up front (leasehold) rather than just renting .........................Simple concepts such as, is not just simply paying rent more flexible? come to mind.
........................
You usually do not rent a piece of land for 3 years and then spend a couple of millions of Baht to build a house of your choice on it, and then hope the land owner will renew the rental contract for a further 3 years 9 times over...
Thus, the desire to have a 30-year lease over the land - to build a home for the remaining period of our lives.
Me thick. I'm not advocating 30 year leasing, but I thought that was a good explanation of why some people do.
Are you saying it's a nonsensical answer to your Q, or that it's (IYO) still a nonsensical thing to do?
Please explain in more than one word.
I think it depends entirely on the price and how long your looking to stay and rent in Thailand.
E.G. 1m baht for the 30 year lease on the land and 3m baht for the build.
4m baht divided by 30 yrs divided by 12 months = 11,111 baht per month for a house perhaps with a pool and built to your own spec.
In a tourist area the same house might rent for 30,000 baht per month at the moment obviously increasing year on year.
Interest on 4m baht might average out at 4% per annum over the 30 years = 13,333 baht per month less 30,000 baht = a deficit of 16,667 baht per month x 30 years x 12 moths = 6,000,120 baht cost and thats at the rent staying at 30,000 baht, obviously the 6,000,120 will increase with rent increase.
This is just a very rough guide and will probaly be shot down in flames, but it certainly makes the 30 lease a decent proposition.
Posted 2010-02-18 20:04:21
Hi @ all
I have just read through this whole 5 pages and find it very interesting as it covers exactly what I am looking for. I posted in another thread my particular problem which is very simlar to what is described here. This posting made me understand the issue very well. I have compaqny structure and I am thinking of selling the land to a thai person and lease it back from him and close the companies. We have no relation to each other then being friends or so, so no spouse. So far so good and I may be on the leagl side of things BUT could that deal be done in a way that there is no money flow. What I mean is, he gets the land and I get the lease. So in a contract I can ask for payment within a longer period that would enable the guy to use the leasing money (which would be about the same) or the contract itself would cover that the nonies gop against each other. Would that be 'legal' and straight forward to do so noone ends up in some 'nominee' problems some time, regarding the proff where the guy has the funding from?
Posted 2011-08-08 14:06:47
Using a Nominee just asks for trouble.
The only legitimate way to participate in the land/ property business is via debt mechanisms. If a farang finances property acquisitions for a Thai company or wife then it should be a simple matter of having a bonafide finance contract that recognises the lien over the property plus the payment of interest and/or profit sharing arrangement - as per a Sharia agreement.
Nothing ocmplicated about it unless you try to subvert the laws.
Posted 2011-08-08 16:43:38
SolarOhm, on 2011-08-08 14:06:47, said:
Using a Nominee just asks for trouble.
The only legitimate way to participate in the land/ property business is via debt mechanisms. If a farang finances property acquisitions for a Thai company or wife then it should be a simple matter of having a bonafide finance contract that recognises the lien over the property plus the payment of interest and/or profit sharing arrangement - as per a Sharia agreement.
Nothing ocmplicated about it unless you try to subvert the laws.
including wworking without a permit???
Posted 2011-08-11 10:18:57
thaiwanderer, on 2011-08-08 16:43:38, said:
SolarOhm, on 2011-08-08 14:06:47, said:
Using a Nominee just asks for trouble.
The only legitimate way to participate in the land/ property business is via debt mechanisms. If a farang finances property acquisitions for a Thai company or wife then it should be a simple matter of having a bonafide finance contract that recognises the lien over the property plus the payment of interest and/or profit sharing arrangement - as per a Sharia agreement.
Nothing ocmplicated about it unless you try to subvert the laws.
including wworking without a permit???
You don't work just because you lend money as an investment. Plenty of retirees lend money on mortgages without needing a work permit.
In fact just having a bank account you are lending money - to the bank; for which you receive interest, and do not need a work permit
For asset protection best that the mortgage is held by an offshore company or through an insurance policy/
Posted 2011-08-11 18:42:59
SolarOhm, on 2011-08-11 10:18:57, said:
thaiwanderer, on 2011-08-08 16:43:38, said:
SolarOhm, on 2011-08-08 14:06:47, said:
Using a Nominee just asks for trouble.
The only legitimate way to participate in the land/ property business is via debt mechanisms. If a farang finances property acquisitions for a Thai company or wife then it should be a simple matter of having a bonafide finance contract that recognises the lien over the property plus the payment of interest and/or profit sharing arrangement - as per a Sharia agreement.
Nothing ocmplicated about it unless you try to subvert the laws.
including wworking without a permit???
You don't work just because you lend money as an investment. Plenty of retirees lend money on mortgages without needing a work permit.
In fact just having a bank account you are lending money - to the bank; for which you receive interest, and do not need a work permit
For asset protection best that the mortgage is held by an offshore company or through an insurance policy/
As long as you do not even sign any documents in country or do anything else that may be considered work (pretty much anything, according to the labour laws rather than a loose every day or dictionary meaning).
Posted 2011-09-09 10:01:27
SolarOhm, on 2011-09-08 23:33:40, said:
I have just concluded negotiations with a property developer in Thailand to structure property investing for farangs. Not only can you now legally own a house and lot but you may even qualify for finance 60% to 70% LVR.
Anyone interested PM me please.
There is nothing new with regards to foreigner owning a house in Thailand, but since the land code law hasn't been changed there are virtually impossible for foreigners to own land in their own names.
There is the 40M baht investment scheme, and foreigner can temporarily own inherited land up to one year. U.S. Citizens can also own up to one rai land through the company route because of the treaty.
|
Sponsored by ...
|
0
