New law, negative effect?

Ask here about the pleasures and pitfalls of buying, selling or renting property and real estate in Hua Hin. Building, design and construction topics welcome. Commercial or promotional posts for real estate companies or private properties are forbidden.
Post Reply
Burger
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:35 am
Location: Hua Hin

Post by Burger »

Suggestion to Mr. Burger: If you quote from other websites, could it not be ingenious to add the links
I would of normally Hogus, but I don't think the website is flavour of the month with HHAD. And I can see why in general.

I only made a new thread as I did not think it could be taken serious enough to put on here, due to it being a Pattaya developer with a vested interest.

Cheers Hogybaby :shock:

Burger
hogus
Professional
Professional
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:34 pm
Location: Hua Hin

Post by hogus »

Ok, Lev...thanks for explanations.
It wasn't clear, that Burger's quote came from thaivisa...I thought he found an official statement from a lawyer's or real-estate-agent's website.
:)
hogus
Professional
Professional
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:34 pm
Location: Hua Hin

Post by hogus »

Burger wrote: Cheers Hogybaby :shock:
Burger
hey, can be that I'm young and fresh...but not soooooooo young anymore
:D

:cheers:
User avatar
malcolminthemiddle
Guru
Guru
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Here,there and everywhere

Post by malcolminthemiddle »

Burger wrote

You wrote this yesterday:
The project land is never subdivided into individual house plots but remains whole whether that is made up of one or more Chanotes.
The Chanotes are in the name of the "Company" and remain an infinite asset of the company. At completion, a buyer, will be allocated the proportional number of shares within the company allocated to the house he is buying.
In short one project, one company, multiple share holders.
To sell your house, sell your shares.
So if you are saying no sub-dividing, therefore no seperate land papers (chanotes), then why are farangs going to land offices to transfer land papers into their wives/companies name ??
In the scenario I described they wouldn't.

Burger wrote
If you build an extension and a swimming pool and your house is now worth a million Baht more, do you get more shares ??
I don't understand.
The answer is no, the number of shares reamin fixed but their value fluctuates.

The company Articles of Association disallows any external alterations to the property. Cosmetic improvements are allowed but these have to be approved by the "Juristic Committee". The addition of a swimming pool provided the pool was in line with the overall project concept would be allowed.

The share value is governed by market forces and is only realised at the time of sale. The allocation of shares is transparent and determined by the size of plot, location within the project and cost of build at inception in line with an agreed formula recorded within the Articles of Association. Regarding the sale of shares, existing share holders must be given first option, new share holders must be approved by the "Juristic Committee".

The value of shares between different properties can vary ie a seller is not bound to sell his shares at a fixed price, he has the freedom to negotiate the best price he can for his property subject to the controls defined within the AoA.

Cheers
Burger
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:35 am
Location: Hua Hin

Post by Burger »

Malcolm,
Well to be fair I've never heard of that, buying land and house and you do not get a land title (chanote) paper in your name (loose term). Just shares, and you do not not have majority voting rights over the company!?

Do you know of a project in Hua Hin with this set-up ?
One limited company with 50+7 shareholders (if a 50 house project).
Who has the majority voting rights, the 'residents combined' or the developer/management company ? For sure the developer/management company will not allow majority voting to the residents, therefore surely the residents have no control over their futures.

What happens to the Thais that do not want to be under a company as they can purchase land on their own names, you talked about them yesterday ?


Are you sure mate ?

Burger
User avatar
malcolminthemiddle
Guru
Guru
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Here,there and everywhere

Post by malcolminthemiddle »

Burger wrote:Malcolm,
Well to be fair I've never heard of that, buying land and house and you do not get a land title (chanote) paper in your name (loose term). Just shares, and you do not not have majority voting rights over the company!?

Do you know of a project in Hua Hin with this set-up ?
One limited company with 50+7 shareholders (if a 50 house project).
Who has the majority voting rights, the 'residents combined' or the developer/management company ? For sure the developer/management company will not allow majority voting to the residents, therefore surely the residents have no control over their futures.

What happens to the Thais that do not want to be under a company as they can purchase land on their own names, you talked about them yesterday ?


Are you sure mate ?

Burger
Burger,

I'm a little busy at the moment but will answer your questions asap by PM.

Cheers
lomuamart
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9822
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:25 pm
Location: hua hin

Post by lomuamart »

I'm still here with all my money.
Nobody has given one good reason to part with it
Burger
Ace
Ace
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:35 am
Location: Hua Hin

Post by Burger »

lomuamart wrote:
I'm still here with all my money.
Nobody has given one good reason to part with it
It's all about whether the individual who is investing considers it a risk or not, personal preference I guess.
Property prices, on decent properties in decent areas, have risen at least 50-60% over the past 3-4 years. People that bought their money over and bought several of those to rent out, will give you good reason to invest. Others on here that are not positive about the risks etc, will advise you otherwise.
I think I read before you had a property in Central London, I wouldn't advise selling that to invest here though as you'll never lose with property there.

Burger
User avatar
STEVE G
Hero
Hero
Posts: 13598
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 am
Location: HUA HIN/EUROPE

Post by STEVE G »

Burger wrote;
Well to be fair I've never heard of that, buying land and house and you do not get a land title (chanote) paper in your name (loose term). Just shares, and you do not not have majority voting rights over the company!?


Hi Burger;
When I was in town a few weeks ago, I met a project developer who told of a way to circumvent the property laws that sounds very similar to this.
I was in a bar at the time so don’t quote me on any of this, but as I recall it involved a Hong Kong bank setting up a company in Thailand that owned the land, and when you brought a house you got shares in the bank equivalent to the value of the property.
I don’t know whether this has been done or if it was just an idea, it sounds pretty insecure to me. I certainly wouldn’t want to put any money into a deal like that, like you say you would have no control over anything.
User avatar
malcolminthemiddle
Guru
Guru
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Here,there and everywhere

Post by malcolminthemiddle »

Burger wrote: I think I read before you had a property in Central London, I wouldn't advise selling that to invest here though as you'll never lose with property there.

Burger
Providing you keep property for a long period.

Many people lost money on UK property in the late 80's when Maggie Thatcher kindly introduced double tax relief just before interest rates hit 15% + , the property market was then stagnant for 10 years. Remember negative equity?
User avatar
tuktukmike
Guru
Guru
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:02 am

Post by tuktukmike »

Think you will find that Thatcher never introduced double tax relief.

What the Tories did do was cancel double Miras, ie tax relief on your mortgage for a couple.

Mike.
User avatar
malcolminthemiddle
Guru
Guru
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Here,there and everywhere

Post by malcolminthemiddle »

tuktukmike wrote:Think you will find that Thatcher never introduced double tax relief.

What the Tories did do was cancel double Miras, ie tax relief on your mortgage for a couple.

Mike.
My recollection is that it was the Tories who introduced double Miras, ie tax relief on your mortgages for a couple just before interest rates hit the roof which was the cause of the UK 10 year property slump and breakup of many young peoples' relationships.

If and when Miras was discontinued I've no idea.
User avatar
tuktukmike
Guru
Guru
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:02 am

Post by tuktukmike »

The Tories cancelled the double miras that couples used to be able to claim on one property.

This as you say was a nightmare for mortgage holders at a time when interest rates went through the roof to try and steady the pound.

If you think about it introducing double Miras would have been a help ie double tax relief, it was the withdraw of this that pushed so many couples over the edge.

And of course the Building Societys giving 3 1/2 times the main income and around 2 times the spouse when calculating advances.

Much the same as they are doing now.

Our own mortgage nearly doubled at that time.

Mike.
User avatar
malcolminthemiddle
Guru
Guru
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Here,there and everywhere

Post by malcolminthemiddle »

tuktukmike wrote:The Tories cancelled the double miras that couples used to be able to claim on one property.
Hi TTM,

MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief At Source) was abolished in April 2000 by Teddy Bear?

Can we trust anything you post?
Jim
Guru
Guru
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:48 pm
Location: Bo Fai

Post by Jim »

This is such a rare occasion I can't let it pass, so I have to support TTM, who is spot on here. Double Miras was abolished by Nigel Lawson (remember him) in the late 80's, but with a stroke of brilliance. He announced in March that it would be abolished in September, thus forcing loads of young couples into the last stages of the property bubble and consigning them and many others into a decade or so of negative equity etc etc.

Mike - see, I don't disagree with everything!!!!!

Jim
ดวงขึ้น
จิม
Post Reply