vinod Posted March 14, 2003 Report Share Posted March 14, 2003 I disagree with u that the sex tourist make a huge numbers. Look around Thai gets around 9 mil tourist a year and the sex scene is just in Bkk confined to Nep, SC & patpong. Look, around they are less that 1 % of the tourist who come to these places. It is the regular tourist who pay big bucks staying in the fancy hotels & resorts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2003 Report Share Posted March 14, 2003 Do you think the regular tourist paying the big bucks doesn't take part? Come on now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
check_bin_krap Posted March 14, 2003 Report Share Posted March 14, 2003 "Do you think the regular tourist paying the big bucks doesn't take part? Come on now... " .................................................... When I first started to go to Thailand for 20 years ago I would think the sex tourists were in majority. These days, I don't think the single male sex tourist is that dominant. I would say it also shows on this board, many here don't participate in the scene for a number of reasons..So I agree with Vinod. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shit-Spattered Dog Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 Says Gadfly1: Remember when the Baht plummeted from 25 to the dollar to 57 to the dollar in July of 1997. A windfall for tourists, but a disaster for anyone living, working and getting paid in Baht in Thailand (including Farangs.) Although crystal ball grazing is hazardous, my guess is that 2003 will see a replay of that same cycle, but on a smaller scale. Not likely cause history always repeats itself, but never in the same way. I've noticed that I can now receive a grand total of 28.999 baht instead of the 28.11 I was getting on my past trip in November. Not quite the 25 to 57 baht jump back in '97. Says Gadfly1: I am waiting for my retirement fund (all in Baht because I am not connected enough to move large sums out before the dive) fall again. In 1997, my savings were reduced by nearly half. I don?t think the replay will be as bad, but it won?t be pleasant. As for you tourists, book your tickets now and plan on getting more bang for your Baht. I'm curious but can you open a US dollar (Euro's) bank account in Thailand. Instead of converting your dollars into Baht they are held in the not so mightly anymore GreenBacks. For instants, if someone from Europe decides to live in LOS and brings a wad of Euro's ( or US$$) to live on, instead of depositing it as Baht, it stays in the currency as either Euros's of US$$. When you take it out it comes outs in the form that it went it as. Shit :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danish30 Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 I'm curious but can you open a US dollar (Euro's) bank account in Thailand. Instead of converting your dollars into Baht they are held in the not so mightly anymore GreenBacks. For instants, if someone from Europe decides to live in LOS and brings a wad of Euro's ( or US$$) to live on, instead of depositing it as Baht, it stays in the currency as either Euros's of US$$. When you take it out it comes outs in the form that it went it as. Yes, you can open a foreign currency account, most of the larger banks will open one for you if you deposit a minimum of US$ 5000. Best regards, Danish30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 Do you think the regular tourist paying the big bucks doesn't take part As bizarre as it sounds, I dont think the 'average' tourist goes anywhere near the P4P sex scene, other than being hassled by the girls when they walk down Beach Rd in Pattaya or similar. The occasional 'brave soul' might spend an hour or so in Patpong, but I saw a lot of families who seemed to be having a perfectly wonderful time in Pattaya, seemingly oblivious to the redlight aspect of it all. Go figure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 Many responses. I?ll do my best to respond to the more salient points in this one post. I will start with the easiest one: If you think the baht will fall, transfer your retirement fund account (800k in baht I assume) back to a bank in your native country's currency. There is no requirement that retirement funds be maintained in a Thai bank account once you have met the retirement requirement (ie the financial req't is a letter from the Thai bank stating that you have the 800K funds on account). There is a bit of a misunderstanding here; I probably should have been more specific. I am not talking about money I earned abroad and brought in for my retirement or even the separate savings account I established from my earnings here for my retirement. I am talking about the provident fund of the Thai company for which I work. It is a bit complicated, but funds are taken from my pay (before taxes) and then remitted into a provident fund for the entire company. The company matches my contribution, but those matching funds vest at 10% per year. There is no way I can move the provident fund of the company I work for out of Thailand. Individual savings accounts are different, and options are available there. I should have made it clearer that I am talking about a provident fund. Gummigit?s comment about timing might be right; these sorts of things cannot be predicted with precision (if they could, currency speculation would be risk free), but I lived through the last crash here and I am getting an uncanny sense of deja vu. But I am curious; what do you mean by: ?There are some stops to pull out before that happens and there are still "sources" of funds yet to be tapped.? I assume you mean the current effort to strengthen tax enforcement; as far I can see, that is aimed exclusively at foreigners or foreign companies. I think they have hit the bottom of that well. More important, I have not seen any serious effort to collect taxes from wealthy Thais; it?s too dangerous. On the rating agencies, I think we are talking chalk and cheese. The comments above were not specific, but since Moody?s was mentioned I suspect the reference was to the rating of sovereign debt. I am more concerned about a decline in the GDP coupled with inflation and rapid outflows of capital. As for: ?I wouldn't be surprised if the lead rating analysts for Thailand derived their rating while staying at a suite in the Oriental, chauffeured by numerous officials and businessmen and taken to the finest members only clubs in Bangkok.? The economists mentioned in the Asian Wall Street Journal article are all Thai. They might go to the finest members only clubs in Bangkok, but I doubt that they stay at the Oriental; they live here. The conventional international wisdom, overwhelmingly, is exactly the opposite -- i.e. that the baht will strengthen noteably over the next year or so. While the factors you cite are not inconsequential, the most important medium term consideration for the baht is the continuing weakness of the US dollar and the strength of the yen. There is a view that the Dollar will weaken, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that ?the conventional international wisdom? is that that the ?baht will strengthen notably over the next year or so.? Take a look at today?s WSJ. The dollar is strengthening. The U.S. economy will go through cycles, but the U.S. economy is essentially sound since it is an open market and ? notwithstanding Enron ? has a decent legal infrastructure where contracts can be enforced and property rights are protected. Thailand has a long way to go, and recently it has taken several steps backward. These fundamentals concern more than anything else. Rookie ? you are right; I need to proof read my posts better. It should read: ?less than 3% of the people earns more than $353 US.? Thanks for the correction. I don?t think we?ll see as large a collapse as in 97, but there are fundamental problems here. Foreign investment is down; the lowest since 1970. The strategy has been to fuel growth through government spending and increased domestic consumption ? how does that work when less than 3% of the people earn more than US$353 per year and stimulus spending has stopped? The government recognizes that the deficit spending cannot continue, and has sensibly announced that it will stop. Now where does the growth come from? I agree that the value of tourism is underestimated (and the more prurient aspects are grossly underestimated), but I don?t think it is large enough on its own to generate sufficient growth. And current policy is not exactly tourist friendly. Because the education system here is abysmal, productivity gains must come through capital improvements. How will that happen when (a) investors are justifiably frightened by the current government?s sometimes hostile and at best ambivalent attitude toward foreign investment and ( capacity is at 63%. You don?t make capital investments when capacity is that low, particularly when the government is sending mixed messages about protecting investments here. The jump in consumer spending has run its course; we?re already seeing declines in spending and a large increase in consumer debt defaults. Now where does the growth come from? As Khun Sarasin Viraphol, EVP of Charoen Pokphand Group stated in the Wall Street Journal article, ?I don?t have the answer,? and I don?t see the answer in anything posted here. I think were in for a rough spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 Artie, This is no surprise, a mate of mine (on my recommendation) recently made his forst (and not last) trip to LOS. On perusing the brochures, Patters was advertised as a family resort. He refused to believe what I told him, and was pleasantly surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummigut Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 "these sorts of things cannot be predicted with precision (if they could, currency speculation would be risk free)," Redundant. "Moody?s was mentioned I suspect the reference was to the rating of sovereign debt. I am more concerned about a decline in the GDP coupled with inflation and rapid outflows of capital." Sigh. Sovereign debt is rated on the basis of being able to pay. This is largely based on the ability of taxation (minus net worth). Since Thailand ain't got a whole ton of money (though they got a decent pot) sitting around, it's largely based on the ability to tax. In turn this is based on the health of the economy, and hold your horses, GDP. GDP can be affected by outflows of capital. In any event, large swings in the FX market that you are inferring would be coupled by rating changes in the sovereign debt. Given they were caught sleeping in 1997 and had to change the debt by two whole ratings, they are not going to fall asleep again so easily so soon after 1997. Though I am curious why they are even on positive credit watch, but then again, they must be privvy to a lot more info than me. I am not going to hold a finance course here (I get paid for crap like that, well, actually I'm involved in one now, but I'm not getting paid, lol. But I'm not really leading the class either . You can repeat what you read, but you need to think a bit between the lines and connect the dots. One: As for the pots yet to be tapped... There are a number of them staring you in the face. One of which is the extreme excess liquidity in the banking system. Thaksin is trying to get this in the system through reclassifying assets to let them be used as collateral, but there are probably a few other things to be done. Not saying it's efficient, but it will help float the boat. There are a number of other items too, but then again, this ain't a finance class. Two: You cite that the opinions are the economists in Thailand. Think there are few and far between economists here who are good and have no conflicts of interest. I view Thai economists on par with their analysts. Pick up a few analyst sheets and see for your self. Enough said (well, maybe not, there are a few decent folks out there). Three: You cite a CP group executive to back your story up. CP folks aren't too happy right now because the world market is depressed. They are largely an agro food processing company largely dependent on exports to Asia and the prices for their commodities are depressed. Irrespective of Thailand, they are in a gloomy state of mind. Four: As for what could pull Thailand's pants up? Simple, a quick and decisive war with no or limited terrorism backlash. If money is clearly sitting on the sidelines in the US waiting for this to hapen, they aren't going to pull the trigger and invest in Thailand. After the war, hopefully the money sitting on the sidelines will be put to use and business investment will rise. Giving greater demand for Thai products, thus increasing investment and assisting the Thai economy. To me, Thaksin is playing a hang on game until this can come to pass. This is the most obvious one, but there are other, less impacting, items that can help Thailand. If you really want to know, I suggest reviewing a Macroeconomic book and or possibly a corp. finance book (partial to Brealey and Myers). There's a lot of stuff to be found in the English newspapers, but true insightful comments are few. Have to come up with them yourself by stringiing articles together. It's actually cool, because when you think and reach decent hypotheses it's all you. Join your country's chamber of commerce and attend their functions. Get lots of ideas from dem people. <<burp>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2003 Report Share Posted March 16, 2003 Good for you that you taught finance; I?am glad for you - really, but I am not impressed (see final point.) More important, I think you need to re-read my post because you have misunderstood a point or two. Let?s start with the big picture by putting this into perspective; you state: ?large swings in the FX market that you are inferring would be coupled by rating changes in the sovereign debt?, and then suggest that I am inferring a collapse similar to the 97? collapse (?caught sleeping in 1997??). I am not. My post states: ?I don't think we?ll see as large a collapse as in 97.? Your next point relies on an ad populum argument and is not entirely accurate and complete: Given they [the rating agencies] were caught sleeping in 1997 and had to change the debt by two whole ratings, they are not going to fall asleep again so easily so soon after 1997. Though I am curious why they are even on positive credit watch,? Take a closer look at the current soft reports and indications coming out of the rating agencies; no rating change, but they are not nearly as positive as they were four months ago. There is even enough in the earlier reports for the agencies to credibly claim they weren't caught napping if there is a collapse; they have learned their lesson. Or to state it more positively (and less contentiously), your curiosity is well founded. But there is a more fundamental flaw in this argument; stated clearly you contend there is no problem because the rating agencies ?are [not] going to fall asleep again so easily so soon after 1997.? I am less sanguine than you because I have never been impressed by ad populum arguments; no one serious is. Let?s go through your numbered points; they are more organized and coherent. First: As for the pots yet to be tapped... There are a number of them staring you in the face. One of which is the extreme excess liquidity in the banking system. Thaksin is trying to get this in the system through reclassifying assets to let them be used as collateral, but there are probably a few other things to be done. Not saying it's efficient, but it will help float the boat. I doubt it, but I am not surprised that you are a bit confused about this since mortgage law is not the most interesting of subjects and most people (including many analysts) don?t understand (a) the current state of Thai mortgage law and ( Thaksin?s proposal. In the U.S., the U.K. and Australia, for example, you can mortgage accounts receivables, inventory and equipment. In the U.S., 60% of small to medium sized enterprises are financed in this manner through what is generally known as a UCC-1. The U.K. has its fixed and floating liens. Nothing remotely similar is possible in Thailand, and Thaksin?s proposal does not provide for anything remotely similar to what is found in the U.S. or the U.K. They are talking about allowing food stall vendors to use their food stalls as pledged collateral. Nothing has been proposed about mortgages, and no one here is talking about a real system of personal property mortgages that bankers will take seriously. Even in those areas where proper mortgages can be obtained, they are almost impossible to enforce. At least seven years or more to maybe enforce a property mortgage that would take six months to enforce in California. There is a long way to go before any boats start to float. Second, simply dismissing Thai economists as interested parties is not persuasive. Do you know anything about them? The Thai economists mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article, Khun Supavud, wrote an article warning about the 97? crisis before it happened. Another economist, Paul Krugman, was making similar warnings in 1994 (take a look at the Fall 94? edition of Foreign Policy Review.) Politicians and apparently even some finance types don?t realize that within the mainstream of economics there is a great deal of unanimity of opinion. And a great deal of concern about Thailand. Three, perhaps Khun Sarasin Viraphol has, as you put it, a ?gloomy state of mind.? I don?t know and I don?t care because it is irrelevant. Not only is this ad hominem argument based on the purported mood of a CP Group executive irrelevant, but, more important, it distracts attention from the key question raised by Khun Sarasin Viraphol: now that spending has declined, government deficit spending is about to end and consumer debt defaults are up, where does the growth come from? Four, and this is presumably intended as the answer to three, you state: As for what could pull Thailand's pants up? Simple, a quick and decisive war with no or limited terrorism backlash. If money is clearly sitting on the sidelines in the US waiting for this to happen, they aren't going to pull the trigger and invest in Thailand. After the war, hopefully the money sitting on the sidelines will be put to use and business investment will rise. I partially agree, but here is the problem: even before the war on terrorism and 9/11, investment was down in Thailand. And it was down because of the anti foreign investment rhetoric employed during the election and anti foreign policies that were continued and implemented following the election. The current policies are, at best, ambivalent toward foreign investment and, some would say, downright hostile to foreign capital, and that impediment to increased investment will not go away after a quick and decisive war. That is one of the "fundamentals" I was referring to. Thank you for the suggestions on the macro economic text books, but it is not necessary. I think I know a bit about the subject matter already. More important, if you have read my posts before, you?ll know that when it comes to anonymous postings on websites, I am more impressed with verifiable facts and persuasive arguments than a poster?s claim of purported expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.