Owen`

A bit of clarification here. Gary knows his stuff. When I refer to the market controlling various decisions, it does, but this does not mean that an asset allocation profile of 100% stocks and 0% bonds is in play. One mixes. As long as one has any % greater than 0 in the market, then its movements are going to matter. Another thing worth mentioning. Scams. Not the illegal kind. The legal kind. Every mutual fund manager and every 401K program Does Not Want Anyone To Retire -- EVER! They are paid out of Annual Expense Ratios. If that number is 1% and your account is, say, $200K, they get 2K per year of your money. Hell no they don't want you extracting from that account for living expenses. They want you adding to it, each paycheck, as you work until you die. Keep that in mind when reading "professional advice".

I feel your pain. Earning six figures is not that big a deal nowadays, but I guess that's the old yardstick. I went past that threshold years ago and it's just kept going up. The bonus each year is substantial and tacked on. Toss in some good years in the market since 2002 and it becomes pretty clear that what used to be a hand to the forehead and a thought "there has to be some other way" has now become "that other way has arrived." Pulling the string too soon is what worries me, too, and that website I quoted above seems to be the only objective measure to tell the tale. www.fireseeker.com. It tells one, simply, if one has enough money to cut the cord. I do, but I notice I'm still here in the states typing this and not in Pattaya? Why? Cushion. Momentum. Cushion. Concern that history isn't predictive. Cushion. And a move of this magnitude will be a lot of work that will likely take 18 mos (to establish Nevada residency for zero state income tax). We should form a club. You are describing me. I know it's time for "me time", but momentum is tough to overcome. I'll tell you another effect in play. The market was up only 5% last year and it's up about 7% YTD. These are not enormous 20% moves and it is trying our patience. I say this because I can talk about momentum or being intimidated by how much work it will be and all sorts of other things, but the truth is if my net worth exploded 30% in the next 2 mos, I'd be gone so fast you'd hear the doppler shift as I went out the door. Oh, and I have very dark visions of what life will be like for contemporaries of mine at age 65. Soc. Security will be there still at that point, but I'm guessing ZERO additional pensions. I'm 50 and I simply can't see government or private pensions continuing to survive that long. They will be frozen in the next couple of years and inflation will cut them in half by then. We will likely not see many elderly folks at resorts in 15 yrs. I think, for exactly the same expenditure types you list, that my number will be a few hundred under that. I did some careful research, and I allow myself a Raffles hotel splurge now and then too, but I still come out under that. I plan about 4 SE Asia trips a year for maybe 4 day weekends plus 2 "major" ones, to Europe or the US for a bit over a week each time. I estimate about $7500/yr to cover that much travel. I expect to do even more. A LOT OF PLACES are close to Singapore and the sightseeing/travel passion could be satisfied from Pattaya easily and cheaply for . . . I'd guess 7 yrs or so before one starts looking farther away. Also, and for me this is big, if Skyteam broadens Delta miles useability to Singapore Air and Northwest, I will either travel even more or travel the same amount for maybe $5K/yr. The one thing that I think is most powerful for guys to understand is what they observe of their parents' lives as they age is almost worthless. Today's parents probably have pensions. Those won't be there. You have to take care of yourself. If you do, Pattaya on $3000/month will be very comfortable. Eneukman has an apartment well above minimum, as is Gary's condo. Eneukman is under that number and he's doing the same travel thing we contemplate. Gary's travel is up north, which certainly has its appeal too.

Guys, This comes up often, but the question does have flavors. The first flavor is "How much does it take per month to live in Pattaya?" That information is well covered in the Wiki at the upper right of this page. Look in the Expats area. Learn to praise Soi7, Gary and Eneukman, who kindly provide data on how one lives in Thailand in various ways The second flavor is much more complex and it is . . . How much money do I have to have to last 20, 30, 40 etc years if I am spending X amount of money per month with inflation increasing that amount and with investments varying year to year? I babble about that here often and won't again. Search . . . or go to the excellent empirical calculator found at www.fireseeker.com and gain wisdom, truth and eternal awareness. You UK guys will have to translate a lot of US terms on that site, but the concept is entirely portable to the UK.

I'm not a Brit and can't say if something like this is available to you folks, but in the US one of the favorite estate management tools available to people who want to protect inheritance for their family is a trust. A trust is a legal entity that people put their money into. It costs some money to set up, but once it is set up, because it is not human, it does not die. You do. It doesn't. You set up its "rules" to pay out benefits to your family under specified circumstances. Because it does not "die" it is never subject to estate tax. Now if a guy was cheating on his taxes and funded the trust with the result, I'm pretty sure that maneuver will fail and the IRS will penetrate the trust, but there are some very creative things that I've seen done with foreign trusts so that when the tax people discover the cheating and come looking in his estate for money, they find nothing -- but they do find the money sent to the foreign trust. If a request is made to the foreign bank by the US tax people to send them the money -- well, the bank is generating fees from that trust so after they finish laughing they become creative in their own way to find a way to retain the money and fees and keep sending proceeds to the beneficiary -- who may also be outside the US. In general, trusts protect from estate tax and lawyer costs processing estates on death of the individual. The paragraph above is just something I once encountered. Not recommended and I don't even suggest any such thing is possible in the UK (or the US now). Anyway, I have no idea if the UK can do this sort of thing, but I suspect trusts in some terminology exist there and might warrant some study.

Ditto. The Brits may not do dinner well, but they do a great job of breakfast.

A particularly good, and recent, article about ATM withdrawls and credit card fees used in foreign purchases. The focus is for travelers, but the details are solid. http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/articl...articleId=10173

IRAs, Roth IRAs and 401K (paragraph number of the Internal Revenue code) are ways in the US to put money in a special account that grows tax deferred, or tax free, for retirement. Outside those accounts, the US taxes you on savings interest or stock share gains. Inside the accounts, generally not. Lots of details and complexity. I'm sure you have a UK equiv. The market is up, but only about 6% year to date. 5% last year. Barely 10% the year before that. 20+% in 2003 coming off the multi-year big declines starting in early 2000 and aggravated by 9/11. The 6, 5 and 10 numbers are not the high teen% numbers of the 90's. Kind of hard to call 6% and 5% a silly speculative "bubble", but no one has a crystal ball. So how was Malaysia? A lot of early retirement websites talk of it as an excellent option with fewer long term visa impediments than Thailand and very cheap flights up to BKK to indulge when the spirit moves.

Arghh, missing parens: Value of Later Money = (1 / ((1.0 + inflation rate)^Years)) X Value of Today's Money There. Much prettier.

I'm not a Brit, but I know something of how Cost of Living Adjustments unfold, so here's a quick and dirty formula for you folks to project the effect of inflation Value of Later Money = (1 / (1.0 + inflation rate)^Years) X Value of Today's Money The ^ symbol means "raised to the power of " and the inflation rate is annual. So if the British inflation rate is expected to average 4% for 15 years the result is Value of Later Money = (1 / (1.04 ^ 15 = 1.8) = 0.55) 0.55 X Today's Money If your pension freezes for 15 years from age 65, then your 80th year will require you to have about twice the number of pounds available to live. FYI, it's not quite this bad. Most recent studies show that despite health care issues (which may not apply to the UK), 80 yr olds spend less than 65 yr olds. So the odds are (no guarantees) that even though inflation is going to chew yor money in half, and that isn't good, it's not quite as devastating as it appears. (but almost) Y'all need to yell louder at your MPs, or somehow pretend to still be living in the UK.

cd Eneukman does yeoman's work keeping the board updated on living expenses. There are lots and lots of details in other posts. Recommend a search on Eneukman. Alan, you have been talking 80K baht/mo for many months now and apparently that is holding up long term? Your 20K baht 2 bdrm condo/apartment is a big chunk of course but there's always other stuff. cd has at least a valid point that the numbers are as dependent on women as on housing. If one is a drinker, one is going to have to come to terms with costs. Everyone is different so Alan's habits may not mean anything to someone else. BTW, the math on 80K used to be so much easier at 40 baht per dollar. At 37:1, one needs a calculator. Oh, and you talked about a Vietnam jaunt. What was airfare? As always, please don't let us pry into anything you consider personal and accept any deserved apologies if a question is improper.

No huge value to this information below, but it's easily available from expatfocus.com and provides a comparison Costa Rica: Residency for Pensioners or Retirees (Pensionados or Rentistas)- If you earn $600 per month from your pension, or $1000 a month from your investments you can qualify for these permits. Phillipines: The requirements are basic: ID documents and medical/police checks. Bank certification of dollar time deposit as followed are required: - 35-49 years old - US$ 75,000 - 50 years old and above - US$ 50,000 - Additional dependent (in excess of two) - additional US$ 15,000 each One-time fees are US$1,500 processing and service fee and US$10 for the annual PRA ID card fee (waived for the first year). Spouses must provide the ID/medical/police information and pay a reduced (US$300) processing and service fee plus US$10 for the annual PRA ID Card. Singapore (yikes!): For individuals who have not previously worked in the country and/or obtained permanent residency, the only remaining option allowing them to retire in Singapore is to provide significant investment into the economy (minimum of S$1,000,000). As such, the opportunities for many who might want to retire to the island nation are limited. Panama: Residency in Panama is very easy to obtain when compared to most other countries. There is special legislation for “pensionersâ€, who can qualify for residency with a guaranteed pension income of $500 per month ($600 for a couple). You don't necessarily have to be an elderly person either, since anyone over 18 can qualify. However, it must be a pension from a recognized source: for example a government agency (e.g. Social Security, disability, armed forces, etc.) or if it is a company pension, it must be a defined-benefit pension. If you don't have a fixed pension, but you have capital, you might consider investing in real estate. If you invest $200,000 or more in any kind of real estate, you can automatically receive an investor residency that allows you to live in Panama legally. There are other possible programs, such as "reforestation" and "small business investor", depending on your personal objectives once you are living in Panama. I won't paste more. If interested scope www.expatfocus.com

From the Thai perspective, what sense does it make to grandfather any increase? They pick a number to generate government revenue and presumably they pick a number that in their view maximizes revenue -- meaning that so much more is made by those who do not flee elsewhere that it overwhelms the loss from those who do flee elsewhere. I don't see how grandfathering is beneficial to their government coffers in this regard. Everyone would pay the same, new arrival or old arrival.

A helpful addition, Alf. The whole Commodity Trading Advisor world has always had a taint to it in that the statistics of success, at least in the US, are so poor. My recall on this is vague but I seem to remember something like "80% of all commodities traders lose money" or something like that. Now, I understand that 80% are not within the professionally advised category so it may not apply, but that is the source of the taint. I do think, and this can be important outside IRAs, that commodities trading still has favorable tax treatment on profits. My recall is 60% of commodities trading gains get long term capital gains tax treatment regardless of how long the position is held. But there is a recent study out . . . and I mean really recent within the last year or three . . . that seems to conclude that a broadbased commodity asset allocation niche does do the magic deed of reduction of portfolio performance standard deviation without a reduction in return. Hard to argue with lower volatility and no decrease in return. So a position in commodities futures is not quite the insanity it might have once been viewed to be and maybe the taint has diminished -- especially for conservative retiree investors. Here is a link to a breakdown of the work. I am pretty sure this link is to a guy's derivative work and his emphasis is on Safe Withdrawl Rates for retirees. It's not the original work, but that shouldn't matter. http://raddr-pages.com/research/CommodityFutures.htm

I don't want to fight or do credentials. Anyone can list lots and lie. I could claim an MBA from the Wharton School and be lying. I could claim an MBA from Northwestern and be lying. Or Stanford. Or Harvard. So I will list nothing. I take no offense at US's posts. I don't care who says what about my text. I don't seek a following. I'd be a nutcase if I did -- and chose a Pattaya board as the place to start. No one should believe anything without checking things a lot of places. Hell, no one would. It's a posting board. Maybe it can give you ideas to investigate, but who believes any one post on here about anything to do with Pattaya, let alone investing? If someone says barfines are now a standard 75 baht, he won't be believed until we read about 20 posts saying that. (And then we'd check to see if it is April Fools). The market goes in all 3 directions, up, down and sideways. Nobody knows which direction is coming next. People say the long term trend has always been up and always will be. Maybe. There is a growing subculture out there pointing loudly at the oil depletion of the planet and what it will mean (theoildrum.com, lifeaftertheoilcrash.net) and saying the long term reality of the market climbing is no longer reliable -- and maybe they are right. But . . . in the 1970s there was a Doomsday group who asserted the same thing -- that the long term uptrend of the market could not continue, and their mechanism was the inevitability of nuclear weapon use and the erasure of the US as a world power by 1985. The long term uptrend may end. If it does and you're heavy into equities, you're going to be hurt. OTOH, if that trend ends a whole lot more in society will probably be destroyed beyond just your retirement.

Gentlemen, I got no desire to fight about this. Do whatever you want. No one rational was going to do anything without double checking the concept anyway. Eneukman returns from Vietnam, I see. I kind of knew this thread was on its way to boring the UK guys. They probably have IRAs and Roths, but named something different with different rules. Eneukman, how goes the retirement so far and are you on budget and has the FTSE mirrored the Dow to date?

Okay, let's take the optimal case rather than typical. You're 56 years old and kicking back on the beach in Jomtien or Phuket for a few years. In your portfolio you have $100K in completely taxable accounts. You also have 800K in a retirement-oriented, tax-advantaged acct. The proceeds on that 800K acct generates zero taxable income because it is, after all, an IRA. You don't spend it. It just grows there. In year 1, you need $35K for housing, barfines, wimmen, food, and trips to the US or wherever. You take that from the taxable account of 100K. That 100K is sitting in CDs and earns 2%. That's 2000 in taxable income. That's all the taxable income you have that year. Lets say the Federal standard deduction that year is 6K for singles (it's not yet, but someday). You can therefore have another 4000 dollars of income before you owe a penny in taxes. So hey, you didn't bother working to earn that 4000 dollars. Instead, you did a Roth conversion of 4000 out of your traditional IRA into a Roth. There is zero tax on this maneuver because you don't make enough money. If you didn't do it. . . if you sat there and did nothing, then when the 100K is gone from your taxable assets and you start drawing on your Traditional IRA account for spending, you will be taxed on the withdrawl, at whatever age. If 4K is not worth bothering about, remember that this was all about 15% to begin with, but note that the first 4K of conversion in this situation will always have 0 tax on it until your 100K is gone. Actually, in year 2 or 3 as the 100K diminishes, you have less and less CD income so you can convert 5K or 6K tax free because you lived on assets, not income. After 3 years when you run out of money in the taxable account, you shielded 15K in money from the IRS, forever. No penalties. No finding money outside the acct to pay the taxes. 15K shielded forever. If you have deductions from dependents such that your deductions are higher than the standard . . . hmmm, I don't know but I thnk this works too and you could shield more than 5K/yr. Another aspect to this is there are RMDs on Traditional IRAs. You have to start yanking whether you like it or not as you get much older. Roths have no RMD until after you die, and then it's your heirs' problem. All you guys in Pattaya. This thread is what not being there does to you.

Whoa, that hit a nerve. This incremental Roth recharacterization technique is to be used post retirement. There is indeed a 100K income limit beyond which the government constrains recharacterizing, but I suspect most do not expect that level of taxable income post-retirement. If they do, then they may not see a lower marginal tax rate in retirement and a Roth conversion may not help them. (unless they think those rates are going even higher) I doubt that is the norm. I would suspect the norm is that post retirement there is a sharp reduction in income. This technique is for those folks. 15% is the US federal marginal tax rate what I thought might be a typical retiree who is single in Pattaya (most expat retirees in Pattaya are probably single for US tax purposes) and who have income from 7K to 29ishK dollars a year after all (or standard) deductions. The idea in this maneuver is to pay 15% now rather than not convert, have tax rates go up and maybe pay 25% later. It is a maneuver to lock in a tax rate today. The next rate up is 25% for a single taxpayer for 30K - 70ishK and if someone is in that category and expects that 25% to become 35% in the future, then again, he can act to lock in the 25%. No question if you're going to draw an Exxon magnitude retirement pension package, this is all silly. If you are single and have 100K+/yr COLAed coming in retirement pensions, you're in a different league. You'll have to do your own research on this, but in general you have the right idea. You can move your 401K post retirement to a Traditional IRA and that's not a taxable event if done correctly. The age 55 question is a good one and I believe it works like this: Recharacterizing seems not to have an age limit on it. There are a zillion Roth websites to look at for this (here's one: http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2004/c...ry04120305.htm) but I haven't seen an age limit on recharacterization. If someone finds such a thing it would be good to know it. There is one significant caveat, however. If you do an incremental Roth Conversion you do incur some tax liability. You need to pay that tax liability with dollars from outside the IRA accounts. If you try to take some extra out of the traditional IRA to pay the taxes, then that tax-paying money is a violation of the age 59 1/2 limit. But I don't think the conversion money itself is (unless someone finds something and speaks up). If someone knows this technique is wrong, it would be good to hear why. Quite a few folks on various early retirement forums have analyzed it to death and are planning on it. Morningstar's Vanguard Diehards . . . or http://early-retirement.org are good places to scope out. Okay, I'm bored now. Scope the websites. Incremental Roth conversion strategies for retirees are pretty common.

FYI concerning Roths. If you ever had a 401K that you rolled into a traditional IRA, or that you will have in 401K form on day of retirement, there is a strategy not widely understood that is advantageous. When you retire, your income should drop sharply. Your tax rate does the same thing. This might not always be so. Tax rates can be changed and the likely direction doesn't look favorable. So given that you have low income and low tax rate, that would be the time to start re-characterizing your 401K/traditional IRA into a Roth. Roth withdrawls are tax free forever, as you no doubt know. But 401K/traditional IRA withdrawls are taxed. So the strategy is to do incremental recharacterizations each year, moving some money from 401K/traditional to your Roth with the quantity determined by the point at which your marginal tax rate on those dollars would go up. In other words, if you can move 5000 dollars over and pay only 15% tax on them, this is better than withdrawing that 5000 in 5-10 years and paying the potentially higher tax rate of 35% or whatever on them. By moving that money into a Roth and taking the small hit now, you avoid the bigger hit later.

I know nothing about the condos or photography. My impression is the condos are small. The square meters are what they are. Supposedly there's something that can be done decor-wise or color wise to create the impression of more space, but I know nothing about decor, either. They just look small. Shrug.

A distinct ratchet upward in the post sophistication as folks understand rightly that this is Very Serious Stuff. Might I offer a website of interest. www.fireseeker.com This website has nothing to do with investing decisions or stock picking. It embraces a recent array of academic studies indicating that asset allocation is the most powerful predictor of portfolio performance intermediate and long term, and withdrawl magnitude is the most decisive parameter in the question Will I Run Out Of Money? It's an excellent implementation of historical norms and tells you what Your Number should be. Hope you enjoy it. Count your pennies and enjoy the gains. The BGs will too. They just don't realize it.

leemo, you're still down 25 cents on identical % rises and losses. The loss was more powerful mathematically. A rise identical to a loss did not return you to the same place. It left you lower. As for selling at the top, I approve of this concept and encourage everyone to do so, provided they don't sell when it's not the top. As for those folks pointing to all the reasons why this is a false rally and like the Crash of 2000, see Rule of Thumb #1. There has never been a time in my memory, and probably ever, when you could not sit down and examine all the data and generate an excellent array of very rational arguments to explain why the market should go in any direction -- which, btw, includes sideways. See Rule #1. You want compelling reasons for a downside? No problem. Oil prices are very high, draining US consumer resources. The housing bubble is collapsing. Mortgage rates are going higher and will hurt new housing construction from which many industries derive their revenue. The dollar is weakening because the trade deficit is increasing with China. Other countries hold a lot of US dollars and can sell them and collapse the dollar further, forcing the price of oil higher and draining even more consumer resources. You want compelling reasons for an upside? No problem. Corporate earnings are doing very well on average. JP Morgan's 1st quarter was up 36% just this morning. Pfizer drug company (makers of Viagra) earnings soared this morning from sales of Zoloft and Lipitor. The Federal Reserve has apparently ceased raising short term interest rates and there is therefore evidence that this is one of those market cycles in history that did not fall from rising interest rates. The baby boomers are retiring and though they will move money out of the market, they will use that money to buy things and add to the corporate earnings of the companies that make those things. Japan's economy is finally showing signs of growth. With their wealth and China's wealth, there are now a lot of people who can buy US goods, which should be cheap because of the weakened US dollar. This will further strengthen US corporate earnings and make their stocks rise. See? You can make a rationale case in either direction. This is pretty much always true.

I started the thread in a fit of celebration, but now I have to go into my dreaded lecture mode. I bought my first stock at age 21. I never stopped since, even for a single month. I'm 51 now. Does this mean I have rules of thumb? Sure. Here they are. 1) There are no rules of thumb. No one has any idea what is going to happen. Ever. No exceptions. This includes me. 2) If the market fluctuates in a way best modeled by some percentage rational and some percentage random, is the mix more random then rational? Or the reverse? If it is more rational then everyone would make money and no one would ever sell what they bought because if they bought it rationally, it must always go up. If it is more random than rational, then my preface comment about buying stocks for 30 years means nothing -- since 30 years observing a random process has no educational value. 3) Never ever ever buy anything from anyone who contacts you first. You will miss out on 1 billionaire making deal per 1000 yrs by adopting this procedure. You will also miss out on 5 scams per year by adopting this procedure. Why does this matter from a stock market perspective? Because losses matter more than gains. If you have $1 and you lose 50% of it, what do you have? Right. 50 cents. If you now achieve a 50% gain on that, do you again have your dollar? No. A 50% gain on 50 cents leaves you with only 75 cents. Sigh, end of lecture.

Those folks invested in the US had a Good Day today! 1.75% days don't come too often. That's more than 1/3rd of an annual 5% Tbond earned in 8 hrs. As everyone really knows when they look at reality, planning to be in Pattaya or actually being there is all about money. This stuff matters a whole helluva lot more than people try to persuade themselves. To all US investors, celeberate. And you UK guys, you'll likely follow suit at least partially tomorrow, so thumbs up to you guys too. (Don't expect an equivalent post when the Dow is next down 1.75%)

Scroll down to the the Meeting and Ride Share section here on the board for taxi options. There are two titles worth reading "New driver available" and "1200 baht BKK to Pattaya". The first is run by a BM (lostinspace). The second by a gentleman named Mr. Toom. Both get good reviews from BMs with the first costing more but providing some extra procedures that make things safer and with the driver English speaking and able to help you out of unusual jams that might occur at the airport. The second is well regarded too. Read both threads and you'll get a feel for it.

For drugs of this type, alternatives are ALWAYS possible. There is never any one drug that is the only drug that will work for you. Talk to a doc about alternatives that are easily and cheaply available where you are. There has been an attitude propagated by pharmaceutical companies over the years that once you find a drug that works for you, do not continue to explore. This just means they can keep prices higher by not enduring competition. Docs will generally always be willing to prescribe some equivalent. If you find one that does not want to be bothered, look up the side effect profile for the drug you're taking and claim to be experiencing them. The doc will then get offer you alternatives. Pick the cheapest/most convenient.