You may have hit the nail on the head in that post, as regards what some are perceiving the phrase 'money to burn' means as I used it. I only meant it as having surplus cash that if lost would not cause undue concern to the individual; I definitely did not mean that an investment in property here is money thrown away, but I did mean that the risk of losing it is considerably greater than I would be comfortable with. I also did not mean, and have never said, that it is a bad investment as regards potential returns; the returns would have been, and still are, spectacular for some people, and it just depends, in my opinion, on whether you are prepared to take the risk, whether that is braving the legal loopholes of shell companies, putting something in a Thai spouses name or taking the lease option, all the while hoping that neither the law nor the political and economic stability of the country comes crashing down around your ears. If you have 'money to burn' then these issues are a minor concern; if you do not then they should be a major factor in your decision.
Just a final point on the phrase 'money to burn'; the dictionary definition (which I based my comment on) is:
"More than enough money for what is required or expected, as in After they paid off the creditors, they still had money to burn. This hyperbolic expression implies one has so much that one can afford to burn it. [Late 1800s] This sense of the verb burn is occasionally used in other phrases, such as time to burn ("more than enough time"), but not very often."
I do not think that buying property in Hua Hin is a bad investment, just that it is a risky one.
Have I made myself clear now?
