Sharon Yam on Why Thai Families Need Earlier Planning for Global Wealth and Succession

For Thai high-net-worth (HNW) families, international wealth planning is becoming harder to separate from governance, succession, and tax. As more families accumulate assets across multiple jurisdictions, and as second and third generations live, study, and work abroad, the old assumption that domestic and offshore wealth can be managed separately is becoming less sustainable. The challenge is no longer only how to hold assets efficiently, but how to preserve clarity, continuity, and family alignment as wealth becomes more global and more exposed to legal and tax complexity. At the Thailand Wealth Management Forum 2026, a panel discussion examined how Thai families are navigating structuring, mobility, and intergenerational planning in a more globalised environment. Among the panellists, Sharon Yam, Managing Director and Regional Head of Asia at Equiom Group, offered one of the most practical cross-border perspectives, drawing on real examples of families dealing with global real estate holdings, succession pressures, and changing tax realities. Her remarks highlighted the cost of delayed planning, the importance of governance tools such as family charters and shareholder agreements, and the reasons why Thai families still tend to rely on holding companies while remaining cautious about trusts.

Key Takeaways

• Many Thai families still plan too late: Tax and succession issues are often addressed only after a trigger event or after international expansion is already underway.
• Governance matters as much as legal ownership: Family charters, shareholder agreements, and holding companies can reduce conflict when family circumstances change.
• International wealth creates practical succession challenges: Cross-border assets require clearer planning if families are to avoid disorder later.
• Trusts still face hesitation in Thailand: Many families see them as too complex or too costly, especially without a domestic trust law.
• Thai tax scrutiny is rising: Families need to prepare for tighter treatment of offshore income and the possibility of broader future tax changes.

When Planning Starts Too Late

One of Yam’s most useful contributions was her emphasis on real cases rather than theory. She described being “in the middle of dealing with a Thai case where the patriarch has just passed”, involving a family with real estate holdings “all over the world”, each held through different companies.

That example showed the stakes immediately. Cross-border wealth may appear orderly while the founder is alive, but once a trigger event occurs, differences in family objectives can surface quickly. In the case Yam described, “we have three families, some wanting to distribute and some wanting to contain”.

What stood out, however, was that the patriarch had been proactive. He had recognised that a trigger event could “cause a lot of chaos within the family”. As a result, he had already put “the family charter” in place and also “a shareholder agreement”.

That example supported one of Yam’s clearest messages: early planning does not eliminate conflict, but it creates more clarity when difficult moments arrive.

Governance Is Essential

Yam’s remarks reinforced the importance of governance tools in family wealth planning. The value of the family charter and shareholder agreement in the case she described was not merely formal. These documents helped provide “more clarity and direction when there are exit events, when there are families wanting to sell out, or when they are coming up and against another trigger event, for example, divorce”.

That is an important point. Governance is often treated as secondary to tax or structuring. Yam’s remarks showed why that is a mistake. Once wealth is spread across family branches and jurisdictions, governance becomes one of the key mechanisms that determines whether the family can act in an orderly way.

Her comments also made clear that governance is not only about inheritance. It is also about managing living risks such as divorce, disagreement, or diverging objectives among family members.

The Biggest Failing: Global Expansion Without Holistic Planning

When asked about the typical failing of Thai families as they expand abroad, Yam’s answer was direct. “First and foremost is tax planning is not done. It’s not planned ahead of time.”

That may have been the most important line in her contribution. It summarised a recurring weakness in cross-border family planning: international expansion often happens first, while tax planning and wider structuring come later, if at all.

Yam explained that families may decide a child should go to the United States or the United Kingdom, or support a new business overseas, without stepping back to ask how the overall estate plan should now look. “I don’t think that there has been enough holistic planning as to how the entire estate planning should look like at the moment,” she said.

This is significant because it links mobility, education, and international investing back to the wider architecture of family wealth. A child moving abroad is not only a family milestone. It can alter the tax profile, residency exposure, and future succession dynamics of the entire family.

Yam’s point was not simply that families need more tax planning. It was that they need more joined-up planning.

Thai Families Are Becoming More Serious, but Still Early

Yam also suggested that Thai families are only beginning to approach these issues more seriously. In her view, much of the challenge reflects the fact that Thailand’s internationalisation is still relatively recent.

She observed that Thai families “are just beginning to look into this more seriously because it has been quite contained within the country”. It is “only the past 5-10 years that they started investing out”, and that shift is coinciding with the rise of the second and third generations.

Yam added a sharp point about next-generation preparation. Families may assume that sending children to good schools abroad is enough to make them ready to become future leaders or heirs. “Even then, they think that by putting these second, third generations into schools, they would be the perfect legal heirs. Unfortunately not,” she said.

That is a useful reminder that education alone is not the same as readiness.

Why Holding Companies Still Dominate

On structuring tools, Yam made clear that the most popular arrangement in the Thai market today remains the Thai holding company. “Normally right now the most popular structure is the Thai holding company,” she said.

Her explanation was practical. A holding company can “centralize the dividend” and provide “the fair way to pass on the asset in intergeneration without an argument”. That reflects why holding companies continue to appeal. They offer a familiar and manageable way to centralise ownership, contain value, and create a framework for future transfers.

Yam also noted that these structures are usually paired with family charters and shareholder agreements. The holding company is therefore not the whole answer. It works best when reinforced by governance documents.

Why Trusts Still Face Resistance

When the discussion turned to Thai trust law, Yam explained that while a draft law exists, political uncertainty has slowed progress. Until local law is in place, most Thai families remain cautious.

Her explanation was revealing. “Most of the Thai families are not very receptive with having a trust,” she said, because they think “the trust structure is complex and also expensive”.

Yam did not dismiss trusts altogether. She noted that for families with foreign exposure, family members abroad, and assets outside Thailand, trust structures can be useful and may support long-term governance beyond the next generation. But she also made clear that if a family has “almost zero foreign exposure”, a trust “may not really be an answer”.

That balanced view was one of the strengths of her contribution.

Tax Pressure Is Rising

Yam also addressed the changing Thai tax environment. She explained that foreign-source income was previously exempt from Thai tax if repatriated in a different year from when it was received, but “that is not true anymore”. Now, “whenever you repatriate your offshore source income, you will get taxed under Thai law”.

She also referred to the possibility that Thailand may eventually move towards a global taxation scheme. While she suggested such a move would take time, perhaps “three to five years”, the direction of travel is clearly towards greater scrutiny.

Her summary was blunt: the government wants “to get more tax out of the rich people”.

This article was first published on www.Hubbis.com. 

This article has been carefully prepared, but it has been written in general terms and should be seen as broad guidance only. This article cannot be relied upon to cover specific situations, and you should not act, or refrain from acting, upon the information contained within this article without obtaining specific professional advice. Please contact Equiom to discuss these matters in the context of your particular circumstance. Equiom Group, its partners, employees, and agents do not accept or assume any liability or duty of care for any loss arising from any action taken or not taken by anyone in reliance on the information in this article or for any decision based on it.