BajaNomad - Mexican bank savings accounts @ 12%?

Mexican bank savings accounts @ 12%?

MitchMan - 9-8-2011 at 01:50 PM

On page 38 of the August 29th edition of the Gringo Gazette at top of column six, Charles Keating (infamy of S and L debacle ?) stated that you can get 12% interest rates on a mexican bank savings account. I checked with Banamex and they said the highest rate that they offer 4.5% on a long term savings plan.

Any body have any insight on this or was the author of the article blowing smoke? Sure would like to know where I could get 12%.

comitan - 9-8-2011 at 02:24 PM

NLY

jureal - 9-8-2011 at 02:27 PM

Peso or dollar account?

DENNIS - 9-8-2011 at 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jureal
Peso or dollar account?

Peso, I'm sure...which will probably devalue at the rate of paid interest anyway.

bajajazz - 9-8-2011 at 06:52 PM

I just read the same article. Last rate I got on a 60-day account was 3.47. Same article also said Mexican mutual funds were up 20 percent this year so far, and over 40 percent for each of the previous three years. The article was touting some kind of preferential service offered by Bancomer. Sounds too good to be true but worth looking into.

S&L history

bajadave1 - 9-9-2011 at 06:05 AM

Seems to me that back in the days of the S&L debacle, MX banks wereoffering much higher rates. did the GG offer a date with that quote?
:spingrin:

Dave

greengoes - 9-9-2011 at 06:56 AM

Gringo Gazette - No Bad News

Cheeseburger in Paradise

Maybe a typo..... should read 1.2%???

[Edited on 9-9-2011 by greengoes]

rob - 9-9-2011 at 09:17 AM

I was also excited by this article until I read that while there were Bancomer branches in Los Cabos and Todos, they were due to open any day now in La Paz and other locations . . .

Can't wait.

Pescador - 9-9-2011 at 01:29 PM

I checked at my local Bancomer today and depending on the size of the account there is some variance as to interest rates but nothing that high. My parents had a savings account in Guaymas many years ago that paid 20% and they made almost 100% is less than 4 years but with the peso devaluation they were back to square one. I truly do not think that will happen and the stock market in Mexico as well as the national banks are doing much better than the US banks due to very small problems with default on loans. Their lending practices are very stringent and strong, and the financial basis looks to be stronger than it ever has been.

MitchMan - 9-9-2011 at 01:57 PM

Since real estate mortgage lending in Mexico is in its infancy compared to the USA and the rest of the western world, they didn't get hit over this last banking debacle in 2007/8 like we did in the USA.

Our financial structure here in the USA engaged in overlending of bad financial products such as subprimes, liar loans, Low down payment loans, lack of proper credit risk evaluation standards by lenders and an over abundant endless supply of lending funds in significant amounts provided by offshore (Cayman Island and the like) shadow banking for mortgage backed securities packaging compounded by financial institution gambling via derivatives (particularly credit default swaps) that finally and directly burst the balooning bubble. The USA was in the direct path of that self created hurricane and exported about 20% of our bad products together with our having encouranged the western world to follow our lead over the past 25 plus years and engage in the same kind of foolishness in their own countries.

Mexico didn't nearly follow that lead to the extent that we practiced it, however, they are suffering because of lack of exports due to the Great Recession and other ramifications therefrom.

I still want to know where Charles Keating got his "12%" from.

Barry A. - 9-9-2011 at 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan

Our financial structure here in the USA engaged in overlending of bad financial products such as subprimes, liar loans, Low down payment loans, lack of proper credit risk evaluation standards by lenders and an over abundant endless supply of lending funds in significant amounts provided by offshore (Cayman Island and the like) shadow banking for mortgage backed securities packaging compounded by financial institution gambling via derivatives (particularly credit default swaps) that finally and directly burst the balooning bubble. The USA was in the direct path of that self created hurricane and exported about 20% of our bad products together with our having encouranged the western world to follow our lead over the past 25 plus years and engage in the same kind of foolishness in their own countries.

Mitch------You forgot to mention that this all happened at the request and near mandating of the Democratic Congress, much of it thru Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ( Bush-the-younger's surragates had a hand in it also.) The name Barney Frank comes to mind--------

Bush and the Republican minority repeatedly gave warnings that this was a dangerous game, but to no avail, if you remember. Surely you meant to mention this!?!?!?!?

Barry

[Edited on 9-9-2011 by Barry A.]

mtgoat666 - 9-9-2011 at 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

barry: you elderly amuse me. you selective and revisionist memory is hilarious!

Barry A. - 9-9-2011 at 02:38 PM

So Goat, please reveal the error of my decrepid ways, and set me straight------is what I say not so???

(bottem line-------many "in charge" really screwed up big time for that 10 years, or so, time period---------as usual, unintended consequences of Govt. policy with the 'best' of intentions meddling in an area of economics about which they did not know much, but should have)

Es Verdad???? or no???

Barry

MitchMan - 9-9-2011 at 02:38 PM

Barry,
I didn't cast blame on any particular person or faction in my post. You went there, all on your own.

Quote:

Barry A ... this all happened at the request and near mandating of the Democratic Congress, much of it thru Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...

If you think that the democrats were/are on the lead on all this and were the primary party, you couldn't be more incorrect. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't get into the bad loans until after legislation promulgated and deregulation had already paved the way for those creations and like products. Don't forget that Fanny and Freddie were privatized. They just didn't want to be left behind in the money making frenzy as they were losing market share. What congress intended was to get Fanny and Freddy to avoid redlining.

Please, if you are going to put the blame for deregulation on the Democrats and further that folly by blaming democrats for the financial structure melt down, you and I are going to bump heads big time and you will be doing battle with me and most all well credentialed, credible and well recognized economists and political scientists. So, go there at your own peril. You have been warned. To be certain, there was some complicity, no argument there, even from Clinton, and Chris Dodd comes to mind as well. But the 99% of the lead and 99% of the push went big time via Reagan and then the Bushes doubled down. Deregulation is Reagan's and the Bushes middle name.

It wasn't my intention to go there, but I will if you do.

Just read your post to Goat. It wasn't a matter of "screwing up", Barry, it was deliberate deregulation and that deregulation directly led to the melt down . Every bit of it.

[Edited on 9-9-2011 by MitchMan]

Barry A. - 9-9-2011 at 03:04 PM

Well, Mitch, I typed our a long response to the above but it disappeared into cyber-space, apparently. I am not going thru that again-------to lazy, and taking off in a few mins.

I did not mention deregulation--------but I am a supporter of pulling back from onerous regulations that are killing the Market and bringing things to a standstill, along with many other reasons. We have so many regs on the books now that it boggles the mind. I firmly believe in the Market's ability to sort things out if left alone, and truly believe that the Govt's well intentioned rules and regs do more harm than good--------and I will leave it at that. I listen to different economists than you do, apparently.

Barry

CortezBlue - 9-9-2011 at 04:04 PM

I am not blaming Billy Clinton, but he changed the regulations that allowed for "more homeowners" and was a big ACORN supporter.
That being said, free enterprise took over and allowed everyone to join in the fun. Buy a house with nada down. I was smart or lucky and sold my investment properties on 2006 and came out way up and ahead. Now I have no idea what to do with it. What else, I am buying real estate for rentals.
Kinda like black jack, buy in and leave the table when you are up. But then there's that other BJ table just down the way..........................

Mexitron - 9-9-2011 at 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Well, Mitch, I typed our a long response to the above but it disappeared into cyber-space, apparently. I am not going thru that again-------to lazy, and taking off in a few mins.

I did not mention deregulation--------but I am a supporter of pulling back from onerous regulations that are killing the Market and bringing things to a standstill, along with many other reasons. We have so many regs on the books now that it boggles the mind. I firmly believe in the Market's ability to sort things out if left alone, and truly believe that the Govt's well intentioned rules and regs do more harm than good--------and I will leave it at that. I listen to different economists than you do, apparently.

Barry

Even Greenspan---the cheerleader for deregulation for the boom years---ate his words and said that he overestimated free market's ability to correct themselves. The ideology of free markets---aka the spin--- is different from the practicality of free markets. When the game is on such a large scale there has to be some rules.

Barry A. - 9-9-2011 at 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexitron

Quote:

I agree, as long as we don't get carried away.

Barry

bajajazz - 9-10-2011 at 12:54 AM

Blaming the financial debacle of 2008 on the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (an anti-redlining piece of legislation) is as pathetic as it is despicable.

Eighty percent of the problem loans were underwritten by mortgage lenders who were not obliged to adhere to the standards required by the CRA. Loans written to CRA standards demanded that borrowers' income, credit and job security be verified. Failure rate of loans written to those standards are about what would be expected. Any lender who misrepresented the credit-worthiness of a borrower by not performing those verifications (something that was done on a monstrous scale) was guilty of criminal fraud.

Oversight of underwriting standards largely disappeared in order to facilitate the Bush administration's policy of creating the "Ownership Society," an effort that was helped along by that fool Greenspan's televised exhortations to the public recommending Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loans.

Since it's obvious the Wall Streeters refuse to grow up and take responsibility for their criminally reckless behavior, and our Department of Justice maintains its obdurate refusal to prosecute the largest financial fraud in the history of the world, I see no reason to have any faith in the economy of the USA. Maintaining a dysfunctional status quo is not going to work. It's not a matter of if the economy is going to crash again, the question is when.

Pescador - 9-10-2011 at 08:33 AM

As this argument progresses, the one thing that stands out is that no matter what the factual information really is, it gets twisted beyond recognition depending on the political persuasion of the presenter.

Kinda reminds me of the two blind guys who went to the circus for the very first time and got a chance to feel an elephant. One who was holding the tail of the elephant figured it was a faily tall animal but it had a ropy feel with stiff hair covering the end and kept moving about. He almost got in a fight with the other blind guy who was holding the trunk and had a completely different perception. Now we know which end the democrats have been holding on the elephant for a long time so it is no wonder they perceive things somewhat differently.

comitan - 9-10-2011 at 10:09 AM

Pescador

You started off so good then you blew it. :rolleyes:

Riom - 9-10-2011 at 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
On page 38 of the August 29th edition of the Gringo Gazette at top of column six, Charles Keating (infamy of S and L debacle ?) stated that you can get 12% interest rates on a mexican bank savings account.

Maybe this old news from 2009 is where he got the 12% figure:
http://www.bankaholic.com/earn-12-on-a-90-day-cd-from-mexico...

The "Capital Bank Mexico" mentioned is, not surprisingly, no longer in business. For the reasons why, see http://mexicoinvestmentblog.com/2010/03/03/of-capital-invest...

Rob

bajajazz - 9-10-2011 at 12:42 PM

My thanks to MitchMan for opening the discussion regarding investments and savings accounts in Mexico, and to Riom for bringing the discussion back to the original topic.

Are there other Nomads who have reliable sources of financial markets information that might benefit us all? Even an investment that just keeps up with inflation is good knowledge to have at this point.

I regret introducing a partisan note into the thread. To balance things out, let me mention that it was Jimmy Carter who lifted the usury caps and started the deregulation that led to the S&L ripoffs. There are no heroes in this saga, only villains.

MitchMan - 9-10-2011 at 06:38 PM

Mexitron and bajazz, you guys are right on. While some deregulation did start with Jimmy Carter, his intent was to stimulate the economy because of the economy numbing effect of the price of oil going thru the roof and taking its toll on all aspects of our economy. He was not a deregulator in the same sense of the word compared to the new conservative movement happening on campuses in the mid 70s and culminating in the Reagan slam dunk in 1980. Reagan's agenda was deregulation, deregulation, deregulation in every aspect of the country, not just limited to a financial policy here or a legislation there, or a part of the economy here, it was a total attack on government regulation and governance itself.

The real cancerous deregulation truly began when the line between commercial banking and investment banking was removed and allowed commercial banking to behave like investment banks.

The great debacle occured because the financial industry was allowed to engage in risky and damaging activity because of the lack of oversight, regulatory reporting, lax capitalization, its new found ability to create bad loan product (well before CRA), excessively risky derivatives, all fueled by the greed of the CEO's maximizing their take based on their excessively generous compensation packages, and all with the adoration, encouragement, and more than full support of the deregulating Reagan and Bush administrations. For the last 36 years, deregulation (code word for small government, outsourcing and privatization) has been and still is the religious montra of the republicans... they own it. In fact, Reagan sent Greenspan all over the world exporting deregulation speak.

By the way CortezBlue, the CRA was aimed at the middle class potential homeowner and was limited to conforming loans. Subprimes were an invention of the new unregulated aggressive financial "free marketeers" (you know, the free unfettered market that is to self correct and benefit everyone) an had no connection CRA. Also, the effect of the CRA was absolutely minimal in the big picture as Bajajazz points to in his post. Those loans did not have any abnormal default rates. However, the right wing uses the CRA as a ploy to derail serious thought and give Rush Limbaugh's very average audience a false hook to hang their oversized hats on. Remember AIG, that famous weekend when Paulson panicked the world. Well, that was the sounding bell that alerted the world to the oncoming Great Recession - that was a fall that was directly related to derivatives, specifically credit default swaps - a favorite endeavor of the the deregulated financial world.

[Edited on 9-11-2011 by MitchMan]

MitchMan - 9-10-2011 at 06:46 PM

Back to 12% rates. They don't exist today in any real sense. It was a careless , scratch that, wreckless reference by Charles Keating in his Gingo Gazette article. Casts doubt on his credibility with regard to anything he writes on such matters.

Barry A. - 9-10-2011 at 06:52 PM

All true, Mitch, even with the occasional somewhat offensive but mild anti-Republican remarks, but of course still not the complete picture, but you know that.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way---------and we now will, and are, reaping the results---------let us know how that works out for you (and the Country). I do hope we all prosper.

It's tough to make money in this enviroment, but I am squeaking by with help from my Republican Money Manager. There is always a mini-boom going on somewhere, and we usually find it.

Barry

wessongroup - 9-10-2011 at 07:20 PM

A positive thought... thanks...

wilderone - 9-11-2011 at 09:17 AM

"Casts doubt on his credibility?"

Doubt? If you know any thing about financial crises in the US, you'd know to absolutely disregard anything Keating would have to offer in the way of a so-called edge in consumers' interest. And if you read the following article, you'll see that James Grogan - yes, the James Grogan who was involved, fleeced, and ran into the ground, the failed Loreto Bay development, was Charles Keating's aide at the time the fraud against Americans went down. We should have learned from that, but no - seems only to serve as a how-to guidebook for other POLITICIANS and bankers - regardless of their party affiliation. Politicians are scum.

http://www.stewwebb.com/Junk%20Bond%20Daisy%20Chain%20Fraud%...

durrelllrobert - 9-11-2011 at 09:22 AM

This thread needs to move to OT

comitan - 9-11-2011 at 09:30 AM

No! because if you peek through the keyhole you will learn something.

The Gull - 9-11-2011 at 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
So Goat, please reveal the error of my decrepid ways, and set me straight------is what I say not so???

(bottem line-------many "in charge" really screwed up big time for that 10 years, or so, time period---------as usual, unintended consequences of Govt. policy with the 'best' of intentions meddling in an area of economics about which they did not know much, but should have)

Es Verdad???? or no???

Barry

Notice that the spineless, non-entity Goat failed to respond?

MitchMan - 9-11-2011 at 09:46 AM

Wow, that is interesting; the tie between Loreto Bay, Grogan, and Keating. I have always had a deep scepticism regarding Loreto Bay. So much blue sky hype, Americans buying into it with big deposits, and then again, as with so many other resort projects in Baja, incomplete.

Caveat emptor, "buyer beware", has never been a very successful credo.

It is a shame that big money has taken over our politics to such an extent that the lobbying in Washington DC has become a swollen lavish industry since 1980. The "more business in government" group has gotten its way with government. Politicians are now bending to monied interest so completely for their political financial support especialy since lobbyists have made it part of their motis operandi to provide exiting politicians with cushy lobbying jobs. Tom Delay was the exalted successful promoter of that dynamic.

If we want moral public servants as politicians, we need to get money out of politics. Fat chance of that with this Supreme Court (Citizens United) as many see allowing money into politics as an expression of "freedom" itself. But then again, do we want moral public servants if you are of a mind set that believes that government itself is an evil entity and that the bigger a government gets the worse it gets and that governance is inherently innefectual. It is a self fullfilling prophecy when republican administrations have repeatedly installed heads of governmental agencies that were hostile to those very agencies, then getting rid of the experienced staff and then reducing remaining staff salaries and benefits and then following up the degradation of the government itself with ensuing laying offs ; remember James Watt? That was the beginning of wrecking and undermining government from within and by deliberate design, closely followed by outsourcing and privatizing government functions in a belief that replaces service to your country with the avarice of self interest and a profit motive.

Profits have their place, I am a business man and a staunch supporter of a market based economy. But there are certain many functions that are not served best by a profit motive.

[Edited on 9-11-2011 by MitchMan]