BajaNomad

Fideicomiso will continue

El Jefe - 2-7-2014 at 09:40 PM

This just emailed from a friend in real estate. Kinda sucks.

The Fideicomiso will continue. Amendment to Article 27 of the
Mexican Constitution has been Rejected
By John K. Glaab, CIPS
In May of 2013, the Mexican Chamber of Deputies (the lower house)
approved legislation which would have amended the Mexican
Constitution to permit foreigners to purchase property outright
in Mexico’s Restricted Zone which is100 kilometers from the
borders of the United States, Belize and Guatemala and 50
kilometers from the coastlines of Mexico. Effectively this
would have meant doing away with the Mexican bank trust, known
as the fideicomiso.
This initiative has been rejected, according to a report from the
Secretary of Government. (SEGOB)
Rejection of the proposed amendment is the result of not
continuing with the amendment procedure within the time frame
permitted under Article 89 number 2. Section III of the Rules of
the Chamber of Deputies.
The result is that foreigners purchasing property in the
Restricted Zone must continue to obtain titles using the bank
trust system, the fideicomiso, initiated in 1972.

About the author:
John Glaab is Vice President of International Marketing at
Mexico's The Settlement Company® A Certified International
Property Specialist (CIPS) he was named International Member of
the year, 2012 by the National Association of Realtors® (NAR)

SFandH - 2-8-2014 at 07:53 AM

Thanks El Jefe, I was wondering about that.

churro - 2-8-2014 at 08:34 AM

Is this announcement Official ?? Has the Mexican Government came out and said that the proposal to change Article 27 of the Constitution has been shot down?

This is a pretty big deal... I think it would make headlines if the proposal was officially shot down.

[Edited on 2-8-2014 by churro]

El Jefe - 2-8-2014 at 08:37 AM

All I know is what the email says, and I have no idea who the writer is other than what is says here. Could be that they just missed an administrative deadline and will have to re-submit the proposal. Or could be they let it die for a reason. Time will tell.

And there may be an incentive for somebody in the real estate industry to put this out in order to get fence sitter buyers to take the plunge instead of waiting until the fiedi goes away.

[Edited on 2-8-2014 by El Jefe]

shari - 2-8-2014 at 10:41 AM

there was ALOT of opposition to this in these parts...so it doesnt surprise me at all that it is not going through.

MitchMan - 2-8-2014 at 10:55 AM

Ditto, shari.

DianaT - 2-8-2014 at 12:00 PM

Yes only three of our Mexican friends in Baja are in favor of a change and the rest are very much against it.

However, is it confirmed that it was voted down? I have tried to find another source to confirm El Jefe's e-mail with no luck? Important information for all of us fence sitters. :yes:

DavidE - 2-8-2014 at 01:55 PM

Can't separate the owners if the Fideicomiso disappears. Much easier to levy much heavier proposed taxes on Fideicomiso holders. They stand out like a sore thumb.

1. Levy heavier taxes on banks which are passed on of course with a little vigorish.

2. And tramite fees on the Fideicomiso holders (as fees and service charges).

DENNIS - 2-8-2014 at 02:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by soulpatch
I don't know if it was voted down but I believe the legislative timeline on it expired.




That's all the scant info provides. Wouldn't come as a surprise as that method of postponing the issue would leave the door wide open to reopen discussions and weigh foreign investment sentiment.
We'll call it a Red Herring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

DENNIS - 2-8-2014 at 02:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT


However, is it confirmed that it was voted down?


Not voted down....just ran out of time.
Not here, as yet. If it isn't all over the Mexican news no later than Monday, it will surely be no more than rumor.

DavidE - 2-8-2014 at 03:06 PM

Banks administering Fideicomisos would ya know sorta have a clue about this. Kinda like......their......business.....

DENNIS - 2-8-2014 at 03:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DavidE
Banks administering Fideicomisos would ya know sorta have a clue about this. Kinda like......their......business.....



Do ya think banks have a strong lobby in congress? :lol:

Actually, I strongly believe public sentiment, or fear of same, is what caused the indecision. The rank and file of Mexico don't bother with opinions on many things in Mexico because, traditionally, their opinion doesn't count and isn't heard, but things are changing and this is different. In effect, it's like selling the spoils of war and it won't be tolerated without being snuck through the back door, buried in other legislation.......piece by piece.

DianaT - 2-8-2014 at 03:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS

Do ya think banks have a strong lobby in congress? :lol:



Even though they are almost all foreign owned, lobby money is always appreciated.

yellowklr - 2-8-2014 at 08:32 PM

that will keep the prices down!!! YAY glad to have a Mexican Esposa and Kid!

pauldavidmena - 2-9-2014 at 08:37 AM

Found a blog posting (in Spanish) about this at DossierPolitico.com that seemingly confirms this news. :(

Sweetwater - 2-9-2014 at 10:56 AM

Mexico is a large country with Baja representing a small and somewhat detached location. International investment in the country is needed, IMHO and sooner or later, the government will need to deal with a good way to incentivize that investment. With the amount of international deflationary risk, Mexico will want higher prices and in turn, higher wages to be a result. That seems to me to be part of the PEMEX deal and the results are pretty striking in comparison to US gasoline prices. It might be too much change too quickly but I think you're going to see more changes rather than fewer changes.

Hook - 2-9-2014 at 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by soulpatch
I think they like the cash flow. With the whole PEMEX thing and this it would just be too much loss of nationalism to deal with in such a short time frame.

Governments love their tax bases!

Other option is Residencia Permanente and then citizenship.... that puts it all to bed.


I would think the government would actually get more in taxation with brisk real estate sales and increasing real estate prices; something that was likely to happen if the trusts went away.

What is the government's cut on the trust process? Just the income tax on the portion that a bank takes in as profit? I really dont know.

DENNIS - 2-9-2014 at 11:29 AM

Mexico needs tax reform and transparancy....more than foreign investment.

foreigners buying land bill DID NOT PASS

BajaBlanca - 2-10-2014 at 11:50 AM

I just read this in an online publication I get:

The Fideicomiso will continue. Amendment to Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution has been Rejected - By John K. Glaab, CIPS
In May of 2013, the Mexican Chamber of Deputies (the lower house) approved legislation which would have amended the Mexican Constitution to permit foreigners to purchase propertyoutright in Mexico’s Restricted Zone which is100 kilometers from the borders of the United States, Belize and Guatemala and 50 kilometers from the coastlines of Mexico. Effectively this would have meant doing away with the Mexican bank trust, known as the fideicomiso. This initiative has been rejected, according to a report from the Secretary of Government. (SEGOB). Rejection of the proposed amendment is the result of not continuing with the amendment procedure within the time frame permitted under Article 89
number 2. Section III of the Rules of the Chamber of Deputies. The result is that foreigners purchasing property in the Restricted Zone must continue to obtain titles using the bank trust system, the fideicomiso, initiated in 1972.
About the author: John Glaab is Vice President of International Marketing at Mexico's The Settlement Company® A Certified International Property Specialist (CIPS)
he was named International Member of the year, 2012 by the National
Association of Realtors® (NAR)

Bajaboy - 2-10-2014 at 02:20 PM

and the banks will continue to get the money while the land owners will miss out....

DavidE - 2-10-2014 at 03:13 PM

Don't worry....the PRI dominated government has another 800,000* or so proposals lined up

*Yes this is sarcastic

DENNIS - 2-10-2014 at 03:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DavidE

*Yes this is sarcastic



But, true. Peña Nieto wants this and his government will shove it through the back door eventually......piece by piece. :light:

DavidE - 2-10-2014 at 04:34 PM

I just loved it a week ago when I got an email noticias.

(Translated)

Hacienda (SHCP) declared it shall not raise tax rates in the next 36 months.

SAT does not need to RAISE tax rates. They will start enforcing the hundred million unenforced laws on the books right now and work feverishly day and night to find anything NEW they can tax. But DAMN, tax rates will not increase you can take THAT to the bank (being you will be left with nothing else to take to the bank).

Hook - 2-10-2014 at 04:42 PM

Gee, I wonder how successful they have been at taxing the largest "industry" in the country?

monoloco - 2-10-2014 at 06:16 PM

I sent an inquiry to a friend of mine in La Paz who is a lawyer asking what her take on this is. Here is the reply I received:

Hola Greg,
Gracias por compartir.
After a very extensive investigation, I find this very interesting.
Nothing on the subject has been published on the gaceta de la camara de senadores (Senator's chamber bulletin) nor by camara de diputados (House of Representatives).
The house of representatives (camara de diputados) sent the approved initiative to the Senators, nothing has been published about a rejection of the project on the website of the Senator's house).
http://www.senado.gob.mx/index.php?ver=sp&mn=2&sm=2&...
I wonder about the source of the info.
Vamos a ver que pasa...

fideocamiso will stay in place

tecatero - 3-31-2014 at 05:23 AM

looks like the banks didn't want to lose their sweet deal,,,too bad.

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2014/02/the-fideicomiso-will-...

monoloco - 3-31-2014 at 06:44 AM

So far this is the only source claiming this. My friend who is an attorney in La Paz has spent considerable time looking into it and disputes the article. See my post above.