Came, financial insolvency

On June 9, the National Banking and Securities Commission intervened in the Sofipo Came (Sociable Income Tax Agency) due to financial insolvency.

The financial system's supervisory body implemented the management intervention of the financial company.

The CNBV—the institution reported—detected accounting irregularities and a significant loss of capital that place it in category 4 of the capitalization level (Nicap), the lowest in the scheme and representing a situation of critical financial insolvency.

The CNBV's governing board held a working session on June 9 to analyze the situation at Came.

It ruled that the Sofipo should be intervened to suspend its operations and safeguard the interests of savers, as provided for in Articles 75 and 78 of the Popular Savings and Credit Law.

The CNBV had been conducting supervisory visits to Came since March of this year.

Various preventive measures had been issued, and on May 21, the company was notified of the authorization revocation procedure due to noncompliance with capitalization requirements for credit and market risks.

That procedure is still pending.

At the end of December 2024, Sofipo reported a total of 1,371,315 clients.

With that number of clients, it ranked as the ninth largest entity in the sector in terms of number of users, according to official data.

The National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV) emphasized that savers' resources are protected by the Protection Fund, which guarantees up to 25,000 Investment Units (UDIs), approximately 212,000 pesos, per individual or entity, regardless of the number or type of transactions they maintain with the intervened entity.

Despite CAME's critical financial insolvency, the financial authority assured that the Mexican financial system remains solid and capable of preserving the stability of the popular savings system.

So far, what is officially known.

Unofficially, it is said that the case puts more than 2.6 billion pesos of savers' money at risk.

Of the 1.3 million affected savers, approximately 14,000, or about 1% of the total, have deposits exceeding 212,000 pesos and risk losing the amount that exceeds the limit covered by Prosofipo.

The origin of Came's problems is not recent. They began to develop several years ago and have intensified in the last two or three.

Came offered interest rates of up to 16% per year.

This is yet another example of the group of Sofipos that attract numerous groups of investors by offering high interest rates and, over time, run into problems.

Condusef has been very active in warning and advising users about these types of Sofipos and strategies based on very high interest rates.

He has pointed out that they may be indicative of financial risks.

In the case of Came, the intervention of the Ministry of the Interior drew attention.

The Came case, due to the time it took to develop and the regulatory authority's intervention, raises questions about the effectiveness of detecting irregularities by regulated operators and the deterioration of their capitalization.

A self-critical analysis of the government's own financial system would be worthwhile in order to prevent these types of cases more quickly.

It is true that Came's case, like some others that have been reported, has not been a systemic case.

That is, they have not put the entire financial institutions at risk.

However, they do put savers' resources at risk and undermine people's confidence when the broader effort is to increase financial inclusion.

Institutional strengthening of regulatory authorities should be sought to enhance the credibility and reliability of authorized intermediaries. At the same time.