Kirchnerism is approaching the limit of its support for Massa / Argentina News

“I have to be honest: if Macri did this, I would kill him,” he said on his radio program robert navarro, one of the most influential opinion makers of the Kirchner public, alluding to the exchange of bonds from the Anses Sustainability Guarantee Fund. Not only did it not validate the official thesis that the FGS benefits from issuing bonds in dollars and receiving bonds in indexed pesos, but it also asked to review the measure before it actually came into effect.

a few hours before, Claudio Lozanoeconomist close to the CTA, former director of Banco Nación and also candidate presidential inside the front of all, described the bond swap as “financial alchemy”, predicted that its anesthesia effect on the parallel dollar will be “absolutely circumstantial” and said that, at this point, the Government represents “another variant of the adjustment”. Without half measures, he qualified as a mistake that the coalition has endorsed the handing over of management power to Sergio Massa.

Another referent of the Kirchner universe, horace rovelli, who held the position of director of Macroeconomic Programming of the Ministry of Economy during the first term of Cristina Kirchner, was even harsher: “This is already explicit Menemism”he said about Massa’s measure, and compared the sale of Anses bonds with the privatizations of the ’90s.

Examples of this type accumulate with the passing of the hours and reveal the situation of internal tension that exists in the government coalition. Kirchnerism was in a state of shock after Massa’s announcement, and there is no longer any courage to go out and justify the minister. In fact, a state of rebellion is beginning to be noticed in the militant bases themselves, in order to set a limit on the tacit support that Cristina Kirchner has given the minister.

A long list of “toads”

It is not a surprising situation, by the way. Since Massa assumed the leadership of economic management with broad powers, Kirchnerism has had to “swallow frogs” as a concession to financial stability -and, therefore, in the social sphere- promised by the Tigrense.

At this point, the list of toads generated by the massista management is long:

• He “soybean dollar” in its two editions.
• exchange rates sectorial.
• The acceleration of the devaluation rate and the interest rate in response to the request of the IMF.
• The real adjustment on the purchasing power of the retirements -estimated at 14% year-on-year-.
• The refusal to pay a salary fixed by decree.
• The refusal of a program general price freeze.
• The 60% salary guideline; the exchange of bonds with a guaranteed exit clause for banks.
• Flexibility so that banks can distribute dividends, take dollars out of the country and worsen the quality of the support that guarantees the fixed terms.
• Finally, this exchange that puts at risk the capitalization of none other than the FGS, one of the proud Kirchnerists, derived from the nationalization of the AFJP.

Until now, there has been some lukewarm criticism of some of these measures, especially from the Deputy Máximo Kirchner and union leaders such as Pablo Moyano. But the reality is that they were sporadic objections in a climate of resignation.

There is no shortage of declarations of recognition -among which stands out the one from the brand new Edesur controller, Jorge Ferraresiwho acknowledged that Massa took office “a day before we leave by helicopter” – and that is what has offset the anger at the tenor of Massa’s policy.

In short, the person who best represented this ambivalence was Cristina Kirchner herself, who in her public appearances usually praises the management of “Sergio” for having put a stop to the scenario of financial chaos that dominated in July of last year. Her only objections have been that she put excessive zeal in fiscal austerity and not having advanced more aggressively on the profitability of “concentrated groups.”

Has the limit of support for Massa reached?

However, this resignation to Massa flaunting pragmatism through “orthodox” measures or making concessions to the financial system may be reaching a breaking point. There are more and more voices that are beginning to make themselves heard to claim that, before the electoral campaign, Kirchnerism does not lose its identity. And that would imply a cut in support for the minister’s “market friendly” policies.

At the official level, the Kirchner leadership has remained silent in the face of the new bond swap. This implies an obvious intention to distance themselves and not appear as co-authors of the measure.

Those who have spoken have done so critically. And two irritating situations occurred for Kirchnerism: criticism from the left and criticism from former officials of Cristina’s own administration.

Among the first, there were plenty of examples, such as that of the Deputy Nicolás del Cañowho wrote: “They give investment funds and banks the bonds in dollars of the FGS of the Anses in exchange for titles in pesos. With the money of the retirees they finance the flight of capital”.

It is a criticism that hurts in a particularly sensitive point of the “story K”, given that Cristina’s preaching has been based on her defense of the scarce currencies of the “bi-monetary economy” and on the condemns the macrista economy that led to the “leak”.

The other irritating fact was carried out by Diego Bossio, former owner of Anses during Cristina’s management, who impiously criticized Massa’s measure. He made a detailed technical analysis of how the FGS would suffer and then, invited by TV channels critical of the Government, he punished with this sentence: “It is not possible to support that the Anses deliver bonds of 11,800 million dollars to the banks so that they deliver 2,500 million dollars.”

Worse still, Bossio chicaned with an allusion to his former political boss: “I am convinced that Cristina would not have allowed this during her government. Because this is increasing the debt in dollars, which is the opposite of what she did. Now they are taking on a debt that yields 47% annually in dollars.”

Kirchnerism’s lack of enthusiasm can be seen in the political leaders’ unwillingness to go out and defend the measure in the media. In fact, only officials from Massa’s closest circle have spoken.

As a sample button, on the cover of the Página 12 newspaper, the issue that for all the media was the news of the day recently appears in the fourth most prominent place -the first three refer to critical articles for the Macrista opposition-, and leads title: “To stop the devaluation lobby”. The coverage is limited to reproducing the official statements of the Ministry of Economy and remembering that the FGS lost value during the Macrista administration.

Strictly speaking, these figures correspond to an official report from Anses a few weeks ago, where it is reported that the appreciation of the FGS had three well-differentiated stages: one in which it grew 179% during the Kirchner administration, another in which it fell by 47%. % in the period of Maurio Macri and, finally, a recovery of 62% in the current Government. But of course, the measurement is made taking the official dollar as a parameter and not the parallel.

If the “cash with liquid” exchange rate were used, then the conclusion would be uncomfortable for the ruling party: it would give that the current patrimony of the FGS is lower the one Macri left in 2019.

Raverta, in the most uncomfortable chair

If all Kirchnerism is uncomfortable, there is someone in particular who feels that she is in the worst place and at the worst time: the director of Anses, Fernanda Raverta. A Kirchnerist through and through – to the point of having been questioned for not appealing Cristina’s retirement -, now she is between two antagonistic pressures.

On the one hand, it adheres to the Kirchnerist script that considers the formation of the FGS in 2007 and the nationalization of the AFJP in 2009 as the most important milestones of the Kirchnerist era, and makes their defense a matter of principle.

But at the same time, as part of the Government and co-responsible for what happens in the pension agency, it must be aligned with the official script. That is why, from the Anses, they affirm that by receiving dual bonds, the FGS will be simultaneously covered from inflationary and devaluation risk. And that the dollarized bonds that the Treasury will take now suffer a lot of volatility, so it even ends up being beneficial for them to leave their portfolio.

According to this logic, the FGS could be valued at US$2,000 million.

Of course, the critics do not see it in the same way: they affirm that the FGS will have a theoretical improvement in its valuation, as a result of the fact that the bonds are recorded at their nominal price, but that if in fact it had to part with those titles, you will encounter the reality of market value.

Worse still, for the opposition there is a possible legal infringement of the law for the Defense of FGS Assets, sanctioned in 2020, which prioritizes the use of the FGS for investments with a direct impact on the real economy, and limits financial operations with securities From the bottom.

The opposition puts its finger on the sore

For now, Raverta and Minister Massa will be summoned by Congress to give explanations about a measure that “seems manifestly harmful and detrimental to the interest of current and future beneficiaries of the pension system and contrary to the law.”

But, more than listening to the Minister of Economy, the objective of the legislators of Together for Change is to force Kirchnerism to have to explicitly defend the economic measures. That is why they are demanding that the Legislative Procedure commission meet – the one that must endorse the decrees of the Executive Branch. This commission, chaired by Marcos Cleri, leader of La Cámpora, It has been inactive for months.

What the opposition is looking for, in short, is that Kirchnerism must publicly confront the contradiction between his need and his desire: on the one hand the reluctant support for Massa’s pragmatism and on the other hand the attachment to a “story” far from pro-market measures.

A synthesis of that strategy can be read in the “chicana” published by the Deputy Silvia Lospennatounder an eloquent “hashtag”: “The story falls apart”: “The most scandalous thing about the change in FGS bonds is that the maneuver means borrowing at a rate of 45% in dollars. Militate that debt in dollars, fellow Kirchnerists, if you show your face.”