Wednesday, January 19

Analysts comment on the Fund’s self-criticism of the 2018 Stand By program

So much Sergio Chouza What Mara Pedrazzoli They agreed that one of the most relevant points was the mention of the Fund about failures in capital control. While Christian Buteler put the magnifying glass on the lack of an acknowledgment about the grounds for which the Fund lent such a sum of money to the government of Mauricio Macri.

“The mention that exchange control was not implemented prior to the elections seems relevant to me and when it was carried out, it was done late. In the statement they acknowledge that they should have sought mechanisms to mitigate persistent capital outflows. Argentina began to have considerable capital outflows when the midterm election ended, with a current account deficit of seven points of GDP, while the bonds were dismantled. The same capital outflow increased the country risk, there was no access to refinancing, which caused a spreading effect that could not be stopped, ”he said. Sergio Chouza, economist.

The analysis coincided with Mara Pedrazzoli, from the Department of Political Economy of the Cultural Center for Cooperation, who argued that “The most relevant aspect is the mention made by the report on capital controls and a debt restructuring, when mentioning that these measures were lacking by the previous government. “There is a direct comment from the Fund that these measures could have prevented the flight of the dollars they loaned,” he said.

For his part, the financial analyst, Christian Buteler pointed out that “although he marks many mistakes that were made, he leaves aside a very important point that the agency should address: why did I lend the country that amount of money? They themselves qualify it as exceptional, so the reason why they gave an exceptional loan should have been made explicit, which also gave poor results ”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *