Economists analyze the speeches of Lacunza and Sandleris: what they said and what they had to say

For Sandleris, it seems to me that the most important is related to this consensus on the fact that the exchange rate is very competitive and that it gives a certain rationality to the intervention that the Central Bank could possibly make through the reserves. , forward contracts, rate hikes and currency sterilization, if the exchange rate continues to rise.

Andrés Asiain, director of the center C.E.S.O., professor UBA and Undav

Andres Asiain.jpg

The government's goal is by the elections, which is to control the dollar. This seems to me to be a necessary objective, but we neglect other problems as general as the critical social situation. There would go to the previous ads, but you have to see if that is enough.

To achieve the objective of the exchange rate policy, which seems to occupy the center and the exclusivity of the economic attention from here to the elections, they will intervene – it seems to me very good – to discretion, but it happens in the middle of the afternoon and at a time when the economic program is abandoned. I think it's better than auctioning or setting aside reserves without setting monetary value.

The risk is that the agreement with the Fund will be reduced, the last payment will not arrive and the Ripo of the banks will be returned because of the low price of the bonds. The fall of the agreement with the IMF can trigger the demand for the Chinese swap and therefore, suddenly, the level of reserves, which is high, decreases sharply. If this happens, even if the intervention policy is successful and the level of the reserve begins to decline, the stability of the exchange rate is no easy task.

The government has set a single goal, which is to control the dollar. Even if the speech suggests that this conflict exists, it does not mean that it is won. The cost that this may have has violated the ability to intervene and the stock of reserves available to support this policy until December.

Gabriel Caamaño, Economist (UCA-UTDT) and Analyst at Ledesma Consultant

Gabriel Caamaño.jpg

There were no surprises, they focused on eliminating uncertainties, recognizing that the anchor in an uncertain context of this type is the face value, which is the exchange rate, and that they will focus on this anchor.

It was correct to dispel the doubts and uncertainties in tax matters, and therefore the disbursement of the Fund: there is no change, they maintain the objectives and the Central Bank maintains the program. There is no change and there is an intervention using the anchor of exchange.

What they did not understand and that I would have liked was that they had made a descent, as they had done budget figures, the financial program, by specifying certain figures that, in my opinion, are quite confused. By erasing these numbers, they would have also brought certainty. Maybe they did not do it for the REPOs, which were in the process of being defined.

Amilcar Collante, member of the Center for Economic Studies of the South, professor UCALP

Amilcar Collante.jpg

Lacunza clarified the problem of maintaining agreement with the IMF and achieving the deficit target. They threw out all the measures last week, they did not have much to announce. The same thing happened to Sandleris.

The promise is to stabilize the exchange rate and then see how the rest goes, but you have to look at the deficit account, make it over. They estimate $ 60 billion and would be within the limits of the Fund's program. This would be important because they must dispel these doubts. Implicitly, there is a new dollar band last week, between $ 60 and $ 54 or $ 55, where it should be moved.

There was more waiting than it was. They would have to dispel some doubts about the financial program, which has not been as deep as that, without putting too much emphasis on priorities. Argentina has a short-term debt and should remove doubts about it. They gave priority to the issue of exchange stability, which Sandleris is more competent, but it was not possible to give much definition to a level either, because he had to defend it, which could remain an implicit rule.

Iván Carrino, director at ICY Asociados, professor at the ESEADE University Institute

Ivan Carrino.jpg

At the Sandleris conference, there were not many details, but there is something clear: they believe that this type of change is appropriate. This consensus in quotation marks is given because (Emmanuel) Álvarez Agis qualified the dollar as super competitive, because Alberto Fernández said that $ 60 was a good price. (Hernán) Lacunza said he wanted to avoid further monetary volatility.

Sandleris's reaction is not to touch much of our monetary system, which if we are willing to sell reserves, all that is needed to keep the exchange rate around $ 60. To look a little, is the stability of trade, because we already know the consequences of sudden jumps and unpredictability.