The run against CER bonds continues to leave consequences. The collapse of bonds in pesos that adjust for inflation unleashed among savers a marked aversion to investing in instruments that have some degree of “Treasury risk”even even in those designed to offer inflationary coverage in months in which the rise in prices seems to have no ceiling.
In July alone, there were outflows in the FCI CERs for some $117.7 billion, with redemptions on 20 of the 21 business days of the month. This was reflected in a recent PPI report, which highlighted that these outflows “occurred despite the expected high nominality, reflecting that sovereign risk aversion is still latent“.
Banks now reject large fixed terms
But these noises do not seem to be affecting the demand of savers for UVA fixed terms. Despite the political, economic and exchange rate turbulence that unleashed the collapse of CER bonds, the Values UVA time deposits surpassed $400,000 million for the first time. It was after record in July its sixth consecutive month with a monthly advance of two digits and to accumulate in the year a growth of more than 145%.
Amilcar Collante, an economist at Cesur, indicated that this resilience observed in the demand for UVA time deposits is explained because “Contrary to what happened to those who bet on Treasury risk, who had to bail out with losses in June, you cannot have capital losses in a fixed term“.
In June, he recalled, those who invested in CER funds and bonds that adjust for inflation “they had a very big scare” and that is why today there is greater prudence despite the fact that prices recovered with the help of purchases by the Central Bank.
Out of reach
But what served retail savers cannot be replicated by funds or companies. It is that while institutional investors look for possible destinations for their pesos, the option of investing in UVA fixed terms is out of reach today.
This is, in fact, one of the explanations why the Values fixed term UVA barely explains 7.1% of total placements private sector term despite the meteoric rise of 2022, more than 13% on average per month.
Adrin Yarde Buller, chief economist at Facimex Valores, emphasizes that barrier. “There is a technical issue that is impacting: banks in practice are only offering UVA fixed terms to individuals, but not to companies or FCI“, I indicate.
The regulation seems to support them. According to BCRA Communication “A” 6871, issued on January 26, 2020, entities would only be obliged to offer them to “human persons”.
But this is not the only barrier that slows down the takeoff of UVA fixed terms. Another is the minimum length of stay of 90 days to grant inflation coverage plus 1% per year.
Within the sector they also point out a third stumbling block. But in this regard there is a raised debate, since on the one hand there are those who point out that the demand is not greater due to a lack of knowledge on the part of the saverswhile others warn that not all banks offer them or, in the best of cases, make it difficult for savers to access them.