Aldo Ferrini, general manager of AFP Integra: “By contributing 10%, you will not have a pension equivalent to 100% of your salary”

—Is the reform, as proposed by Congress, viable in this economic context?

—How well the economy is doing should not be a reason not to reform a pension system, which is a long-term issue that transcends cycles due to the very nature of the pension. Each individual accumulates 40 years of working life and needs a fund that provides a good pension. It is not necessary to connect the need for reform with a good or bad moment in the country’s situation.

—Just as it is proposed in Congress, will it help members?

—The reform proposed in the Parliament’s opinion, in the main body, points in the right direction; However, there are two issues that are running against the clock. The first is an optional withdrawal. One cannot hope to accumulate, with certainty, a long-term fund if you allow a withdrawal at this juncture in which, apparently, the situation improves. formal economy.

—It is a way of taking pension funds as petty cash.

—And in the document that was presented last Friday, a modification has been incorporated to allow any member to receive 50% of their fund if they have a mortgage loan. An article that, throughout the discussion, had not been touched on, a complementary provision that allows the affiliate to use 50% of his fund to pay mortgage credits of any type they have, be it a beach house, second home, etc. This type of openness to withdraw funds for an issue other than pensions goes completely against building a solid system, whether in AFP or in the ONPand there is no reason why it should be added overnight without any analysis of its impact.

—Could you stall the reform for longer?

—I think so. If you want to discuss some mechanism to finance credits, it already exists, it is 25% for first homes and it works well.

—This week, Julio Velarde said that “an AFP pension is enough if we lived to be 140 years old.”

—What Velarde said is that citizens of the world are living more for technological development, innovation and medicine. And to finance those additional years of life you have to save or work more.

—Is contributing 10% too little?

—I’m not saying that 10% is too little or too much, an analysis must be done to evaluate what savings are indicated for the desired pension. I can’t say ‘how much you want to spend on your trip’, I can tell you that it will cost you ‘between A or B’, but whether you want it in 10 or 15 days the type of savings is different. We must technically review what the expectations are and what type of pension system the State wants to offer.

—The ruling opens the door for the contribution, in some cases, to be more.

—If I tell you that by contributing 10% of your salary you will have a pension equivalent to 100% of what you earn today when you retire, I am lying to you. It’s never going to happen, you’re not going to have a replacement rate at that level. If you want more, you have to contribute 11% or 12%, and if you want less, 8% or 9%. There is no magic number.