The economic week was loaded, and Francisca Pérez summarized it without dramatism but without anesthesia. At La Mesa, the chief economist of Bci focused on what the March IPoM left behind, the external shock of oil, the adjustment to Mepco, and the real capacity of the Chilean economy to absorb a blow of this magnitude. Her starting point was clear: the Central Bank has already internalized that the change applied by the Treasury accelerates the inflationary transfer and complicates the outlook for this year.
One of her most direct definitions was about the underlying message from the Central Bank: we will grow less, inflation will be higher, and much will depend on how long the war lasts. Pérez also grounded the macro impact with numbers. She recalled that at Bci they started the year expecting a growth of 2.
4%, but that the fiscal adjustment and then the conflict in the Middle East were cutting that scenario. “When the fiscal issue of nearly US$ 4 billion came up in these 18 months, we said: we are around 2. 2; and the war could have an impact with oil prices around 0.
1, so we are around 2. 1,” she explained. In other words, the blow comes in two parts: fiscal consolidation on one side and external shock on the other.
Regarding the state of the Chilean economy, her view was less apocalyptic than that of many in the public debate. “The …
” Perhaps her most political phrase was the one that gives this note its title: “The State is clearly not bankrupt, we are not in default… but it is a bit more fragile than normal. ” With this, she nuances the more extreme narrative that circulated this week from La Moneda and social networks, but at the same time acknowledges that Chile arrives with less fiscal leeway, less cushion, and more sensitivity to a shock like the current one. In that same line, she warned that this year the Treasury and Dipres have a relevant task in recovering credibility in income projections and reinforcing the image of institutional seriousness.
Regarding Mepco, her criticism was not so much about the substance as about the form. “The issue is the gradualness, because at the end of the day, what needed to be transferred was going to be transferred anyway,” she said. And she concluded: “One could have been more gradual so that this impact, especially on the UF, was not so rapid.
” In closing, she left a less pessimistic signal than that which dominated the market after the IPoM. If the conflict does not deepen and the baseline scenario remains, she believes that Chile can still navigate this year without derailing. “If we grow above that figure, we will have a good year,” she said about the non-mining potential growth estimated by the Central Bank.
It doesn’t sound euphoric. But it also doesn’t sound like a crisis.