Once that money is gone, it is gone. There is no way to recover it.
En un país donde la pandemia ya obligó a cinco retiros extraordinarios de fondos previsionales, el regulador financiero del Perú traza ahora una frontera entre el alivio de emergencia y el desmantelamiento estructural. La SBS rechaza formalmente una ley que permitiría el retiro total del 100% de los fondos AFP, advirtiendo que 2.7 millones de peruanos quedarían expuestos a la pobreza en la vejez y que el sistema perdería otros 77.9 mil millones de soles que ya no podría recuperar. La pregunta que subyace no es solo económica: es si una sociedad puede consumir en el presente la seguridad que prometió construir para el futuro.
- El Congreso debate una ley que permitiría vaciar por completo los fondos de pensiones privados, ignorando que el sistema ya cedió 65.9 mil millones de soles durante la pandemia.
- La SBS advierte que un retiro adicional del 59% del valor total del fondo AFP representaría un golpe del que el sistema no podría recuperarse.
- 2.7 millones de afiliados arriesgan llegar a la vejez sin ningún respaldo económico si se aprueba la medida, convirtiendo una crisis temporal en pobreza permanente.
- La ministra de Trabajo presiona para priorizar el proyecto en el Congreso, mientras el Ministerio de Economía y la SBS presentan un frente unido de oposición técnica y constitucional.
- El regulador sostiene que la Constitución peruana obliga al Estado a proteger el derecho universal a la seguridad social, y que esta ley lo viola directamente.
El regulador financiero del Perú, la Superintendencia de Banca, Seguros y AFP, rechazó formalmente un proyecto de ley impulsado por la ministra de Trabajo Betssy Chávez que permitiría el retiro del 100% de los fondos de pensiones privados. El Ministerio de Economía ya había adoptado la misma postura. Para la SBS, lo que está en juego no es solo una cifra, sino la arquitectura misma de la protección para la vejez de millones de peruanos.
Los números revelan un sistema que ya llegó al límite. Durante la pandemia, cinco retiros extraordinarios permitieron que 65.9 mil millones de soles —equivalentes al 8.1% del PBI— salieran de las cuentas previsionales. Aprobar esta nueva ley significaría extraer 77.9 mil millones de soles adicionales, el 59% del valor total restante del fondo. La SBS es directa: el sistema ya hizo concesiones extraordinarias; otra ronda de retiros lo llevaría más allá de lo que puede soportar.
El argumento más contundente es humano. Los 2.7 millones de afiliados que retirarían sus ahorros hoy no tendrían forma de recuperarlos mañana. El dinero gastado en necesidades inmediatas no regresa, y con él desaparece la única red de protección disponible para la vejez. La SBS presentó ante la comisión del Congreso un informe técnico que califica la medida como una violación constitucional: la Constitución peruana garantiza el derecho universal y progresivo a la seguridad social, y obliga al Estado a preservarlo.
La tensión política es evidente. Mientras el ministro de Economía Óscar Graham respalda la posición del regulador, Chávez insiste en que los trabajadores necesitan acceder a su propio dinero ante una crisis que no ha terminado. La SBS responde que el deber del Estado es construir sistemas que perduren, no desmantelarlos bajo presión. Lo que el Congreso decida determinará si el Perú trata la seguridad social como un derecho irrenunciable o como un recurso disponible para cualquier emergencia.
Peru's banking regulator has drawn a line in the sand over a proposal that would let workers drain their entire pension accounts. The Superintendencia de Banca, Seguro y AFP—the SBS, the country's financial watchdog—formally rejected a bill that would permit 100 percent withdrawal of private pension funds, a measure being pushed through Congress by Labor Minister Betssy Chávez. The Finance Ministry has already taken the same position. What's at stake, according to the SBS, is not just money but the basic architecture of retirement security for millions of Peruvians.
The numbers tell the story of a system already under strain. If this law passes, an additional 77.9 billion soles would leave pension accounts—money that represents 59 percent of the total value of Peru's private pension fund. That would be on top of what has already gone. During the pandemic, the government authorized five separate emergency withdrawals that sent 65.9 billion soles into workers' hands by late October 2021, an amount equal to 8.1 percent of the country's entire gross domestic product. The SBS's point is blunt: Peru has already made extraordinary concessions to address the economic crisis. Another round of withdrawals would be asking the system to absorb what it cannot bear.
The human dimension is where the argument sharpens. The proposal would allow 2.7 million pension fund members to tap their retirement savings for purposes other than retirement—in other words, to spend their old age on today's problems. The SBS warns this creates a direct path to poverty later. Once that money is gone, it is gone. There is no mechanism to replenish it, no way to recover what was spent on immediate needs. The regulator's technical report, submitted to the congressional committee overseeing the debate, frames this as a constitutional violation. Peru's constitution guarantees every person a universal and progressive right to social security. It obligates the state to protect that right. A law that systematically depletes retirement accounts, the SBS argues, contradicts those mandates.
The deeper concern is systemic. Pension funds exist to protect people against three specific risks: old age, disability, and death. When workers withdraw their accumulated savings early, they undermine the fund's ability to provide that protection. Coverage shrinks. The pool of resources available to pay future pensions weakens. The long-term purpose of the system—to ensure that people do not fall into poverty when they can no longer work—gets distorted by the pressure of immediate crisis. The SBS is saying that while the pandemic created real hardship, and while five rounds of emergency access were justified as temporary relief, a sixth round that permits complete withdrawal crosses a threshold. It moves from emergency measure to structural dismantling.
The political tension is real. Finance Minister Óscar Graham's ministry has sided with the SBS. But Chávez, the Labor Minister, is pushing hard for the bill to be prioritized in Congress. She argues that the economic crisis is ongoing and workers need access to their own money. The SBS's response is that governments have a duty to build systems that last, not to hollow them out in response to pressure. The constitutional right to social security, the regulator insists, is not negotiable, even when times are hard. What happens next will depend on whether Congress accepts that argument or decides that immediate relief matters more than long-term protection.
Citas Notables
This project of law deteriorates pension coverage at a global level, leaving more people without sufficient resources for their old age and increasing the risk of falling into poverty in old age.— SBS, in its technical report to Congress
Governments have an obligation to enact measures that guarantee a sustainable social security system over time.— SBS position statement
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the SBS care so much about this? Isn't it the workers' money?
It is their money, but the SBS sees itself as protecting the system that makes that money meaningful in old age. Once it's spent, there's no way to rebuild it.
But people are struggling now. Shouldn't they be able to use their own savings?
They already can—five times over, during the pandemic. The SBS is saying there's a point where emergency access becomes permanent damage.
What's the actual risk if everyone withdraws?
2.7 million people with no retirement cushion. The fund loses 77.9 billion soles. Coverage collapses. Poverty in old age becomes the default.
Is this just about money, or is there a principle here?
Both. The SBS argues Peru's constitution guarantees social security as a right. You can't guarantee that right if the fund is empty.
Who disagrees with the SBS?
The Labor Minister. She says the crisis is real and ongoing, and workers shouldn't have to choose between eating now and retiring later.
So it's a real choice Congress has to make?
Yes. Emergency relief versus system stability. They've already chosen relief five times.