You're not managing a crisis; you're dismantling the safety net
En el Perú de 2022, una propuesta que permitiría a los trabajadores retirar la totalidad de sus fondos de pensiones privados ha desatado una disputa entre quienes ven en el dinero acumulado un alivio inmediato y quienes advierten que vaciar ese pozo significa dejar a millones de ancianos sin red de protección. La SBS, el organismo regulador del sistema financiero, ha rechazado formalmente el proyecto de ley, recordando que las pensiones no son ahorros ordinarios sino el sostén prometido para cuando el cuerpo ya no puede trabajar. Detrás de los números —77.9 mil millones de soles adicionales en riesgo, 2.7 millones de afiliados afectados— late una pregunta más antigua: ¿puede una sociedad consumir su futuro para sobrevivir su presente?
- El proyecto de ley 929 propone permitir el retiro total de los fondos AFP, encendiendo una alarma en los organismos reguladores que ven en ello el colapso de la seguridad previsional de millones de peruanos.
- La SBS advierte que ya se extrajeron 65.9 mil millones de soles durante la pandemia —equivalente al 8.1% del PBI— y que una nueva extracción de 77.9 mil millones adicionales sería un golpe del que el sistema difícilmente podría recuperarse.
- El conflicto se ha instalado dentro del propio gobierno: mientras la ministra de Trabajo Betssy Chávez impulsa la medida como alivio económico urgente, el Ministerio de Economía y la SBS la rechazan de forma coordinada.
- El regulador argumenta que la medida viola los artículos 10, 11 y 12 de la Constitución peruana, que garantizan la seguridad social como un derecho progresivo y universal, no como un fondo de emergencia disponible a voluntad.
- El horizonte que dibuja la SBS es sombrío: más adultos mayores sin recursos suficientes, mayor pobreza en la vejez y una carga creciente trasladada al conjunto de la sociedad.
El organismo regulador del sistema financiero peruano ha trazado una línea clara frente al proyecto de ley 929, que permitiría a los trabajadores retirar el cien por ciento de sus fondos de pensiones privados. La Superintendencia de Banca, Seguros y AFP presentó un informe técnico ante la Comisión de Economía del Congreso rechazando la iniciativa, que cuenta con el respaldo de la ministra de Trabajo Betssy Chávez y es debatida bajo la conducción de la legisladora Silvia Monteza.
Las cifras que esgrime la SBS son contundentes: durante la pandemia, cinco medidas de retiro extraordinario ya drenaron 65.9 mil millones de soles del sistema —el 8.1% del PBI nacional—. El nuevo proyecto añadiría otros 77.9 mil millones, afectando a 2.7 millones de afiliados que podrían redirigir sus ahorros hacia necesidades inmediatas en lugar de reservarlos para la vejez.
Pero la objeción del regulador no es solo contable. La SBS sostiene que el Estado tiene una obligación constitucional de mantener un sistema de seguridad social sostenible, y que los artículos 10, 11 y 12 de la Constitución peruana consagran el acceso a pensiones y salud como derechos progresivos y universales. Permitir el vaciamiento de los fondos, argumenta, desnaturaliza el propósito mismo del ahorro previsional: proteger a las personas frente a la vejez, la discapacidad y la muerte.
El conflicto ha revelado una fractura dentro del propio gobierno. El Ministerio de Economía, encabezado por Óscar Graham, también rechaza la propuesta, mientras Chávez la defiende como una respuesta necesaria a la crisis económica persistente. Para los reguladores, sin embargo, lo que se presenta como alivio es en realidad el sexto eslabón de una cadena de decisiones que, sumadas, amenazan con destruir la viabilidad de todo el sistema pensionario peruano.
Peru's banking regulator has drawn a sharp line in the sand over a proposal that would let workers drain their entire private pension accounts. The Superintendencia de Banca, Seguro y AFP—the SBS—issued a formal rejection of Bill 929, which would permit a complete withdrawal of AFP funds, a measure now being debated in Congress's Economic Commission and championed by Labor Minister Betssy Chávez.
The numbers the SBS cited are stark. A full withdrawal of this kind would siphon an additional 77.9 billion soles from the pension system on top of the 65.9 billion already withdrawn through five separate relief measures during the pandemic. That earlier extraction, completed by October 2021, represented 8.1 percent of Peru's entire gross domestic product. The new proposal would affect 2.7 million pension fund members, allowing them to redirect retirement savings toward immediate needs rather than old age security.
The regulator's objection runs deeper than fiscal arithmetic. In a technical report submitted to the parliamentary working group led by legislator Silvia Monteza, the SBS argued that the government has a constitutional duty to maintain a sustainable social security system. Peru's constitution, the agency noted, enshrines the right to social security as fundamental and universal. Bill 929, the SBS contended, directly contradicts articles 10, 11, and 12 of that document, which guarantee free access to health care and pensions as progressive rights.
The core concern is structural damage. Allowing workers to raid their pension accounts undermines the system's ability to protect people against the risks of old age, disability, and death—the very purpose pension funds exist to address. The SBS warned that premature withdrawals erode long-term coverage, leaving more people without adequate resources when they can no longer work. It increases the likelihood of poverty in old age and shifts financial burden onto society as a whole. The measure, the regulator argued, distorts the fundamental purpose of pension savings and causes real losses to workers' accumulated wealth.
The SBS is not alone in its resistance. Finance Minister Óscar Graham's ministry has also rejected the proposal, creating a split within Peru's government even as Chávez pushes for the measure to be prioritized in Congress. The Labor Minister has framed the withdrawals as necessary relief during an ongoing economic crisis stemming from the pandemic. But the regulators see something different: a pattern of emergency measures that, taken together, threaten the viability of the entire system. Five withdrawals have already happened. A sixth, at full scale, would represent a fundamental break with the principle that pension money exists for pensions.
Notable Quotes
This project of law contravenes the mandates established in articles 10, 11, and 12 of the Constitution, which recognize the universal and progressive right to social security and guarantee free access to health care and pensions— SBS technical report
Premature withdrawal of pension funds deteriorates coverage at the global level, leaving more people without sufficient resources for old age and increasing the risk of falling into poverty— SBS analysis
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the SBS think this matters so much? It's workers' own money, isn't it?
Technically yes, but the system only works if people leave it alone until retirement. Once you let 2.7 million people pull everything out, you've broken the math. The fund can't grow, can't invest, can't protect anyone.
But people need money now. The pandemic didn't end.
That's the tension. The SBS acknowledges the crisis—they're not denying it. But they're saying five withdrawals already happened. At some point, you're not managing a crisis anymore; you're dismantling the safety net.
What happens to someone who withdraws everything at 45?
They have no pension at 65. They become a burden on the state, or they live in poverty. That's what the SBS means by shifting the cost to society.
Is the Finance Ministry saying the same thing?
Essentially, yes. Both regulators see this as constitutional overreach. The government promised to protect retirement security. This proposal does the opposite.
So Chávez is isolated?
Not entirely—she has political support in Congress. But the technical apparatus of the state is telling her this breaks the system. That's a serious warning.