In a context where interest rates in pesos are beginning to lag behind expected inflation, a key question arises again for savers: Is it better to bet on a traditional fixed term or migrate to a UVA fixed term, which adjusts for inflation?
Currently, the leading banks show relatively aligned nominal annual rates (ARRs) but below inflation expectations. Banco Nación pays around 19% annually, while Banco Macro and Banco Provincia offer around 21.5%. Meanwhile, BBVA Argentina is located at 20.5% TNA. This level of rates poses a central dilemma: if inflation ends up exceeding these yields, the investor loses purchasing power.
How each alternative works
The traditional fixed term is the simplest instrument: an amount is deposited for a certain period (usually 30 days) and a fixed interest is received. Its main advantage is liquidity and predictability. On the other hand, the UVA fixed term adjusts the capital according to the evolution of the inflation measured by the CER (Reference Stabilization Coefficient). Added to this is an additional fee, which is usually low. Its minimum term is 90 days.
It should be noted that recently, regarding the minimum term, a relevant change appeared in the market: Banco Nación launched a UVA fixed term variant that breaks with the traditional logic of the instrument, since it is a deposit that adjusts for inflation but pays interest every month, instead of doing so only at maturity.
In practice, it works like this:
• Capital is adjusted daily for inflation (CER)
• Interest (an additional real rate) is credited every 30 days
• The money remains frozen for at least 90 days
This scheme combines the best of two worlds: protection against inflation + monthly flow of income, something that until now did not exist in local bank deposits.
Advantages and disadvantages of each of them
Traditional fixed term: main advantage is its liquidity, It allows you to renew every 30 days. Added to the above is the certainty of what the performance is. Conversely, its main disadvantage comes from the inflationary risk, since it can be lost in the face of inflation, as interest rates are negative in real terms.
Regarding the UVA Fixed Term, its main advantage is the protection it offers against inflation, because it maintains the purchasing power of capital. On the contrary, it plays against its lower liquidity and that the adjustment has a delay.
What consultants expect: the key to REM
To define what is appropriate, the key data is not past inflation but what is coming. And at that point, the market already has a fairly clear roadmap, since according to the Survey of Market Expectations (REM) of the Central Bank, consulting firms and banks project that Inflation will remain above current rates in the coming months, although with a gradual deceleration.
For the next few months, they estimate monthly records that will start at 2.6% in April, it will be 2.3% in May and 2% for June and July, while for all of 2026, the market projects annual inflation of around 29%, well above the rates that fixed terms pay today. In short, for the members of the REM it is evident that nominality still has inertia and that it will be difficult to break through 2% monthly in the short term.
What is appropriate today: the complete reading
The central point is to compare the effective rate of the traditional fixed term against that expected inflation. With rates around 20% annually, the monthly yield is around 1.6% to 1.8%, while if the REM projections are met, The traditional fixed term would continue to lose against inflation at least in the short term. “The traditional fixed term today runs behind expected inflation,” analysts agree. In this scenario, UVA appears as a more efficient coverage. However, not everything is linear. The UVA has a lag (adjusted for past inflation) and less liquidity.
For analyst Agustín Cramo, “the choice between one or the other depends on the horizon and the macro context. For conservative short-term profiles, the traditional fixed term continues to be useful due to its liquidity, but for those seeking to protect value, the UVA gains ground.”
“As long as expected inflation is above rates, indexed instruments will continue to be more attractive,” say market economists. Others add a key nuance: if disinflation accelerates more than expected, the traditional fixed term could compete again. QBut today, the REM does not validate that scenario in the short term.
How much do I earn if I invest $1,000,000
For a term of 90 days, which is the minimum at which a UVA deposit can be placed, if the REM projection and the UVA’s own methodology are taken into account, which has a lag of 45 days, a return of around 6.2% would be obtained, so at maturity one would be receiving $1,062,000. On the other hand, if you take a traditional 30-day fixed term and renew it three times at a rate similar to the current one (around 20%), capitalizing interest monthly, the result would be around 5%, so you would receive $1,050,000.
In short, with rates around 20% annually and an expected inflation for the entire year of 29%, the UVA fixed term appears to be the most convenient option for those who prioritize maintaining purchasing power. The traditional fixed term, meanwhile, is more associated with short-term tactical strategies or a bet on a faster decline in inflation than the market anticipates today.
In short, The choice no longer depends only on the rate the bank pays, but on something deeper: how credible the inflationary slowdown is in the coming months.
