The representative Ultra-k, who led the anti-mortgage movement, took out a loan of 200,000 dollars

Julia Strada was at the center of the controversy after it came to light that she took a UVA mortgage loan in 2026, despite having been one of the voices that most questioned this system in the past.

In 2018, from the CEPA space, Strada released reports warning about the risks of these loans. At the time, it was noted that those who had taken UVA credits in 2016 already owed more than an additional 50% due to inflation

.

That speech was part of a larger narrative of Kirchnerism, which presented the UVA as a harmful tool for the middle class.

What the reports she herself promoted said The CEPA reports

during the Mauricio Macri administration warned that UVA credits entailed an increasing risk

in inflationary contexts.

It was argued that, even when paying in term, the capital due increased significantly due to the adjustment for inflation. In some cases, increases of close to 70% were reported in accumulated debt over a

few years.

In other words, the central argument was clear: in an unstable economy, UVA could become a burden difficult to sustain.

The twist: now they do work with Milei What changes in 2026 is the macroeconomic context

. With falling inflation and signs of stabilization, UVA loans are once again appearing as a viable tool for access to housing

.

Different economic media reported lower rates, better financing conditions and a revival of mortgage credit.

In this scenario, Strada decided to move forward with a UVA loan at Banco Nación, which marks an obvious change with respect to its historical position.

Without irregularities, but with political cost

So far there is no conclusive evidence that there has been preferential treatment in the granting of credit. Banco Nación maintains that the processes are homogeneous

.

However, the focus of the debate is not on legality but on coherence.

Strada was not an occasional critic of the UVA system: she built part of her public profile by warning about its supposed dangers. Having recourse to that same instrument reveals a contradiction that is difficult to explain.

The double rod of Kirchnerism in economics

The case exposes a broader pattern within Kirchnerism: rejecting economic tools in certain political contexts and then validating them in

practice when conditions change.

For years, UVAs were portrayed as a “trap”. Today, with inflation falling under the government of Javier Milei, that same tool is used even by those who questioned

it.

The contradiction is obvious: what was previously unfeasible is now convenient.

A sign of the change of era

.

Beyond the specific case, the episode also reflects a structural change in the Argentine economy

.

The fall in inflation not only modifies macroeconomic variables, but it also redefines which financial instruments are once again useful.

In that sense, Strada's decision works as an implicit admission: the problem was never the UVA itself, but rather the inflationary context that is beginning to reverse today.