Exchanging Currency

[Tres3]

Many things in life can be moral or immoral; it depends on the way in which something is done. We all judge morality for ourselves. Using the law as a shield is no defense from this judgement. If you think the law is all that matters in life, we will have to disagree.

I did not say what I think as an individual. I only said what the USA courts rule on. There is a huge difference.

Tres3.

[TejanoLibre]

Exchanged at 9,5 today.

No wonder the guy on Florida started off at 9 to 1 as if it was a good deal.

Can you point us in the general direction?

If not we just have to walk a few extra blocks I guess.

Thanks,

TL.

[SimpleWrangler]

Exchanged at 9,5 today.

[TejanoLibre]

I recieved 8.90 today in Moreno.

9 to 1 on Florida yesterday and that was the "Barker" on the street which means that his boss is paying even more.

Other guys were talking about 8 and 8.5 .

Thanks,

TL.

From Santa fe to Avenida de Mayo on Florida there is someone exchanging money every 5 feet.

Same thing on Lavalle from 9 de Julio to Florida.

Just keep asking and you will find the best deal.

The "Fakes" are up to you.

One guy told me that he can buy 3 fake One Hundred Dollar Bills for $100.00 Dollars.

Shares them with somebody at an exchange house!

[Esten]

There are many who consider mongering immoral. Is your mongering immoral? Do you have bad motives? Morality is an independent opinion that courts in the USA do not decide. As I said before, courts decide the legality, not the morality of a law. Legislatures decide morality. If you think a law is immoral, you should talk to your elected representatives, not judges who are appointed for life in an effort by the framers of the Constitution to keep morality out of the courts.

Is making money legally immoral?

Give up on this one, because you cannot win. You are wrong.

Many things in life can be moral or immoral; it depends on the way in which something is done. We all judge morality for ourselves. Using the law as a shield is no defense from this judgement. If you think the law is all that matters in life, we will have to disagree.

[Canardly]

Thomaso. The Exchanged Bondholders are currently being paid interest by New York Banks.

If these banks are forbidden to continue payment by the US Courts I think Argentina will try to continue paying another way. Which I suggest will be in Buenos Aires.

I expect bondholders will prefer to be paid in Buenos Aires than not to be paid at all.

[Thomaso276]

Tres.You're entitled to your opinion.

Mine is that absent a favorable Supreme Court ruling Argentina will honor its promises to the Exchanged Bondholders by payment in dollars in Buenos Aires.

I'm not arguing right or wrong here, just trying to cut to the chase and predict how the game will play out.

Bondholders have to agree to this change, if CK changes laws this week & makes it mandatory, it will be considered a default. Laws in Arg. Restrict dollar outflows. How about those Argies holding bonds but never declared them? Who in their right mind would prefer Arg. Law over NY law when it involves debt, contracts and consistency?

[Canardly]

Tres.You're entitled to your opinion.

Mine is that absent a favorable Supreme Court ruling Argentina will honor its promises to the Exchanged Bondholders by payment in dollars in Buenos Aires.

I'm not arguing right or wrong here, just trying to cut to the chase and predict how the game will play out.

[Tres3]

The unique feature of the US Courts ruling is that it prohibits banks from paying interest to the Exchanged Bondholders (who agreed to take the haircut) unless Singer is paid.

This is rather extraordinary and the IMF and others may find this ruling uncomfortable.

Probably ends up in the Supreme Court sometime next year.

As I said earlier, read, and understand the entire ruling. There is nothing extraordinary about Argentina agreeing to a pari passu clause in the original bond indenture. No one held Argentina's feet to the fire. If you do not know what pari passu means, look it up. The IMF and "others" filed amicus (friend of the court) briefs, and were shot down. In other words, they can take their "discomfort" and pound sand. Argentina made the mistake of paying the Exchange Bondholders when Argentina had not received 100% of the original, defaulted bonds in the exchange, and is now trying to undo that mistake.

Here is the link that was posted earlier.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decision...-105_2_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decision...50d2/2/hilite/.

Tres3.

[Canardly]

The unique feature of the US Courts ruling is that it prohibits banks from paying interest to the Exchanged Bondholders (who agreed to take the haircut) unless Singer is paid.

This is rather extraordinary and the IMF and others may find this ruling uncomfortable.

Probably ends up in the Supreme Court sometime next year.

[Tres3]

It seems to me that in the US individual legislators decide how to insure their re-election. And anyway how would they decide morality when they have none?

Bob.

I agree that most all of the legislators have no morality. That is why most of them check which way the morality wind of the voters who elected them is blowing before casting their votes. BUT, that is also why the framers of our Constitution attempted to take morality out of the equation by having an appointed federal judiciary, that is appointed for life.

Tres3.

[Tres3]

No no, in default on the bonds it's currently servicing, and in default on the new arrangements (haircut) on the old bonds. That's the only use of the word here that makes any practical sense.

No no, not the Argentine government, but the firms who own the bonds currently being serviced. Those are the ones being endangered by Singer.

Read, and understand the ruling! If you do not comprehend the ruling, get someone who does to explain it to you.

Tres3.

[MisterTea]

Earth to Mister Tea: Argentina is ALREADY in default.

No no, in default on the bonds it's currently servicing, and in default on the new arrangements (haircut) on the old bonds. That's the only use of the word here that makes any practical sense.

Yea, right. Singer is going to need the Argentine government's help exactly how?

No no, not the Argentine government, but the firms who own the bonds currently being serviced. Those are the ones being endangered by Singer.

[AllIWantIsLove]

... Legislatures decide morality. ...

Tres3.

It seems to me that in the US individual legislators decide how to insure their re-election. And anyway how would they decide morality when they have none?

Bob.

[Tres3]

Morality has everything to do with the motives of a Vulture Capitalist.

There are many who consider mongering immoral. Is your mongering immoral? Do you have bad motives? Morality is an independent opinion that courts in the USA do not decide. As I said before, courts decide the legality, not the morality of a law. Legislatures decide morality. If you think a law is immoral, you should talk to your elected representatives, not judges who are appointed for life in an effort by the framers of the Constitution to keep morality out of the courts.

Is making money legally immoral?

Give up on this one, because you cannot win. You are wrong.

Tres3.