Argentine Economy

[Dccpa]

There are good, positive purposes of Wall Street. But there are some Wall Street activities that are bad, and some that are sleazy.

No one is questioning the legality of the actions of Paul Singer and the vulture funds. But just because it's legal doesn't make it right. And that's where many people have an issue with the vulture funds, not just in Argentina. They buy distressed debt, and instead of working with the debtor, they work against the debtor to extract as much profit as possible. In Singer's case, Argentina could yield a 1600% profit. Even better than the profits he made off Peru and the Congo, from whom he forced payments with similar tactics. Even though the debtors could pay him, they are worse off because of his actions.

So what category do the vulture funds fall under: Good, Bad or Sleazy? Here's what another hedge fund manager, Kyle Bass, has to say about Paul Singer:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...reedom-fighter

Argentina is worse off because of Argentina's actions. Argentina could have easily paid Singer a long time ago and been done with this issue without any damage to their credit. But no, they had to throw a hissy fit, blame everyone else and refuse to negotiate in good faith. Argentina and Argentina alone is responsible for the default.

I regard Kyle Bass as one of the top money managers in the world, but Argentina's US attorney was Kyle Bass's attorney and he released him to work with Argentina. Why would Bass do that? Bass's fund has made a significant investment in Argentinian bonds. Bass also went on record that Argentina would win in court. He was wrong. Kyle Bass is just a little prejudiced in this situation.

[Gandolf50]

Does anyone know if Singer's interest in this is purely personal, or is he perhaps fighting on behalf of investors in his hedge fund? Was the Clarin article about people who hold the bonds directly or about people who have investments in the Singer hedge fund? Usually hedge funds have investors, right? Some of whom might be fat cats but some of whom might not be.

Bob.

He has investors as well as his own money involved. As far as the Argentine bonds are concerned who knows what the percentages are. Cristina makes it look like it is just him. They tend to over look that there are other hold outs. Many of them Argentinos.

[AllIWantIsLove]

<snip>
No one is questioning the legality of the actions of Paul Singer and the vulture funds. But just because it's legal doesn't make it right. <snip>

Good point Esten. I agree. But how do we make business decisions on what's right rather than what's legal? Who would make those decisions? And how? Based on their own moral code? Or maybe they would take a poll for each case?

And how would people make any kind of agreement with any level of confidence that it was consistent with the moral code that would be applied should some third party need to arbitrate a disagreement?

I guess we could write down a moral code, but isn't that exactly what our legal code is supposed to be?

Bob.

[AllIWantIsLove]

Does anyone know if Singer's interest in this is purely personal, or is he perhaps fighting on behalf of investors in his hedge fund? Was the Clarin article about people who hold the bonds directly or about people who have investments in the Singer hedge fund? Usually hedge funds have investors, right? Some of whom might be fat cats but some of whom might not be.

Bob.

[Gandolf50]

There are many sides to this argument. There are hold outs and then there are opportunists Like Singer. We all know how Singer works. Then there are the 90 year old retires who invested 45 k in these bonds hoping for a return so they can continue to live comfortably once (IF) they collect. They are HOLDING OUT for the return of their hard earned money. One was profiled in Clarin the other day. These are people who really need their money. My point being is that not all of the "holdouts" are "Vultures" or opportunists. Many are normal people who just want their money without a huge "Haircut" . Maybe the courts should differentiate between the two? The bottom line is that Argentina DOES NOT WANT TO PAY!! They are really no better then a group of white collar thieves. As I pointed out earlier, Cristina and Nestor made their money the same way that Singer does. If any one has really been following this disaster, this government is not only giving people a haircut, but then want to pay in deferred payments that they WILL PROBABLY NEVER FINISH BEING BE PAID! . They are now only making interest payments. Principal payments start in 2016 AFTER THIS GROUP OF THIEVES IS GONE! That and the fact is that this group has only started trying to put its house in order is so that they CAN BORROW MORE MONEY! If they can't make these payments. How can they afford to pay more payments? This government does not really invest in the future of the country. They use money to put out fires and to pay subsidies to the poor so they can get re elected. Typical third world tin horn dictator bullsh*t.

[Thomaso276]

Exactly, and you can thank Paul Singer and US vulture funds for helping drive Argentina in this direction. There are geopolitical consequences to Wall Street greed.

Was Singer around when Argentina backed Nazi Germany? This has always been bizzaro land. I am not a fan of hedge funds, but Argentina cannot be trusted.

[Esten]

There are good, positive purposes of Wall Street. But there are some Wall Street activities that are bad, and some that are sleazy.

No one is questioning the legality of the actions of Paul Singer and the vulture funds. But just because it's legal doesn't make it right. And that's where many people have an issue with the vulture funds, not just in Argentina. They buy distressed debt, and instead of working with the debtor, they work against the debtor to extract as much profit as possible. In Singer's case, Argentina could yield a 1600% profit. Even better than the profits he made off Peru and the Congo, from whom he forced payments with similar tactics. Even though the debtors could pay him, they are worse off because of his actions.

So what category do the vulture funds fall under: Good, Bad or Sleazy? Here's what another hedge fund manager, Kyle Bass, has to say about Paul Singer:

The bottom line is, he's a tremendous distressed investor. And he's a profiteer at other peoples expense.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...reedom-fighter

[Esten]

What deals / agreements with USA? Russia, Iran, China, Venezuala are the preferred partners for this bunch of thieves.

Exactly, and you can thank Paul Singer and US vulture funds for helping drive Argentina in this direction. There are geopolitical consequences to Wall Street greed.

[Tiny12]

Paul Singer's Next Trick Could Make Argentina Angrier Than The Time He Took Its Boat

More on Argentina's default and the roles Cristina and her late husband played.
Paul Singer's Next Trick Could Make Argentina Angrier Than The Time He Took Its Boat
http://www.businessinsider.com/singe...r-funds-2014-8

Tres3.

I don't get it. I think what Tres posted above induced Esten's latest response. Tres provided a link to an article that describes an attempt by a hedge fund manager, Paul Singer, to locate $65 million hidden on behalf of the Kirchner's in shell corporations. Esten knows that Cristina is using the debt issue to whip up a populist fervor, putting politics ahead of good sense. And he knows ordinary Argentine and European pensioners who didn't accept Argentina's buyout proposal are getting fucked. His response is to damn Paul Singer. Esten, are you so caught up in your distaste for Wall Street that your priorities have become skewed?

[Jackson]

"Talks Lift Hopes of Small Argentine Bondholders"

Hedge Funds Leading the Battle for Full Repayment Aren't the Only Holdouts.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/new-y...ers-1404688383

"Argentina Bond Fight Hits TV as Holdouts Cite 97-Year-Old"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-year-old.html

[Tres3]

This has become so convoluted that Cristina may reach her goal of obfuscating the matter so much that the average Argentine LIV does not know who is at fault and just believes the government propaganda.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...yet?cmpid=yhoo

Tres3.

[Retire N Trave]

Per Bloomberg, another peso devaluation expected - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...e-january.html.

[Tres3]

The 2001 default was the seventh (7th) time Argentina has defaulted in the last 100 years. Those are more defaults than any other country now in existence. I will not argue the relative stupidity of international lenders who keep lending to Argentina. After all, Argentina did not steal from a house with the front door locked. They stole from a house with the front door wide open. Can anyone blame them for stealing when thievery is part of the Argentine DNA? I have to chuckle when Cristina calls the 2001 default, and subsequent issuance of sharply reduced "exchange" bond robbery a "restructuring". I wonder what spin she puts on her theft?

Tres3.

[Thomaso276]

"This is not to mention the negative effect all of this is likely to have on future US-Argentina collaborations and investments, basically driving Argentina to instead make deals with China. ".

What deals / agreements with USA? Russia, Iran, China, Venezuala are the preferred partners for this bunch of thieves.

[Dccpa]

It's not like Paul Singer's hedge fund actually helped Argentina by buying their bonds, and is just trying to get paid back. No, it bought defaulted bonds, dirt cheap. And is now insisting on full payment of the huge profits from those bonds, plus interest, regardless of any consequences.

The collateral damage may now potentially include Citibank, which could lose their Argentina banking license if it complies with the order of US Judge Griesa (whose rulings are helping Singer). Citigroup has appealed Griesa's order, saying he abused his discretion in blocking payments from Argentina.

This is not to mention the negative effect all of this is likely to have on future US-Argentina collaborations and investments, basically driving Argentina to instead make deals with China.

It appears Paul Singer will go to any length to collect his profits, and (in his view) damned be any adverse consequence for the people of Argentina, the other bondholders, the banks, and other US investors.

Like to spin things and ignore the truth Esten?

An investor bought bonds at a discount and the bond issuer has the financial ability to pay the bonds in full. Since the bond issuer has the financial ability to pay the bonds in full, the investor wants to be paid in full. What a crazy concept.

Everyone has stated that Argentina can pay Singer in full without it affecting the country's agreement with the other bond holders. Argentina has the financial ability to easily pay Singer.

If any action is taken against Citibank, it will be appealed and reversed with the next administration.

Do you really believe Argentina is going to do more business with China than it already would do? China is pushing hard to do deals in Latin America and they are having success. That success will continue regardless of these bonds or anything else the US does or doesn't do.