Thread: Argentine Economy
+
Submit Report
Results 331 to 345 of 1611
-
08-14-14 06:18 #1281
Posts: 911This is becoming Cristina's salvation. All of her economic disasters can now be blamed on the "Vultures". She and all the thieves from the FPV can point their fingers and say "Its not our fault! This is her "Malvinas"! Whats worse is that most of the country believe or want to believe this is true. I predict that another FPV candidate wins next years presidential election. I think even Evita would be crying if she could see this mess the country is in!
-
08-14-14 01:29 #1280
Posts: 577Argentina slams USA Judge
Draw your own conclusions from this link.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0GD1A920140813
Tres3.
-
08-09-14 02:07 #1279
Posts: 577Argentina threatened with contempt order by USA Judge
Argentina fails to tell folks that the bank cannot comply with the judge's order to not pay the "interest" owed the exchange bond holders, and return the money, because Argentina refuses to issue the required transfer instructions to the bank for the return of the money to Argentina. As a result, the money sits in limbo, and the bank is caught in a "catch 22". Meanwhile Argentina falsely claims that it is not in default because it has made the required "interest" payments to the exchange bond holders. Argentina also continues to cloud the issue by citing the RUFO clause. RUFO only applies to "voluntary" payments, and there is nothing voluntary about a court order.
Meanwhile, the Argentine LIVs applaud Cristina for standing up to the "vultures". Argentina has stolen from the international financial community on seven previous occasions by defaulting on debt. You would think that the lenders would learn that Argentina is a bad credit risk. Unfortunately, the Argentine government will keep stealing as long as some fool is willing to lend them money. P. T. Barnum said it all.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/argent...000052587.html
Tres3.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Tres3 For This Post:
-
08-06-14 02:05 #1278
Posts: 1740Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Esten For This Post:
-
08-05-14 12:18 #1277
Posts: 776Originally Posted by Dickhead [View Original Post]
Originally Posted by Dickhead [View Original Post]
-
08-05-14 07:07 #1276
Posts: 911Originally Posted by Dickhead [View Original Post]
-
-
08-05-14 02:21 #1275
Posts: 3510Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
-
08-05-14 01:12 #1274
Posts: 776Rockin Bob, You're arguing about things that happened ten years ago, and I don't disagree with you. Argentina couldn't repay its debt. With respect to the current issue, there are two reasons Argentina doesn't pay the holdouts:
1. Because the Kirchneristas believe refusing to pay will improve their electoral prospects, and
2. Because the Kirchneristas, like Esten, believe it's more important to punish hedge funds than to do what's best for Argentina and best for people in developing countries. See my post #1592 below.
To answer your question, anti-liberals believe government should prevail over individual rights and the rule of law.
-
08-05-14 00:08 #1273
Posts: 191Originally Posted by Tiny12 [View Original Post]
Where did I say it's ok to steal? Argentina defaulted on its bonds for a number of reasons, and sure, a corrupt government siphoning off money was one of the reasons. But you make it out as if they intentionally defaulted. They had no other choice to default. Why would they want to default if it keeps them out of capital markets in the future? It's in their interest to keep getting IMF loans so they can keep diverting the money into their own pockets. They defaulted originally from a combination of mismangement, bad policies, and a contraction of the economy.
Again, to make it clear: sovereign debt is subject to risk, especially since if there's a default there's not much you can do but get an unenforceable judgment. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy Argentine bonds. For a few extra percentage points, people take the risk, but it's not exactly a prudent decision in a case like Argentina.
Countries, like individuals, go bankrupt for a variety of reasons, some their own fault, others not. Would you like to go back to the days of debtor's prisons?
To say Paul Singer is a victim is laughable. He's just a bottom feeding shyster who's only stock in trade is getting the courts to issue a ruling in his favor. He never lent money to Argentina, he just picked up the debt for pennies on the dollar. Vulture is the perfect description for him.
In individual bankruptcy, you reach a settlement in accordance with procedures set out in the law and then you move on. That's the way sovereign debt should be dealt with, and pretty much what happened: Argentina was broke, so they defaulted, and then reached a deal with the creditors to pay them back what they could. And they have made the payments, are making the payments, but the payments are in a New York bank which can't distribute them because of the judge's ruling.
If I'm a holder of the exchange bonds, I want my money, and I don't want to see it held up because of the chicanery of speculators. Why should one speculator manage to defeat the interests of all the other bondholders?
As for saying the Supreme Court would have upheld Griesa's ruling, well, yeah. Not hearing the case is the same thing.
-
08-05-14 00:03 #1272
Posts: 2470Originally Posted by RockinBob [View Original Post]
-
08-04-14 22:14 #1271
Posts: 776Originally Posted by RockinBob [View Original Post]
Rockin Bob like other anti-liberal leftists believes it's OK to steal, as long as it's government doing the stealing. When that happens you blame the victim. It's the victim of the serial defaulter that's using "legal chicanery."
Hedge funds aren't the only holdouts. There are Argentine and European pensioners who also refuse to take a haircut. The Kirchneristas refer to them as mini-vultures.
Originally Posted by RockinBob [View Original Post]
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Tiny12 For This Post:
-
08-04-14 19:56 #1270
Posts: 191Pari Passu
Originally Posted by Tres3 [View Original Post]
Here's the way I see it: Paul Singer / ECM are bottom feeders, like debt collection agencies that buy up debts for pennies on the dollar and harrass people for the money. Here, what they need is to convince some judge to go along with a twisted interpretation of the law and then arrange it so that the legitimate holders of the exchange bonds are held hostage to their demands. Extortion, as Axel Kicillof put it.
Everybody got screwed equally by Argentina. They defaulted on all their bonds. 93% of the bondholders decided half a loaf (or a quarter, whatever) was better than none, and so they went for the exchange bonds. And they have been paid off equally under the new arrangement. Pari passu.
As for the holdouts, they should just accept the fact that they got screwed. Argentina is a serial defaulter, who the hell would buy their bonds in the first place? Default is the risk you take when you buy an Argentine bond. The holdouts are stuck with worthless bonds, they have been defaulted on, and now they come up with this legal chicanery to try and get some money (actually, a lot of money) out of them.
Seems what I read in the financial press is that most lawyers who deal with these issues are concerned that the rulings go against precedent and upset what till now was a stable system to deal with these matters. Many if not most question Judge Griesa's decision.
A contract is a contract is a contract. Boy, did everybody forget that in a New York minute a few years back in the financial crisis when the government bailed out the banks to the tune of how many trillions of dollars?
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Rockin Bob For This Post:
-
08-04-14 18:20 #1269
Posts: 577Pari Passau
Originally Posted by RockinBob [View Original Post]
Tres3
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Tres3 For This Post:
-
08-04-14 18:06 #1268
Posts: 191Pari passu
Originally Posted by Tres3 [View Original Post]
Here's a couple of articles that examine the pari passu clause in depth.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/fmg/events/fina...R15L_Buchheit-(Pari-Passu-Clause-in-Sovereign-Debt-Instruments-Emory-Law-Journal). Pdf.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2397929
Seems to me the clause is very much open to interpretation.
From the Emory Law journal article:
"This leads us to the final question: how could a fallacious interpretation of.
A boilerplate clause-without a basis in law, or practice or commentary-have.
Taken even a shallow root in the minds of some market participants? It is true.
That the text of the pari passu clause itself is remarkably unconfiding about.
What the drafters were seeking to achieve with the provision, but that only.
Explains why it presented such an attractive target for creative explanations by.
Litigants in search of an effective remedy against a sovereign debtor. ".
-
08-04-14 01:53 #1267
Posts: 577Acontract is a contract is a contract
Originally Posted by Esten [View Original Post]
Tres3.