Thread: Argentine Economy
+
Submit Report
Results 196 to 210 of 1942
-
10-14-14 08:33 #1747
Posts: 995Originally Posted by Dccpa [View Original Post]
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Thomaso276 For This Post:
-
10-13-14 08:54 #1746
Posts: 192Originally Posted by Gandolf50 [View Original Post]
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Dccpa For This Post:
-
10-13-14 01:32 #1745
Posts: 577What has Kicillof been smoking?
Originally Posted by Gandolf50 [View Original Post]
Tres3.
-
10-12-14 20:31 #1744
Posts: 911From The B.A. Herald
I wasnt sure if I should put this in the jokes thread or under Argentine economy.........
"Argentina is not precluded from international credit, it has decided not to take it’.
Economy Minister Axel Kicillof has assured that the government is not seeking international financing despite current economic problems. “Argentina is not precluded from international credit, but it has decided not to take it,’ he stated.
“The government is not against external financing, the problem are its sources, the conditionalities tied to these loans,” Kicillof said in an interview with local Página/12 newspaper.
The minister said that the country has achieved foreign trade surpluses and that it “has the foreign exchange needed to face debt maturities.”.
“Historically, Argentina’s development was subjected to recurrent trade balance crisis,” the official said. “Development processes intensively use foreign currency.”.
Kicillof explained that “the mediocre growth of global economy, trade and of the economies of emerging countries” has affected Argentina since it is not “free from the evolution of Brazil’s, Europe’s and China’s growth rates.”".
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Gandolf50 For This Post:
-
10-11-14 13:00 #1743
Posts: 2808Agreed
I recently took an associate degree from a Jr. College in the US and A. The course work in my high school was much harder back in the days of hairy pussies and Pat Benatar.
-
10-11-14 12:37 #1742
Posts: 3510On dumbing down in the US (slightly off topic but hey): I had three separate teaching stints separated by gaps of 7-8 years. I taught one particular upper division course during all three stints, using succeeding editions of the leading text in the field. The first stint, the material was similar to what I studied in undergrad, which was not too surprising since not much time had passed. Then in stint two, I noticed that a lot of the more challenging material had been moved to appendices. By the third stint, that material was gone completely.
I also taught at the college I graduated from, about twenty years later. By then, in the business school they had removed the calculus requirement, the foreign language requirement, the keyboarding test, and lord knows what else. The day I finally decided my career was over was when I stopped what I was doing and said to my class of business majors, "What's seven times eight?"
The blank looks told me all I needed to know.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Dickhead For This Post:
-
10-11-14 11:53 #1741
Posts: 577Dumbing Down
Originally Posted by DavieW [View Original Post]
Tres3.
-
10-11-14 07:58 #1740
Posts: 416Originally Posted by Gandolf50 [View Original Post]
(Fixed That For You.).
-
The Following User Says Thank You to DavieW For This Post:
-
10-11-14 07:24 #1739
Posts: 911Originally Posted by Dickhead [View Original Post]
-
10-11-14 05:06 #1738
Posts: 416Originally Posted by Dickhead [View Original Post]
Having just taken my son from the (so called) Argentinian education system to the British education system, the difference is an embarrassment. He's in year two, but has had to be grouped with the pre-schoolers for reading and writing. He's not dumb - they just hadn't started on reading and writing yet at his school in Argentina!
-
10-11-14 03:34 #1737
Posts: 3510The chance of finding a cure for stupid might increase slightly (or not) if they would send their children to school for more than four hours a day. That'd be like having 110 days of school a year in the US.
-
-
10-11-14 02:20 #1736
Posts: 577Rocket Science Not Required--You Cannot Cure Stupid
Originally Posted by Dickhead [View Original Post]
My dos centavos worth.
Tres3.
-
10-10-14 19:11 #1735
Posts: 3510One of the more ironic aspects of this whole bond debacle is that when Argentina wrote the bonds, they included a "most favored creditor" clause to increase the marketability. But, and I know everyone will find this difficult to believe, they fucked it up. They left out the word "settlement" and that single omission meant the exchange bondholders weren't protected from Argentina making a settlement with the holdout bondholders. But Argentina then passed another law that prevented Argentina from re-opening the exchange process. That law, known as the Lock Law, is what was held to violate the equal treatment clause (along with the payments to the exchange bondholders).
So pari passu (equal treatment or rank) has two possible elements: an internal element, meaning that each bond within a tranch is equal to each other bond in the tranch; and an external element, meaning that Tranch X ranks equally with other existing debentures (mortgage bonds don't have or need pari passu clauses) and / or with future issues. Typically, depending on state law, you can then still take a future issue and give it a subordination clause. Importantly, the Argentine bonds that were defaulted on contained both types of clauses. Here is the exact pari passu clause from the bonds:
"The Securities will constitute ... direct, unconditional, unsecured and unsubordinated obligations of the Republic and shall at all times rank pari passu and without any preference among themselves. The payment obligations of the Republic under the Securities shall at all times rank at least equally with all its other present and future unsecured and unsubordinated External Indebtedness (as defined in this Agreement)."
Pretty clear, I would say. Since it says "at least" equally, we see that future issues can indeed be subordinated. But that isn't relevant except in the case of the exchange bonds. I haven't found out yet whether the exchange bonds have a subordination clause. The seminal case dealing with pari passu is the "Elliott" case, where a holdout investment fund succeeded in blocking Per from making payments to other bondholders on a 'restructuring' of the debt. That was an EU decision, but was based on New York law. And, since Argentina was not astute enough to include a collective action clause in the original bonds, putting one in the exchange bonds would also violate pari passu; Greece, in similar circumstances, was able to put the 'haircut' to a vote and hence force the holdouts to accept the reduced principal repayment, because they had one of these clauses.
Then, for reasons that are unclear but appear to be related to having a lock on stupid, Argentina proceeded to (repeatedly) file 18k reports with the SEC in which it specifically referred to the holdout creditors as comprising a separate category. Thus, they basically filed a sworn form proving they had violated the equal treatment clause!
-
10-10-14 18:28 #1734
Posts: 577Argentina Has Financing Offers From Investors, Kicillof Says
More BS from Kicillof. I wonder why he did not name the potential "investors" and the amounts they would loan Argentina?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...tml?cmpid=yhoo
Tres3.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Tres3 For This Post:
-
10-10-14 17:00 #1733
Posts: 2556
Venues: 398Originally Posted by Esten [View Original Post]
"Pari passu" means that all bondholders must be treated equally by the bond issuer.
Among other things, it means that the bond issuer can't pick and choose who it will pay I. E. "We like bondholders A, C and C, so we will pay them, and because we don't like bondholders D, E and F we will tell them to "fuck off".
That's a good thing. That's why all bond buyers want "pari passu" clauses in the bonds they buy. For the bond issuers it keeps the interest rates lower as the bonds are perceived as being more secure.
In this case, Argentine decided that it would ignore the "pari passu" clause in the bonds that they authored and sold, and instead decided to pay those bondholders who agreed to the haircut while simultaneously telling the holdout bondholders to "fuck off".
Judge Griesa agreed with the holdouts that a) their bonds were valid and that Argentine owed them the full amount stipulated therein, and b) that they were not being treated equally with the other bondholders who were in fact getting paid (abet at a reduced rate). Accordingly, he correctly ordered that nobody could get paid unless everybody got paid in accordance with the bond's conditions.
Of course, Argentina can settle the lawsuit with the holdout bondholders by paying them in full as stipulated in the bonds. Unfortunately for the exchange bondholders, I suspect that they waived their rights to full payment when they accepted the exchange bonds, but that's their problem.
Thanks,
Jax.