French jurist
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 4,250
- Likes
- 3,391
You need to stock on Scott (repeat 6 times, same thing as for ORL)
yeah or land mines and rocket launchersSo I should bring back toilet paper rather than maple syrup or apple products on my forthcoming trip back north.....
It's happened before, who's to say that it cannot happen again.Do you pretend there will be another corralito? Because I certainly don't (this can frighten newcomers here...).
Furthermore I'd prefer to put my savings in another country than having them at home in Argentine (wether gold, jewelry, peanut butter, etc.)
So I should bring back toilet paper rather than maple syrup or apple products on my forthcoming trip back north.....
Complex situation (there's no international Law of sovereign bankruptcies), the solution might actually be political, but not in the way like Obama overriding Griesa's decision (I did read something about that some weeks ago: when a judicial ruling affects substantially foreign policy, the President has such a power. If someone knows more about that?), since obviously BO won't wet his shirt now to defend directly Argentina (a bit too late indeed).
Solution might be political because Griesa's decision (and the fact the SC refused to look at the case) simply puts private interests (and not yours or mine, we are little fish) before the sovereignty of the states.
That's already a problem because if Griesa's ruling indeed applies to bonds under the NY law, it's hardly arguable that Europe is under the sovereignty of Griesa's Court (that's why the BONY is in an aweful situation).
To reverse things, I sincerely don't think that US investors buying bonds under the NY law would accept not getting paid because a Belgian court decided otherwise (or not?!). In fact, I think the situation would be very different and if the USS Nimitz was seized in Cameroon, US reactions would also be different.
I'll dare to pretend that Argentine's position is stronger than the Vulture funds ones (for political reasons).
Please explain, with specific details, how you think a political solution could possibly occur. Do you know something that we don't? Seriously, I'm very interested in how this could realistically be possible. Do you have some special inside information that the rest of us don't have?
Also, in light of the fact that Argentina has lost the lawsuit -- and all possible appeals -- against the holdouts, could you please explain, again with specific details, how Argentina's position could possibly be stronger than the holdouts (...for political reasons... does not qualify as a specific detail).
Seriously, if you know something that we don't, please tell us.
Argentina is "Ground Hog Day" at a national level.It's happened before, who's to say that it cannot happen again.
What I'd like to do is buy Canadian gold coins for majority of my savings then some junk gold that can be liquidated easily should I need it.
Of course I don't know things you don't know. But, and I never thought I'd quote this guy, there are known knowns, known unknowns, etc.
It's a case mixing international law, sovereignty of the states, political pressures, the right for a state to default (right existing since the Middle Ages), future of debt restructuring (with or without the pari passu), legal interpretations, future of Argentina and many more aspects including psychology (e.g. CFK likely wanting to appear as the savior, Griesa oddly mentioning very trivial details like complaining in 3 distinct occasions that his vacations were interrupted or giving his personal opinion about a sovereign country which both are quite surreal, it's like going to see a doctor for a cancer and listen to him complaining about a headache).
When mixing all those, you come up to hypothesis.
So, how could it be solved by a political decision:
- First, the most obvious: Singer et al. live in the same "small world" as those judges (Singer finances the election of judges), worldwide political leaders (Singer gives speach at international summits), the other funds who accepted the restructuration, etc.
Griesa's decision will be the victim of its own paradox: pretended being above the sovereignty of the states (not only Argentine's sovereignty but also the sovereignty of other states since one of the main components of sovereignty is the control of domestic financial markets) but his ruling cannot be really enforced fully, precisely because of the sovereignty of the states (superior to any authority Griesa's has of course).
It has been explained already but both the Vulture funds & Argentina wouldn't benefit from a default, therefore in this context of negotiations, it's about what Singer is ready to accept & what Argentina is willing to give.
It's more than likely (known unknowns) that Singer et al. have talks with foreign political leaders, IMF & other institutions officials, other fund investors, etc., many of whom being also in favor of a succesful negotiation.
That's why the solution might be political in this sense, indirectly: Singer (who is certainly not a dumb, although being a sc*mb*g) knows he has to negotiate, not only to get the money, but also to fix a situation which has gone too complex & heavy.
I'll think of additional political scenarios today, jeje
***
About "Also, in light of the fact that Argentina has lost the lawsuit -- and all possible appeals -- against the holdouts, could you please explain, again with specific details, how Argentina's position could possibly be stronger than the holdouts"
There have been quite many posts about that. It's an "if" explanation
- Argentina has indeed lost a lawsuit which cannot be really enforced fully (it's a "head I win, tail you lose" situation).
But lawsuits have been initiated against the BONY, this bank facing already a lawsuit btw (allegedly stole 2 billion dollars from US pension funds). If the BONY loses those lawsuits and ends up paying a big fine, firing a few 1000s employees on the way, while perjudicating NY has a financial center & with the possibility that the US taxpayers are called in to save the bank (don't tell me this can't happen... There's a new concept since 2008 "privatizing the profits, mutualizing the risks"...), then Argentina won't be in the weaker position.
- If Griesa (who returned from vacations a few days ago) keeps on blocking the payments to EU or JP bondholders, and if the negotiation is not succesful, and if there's a technical default (while Argentina actually paid the restructured bond holders), then Argentina can sue the BONY, the CDS might not even activate (loss for the Vultures) and the Vultures won't receive anything, in which case Argentina won't be in the weaker position.
This could be developped, but Griesa's decision has a major flaw = ignored the fact that some bonds were issued under other jurisdictions (it's not my interpretation = http://en.mercopress...ese-bondholders).
The fact that Griesa ruled again in a very unusual way (foreign bonds), which could have consequences for NY as a financial center certainly profits now to Argentina, at least on my opinion.
By the way, the banks can access your safety deposit boxes? Or was it an aberration? If true, was it across the board, institutionalized robbery? Or private individuals?
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Labor Chamber partially suspended the effects of the mega-DNU | Articles | 0 | ||
Long term effects on the Argentinian Culture due to Covid 19 | Expat Life | 4 | ||
S | Psychological effects of the quarantine | Culture | 3 | |
C | Effects of eventual rise in colectivo fares | Expat Life | 22 | |
Effects of inflation on tourism | Expat Life | 16 |