Kicillof Pays To 92% Of Bondholders, Griesa's Move Now?

[Somewhereinba]

Argentina did not sell bonds to Singer. Singer bought the bonds from third parties at bargain basement prices after Argentina had already defaulted.

And furthermore, sticking to the IMF is not in any way nicer, since they historically have demanded loan-shark style terms and require cuts to essential programmes like education and healthcare.

Hmmm.. So who was the genius that decided to offer all these bonds in the first place? It doesn't take a genius to look at how this country is managed to see how situations like these happen. If it were a business it would have gone under long ago. I can see why Argentine bonds have such high risk ratings.

Is there a way a country can choose who it offers bonds to in terms of a private placement to avoid situations like this in the future?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Well, it was Domingo Cavallo, another Harvard's genious.

 

[EdRooney]

The amazing thing is that the same team of geniuses that sold most of these bonds-- Cavallo, Roque Fernández, Sturzenegger, López Murphy... and got Argentina into this quilombo are the ones who are now put on TN as "expert economists" to critique the current handling of the mess they created.

This media farce is not unique though: look at who the "experts" are that the US/UK press digs up to comment on the current mess in Iraq: McCain, Cheney, Blair, Bill Kristol... It kind of makes you wonder how badly you have to muff things up in order to be considered an expert.

 

[EdRooney]

Is there a way a country can choose who it offers bonds to in terms of a private placement to avoid situations like this in the future?

The error was not whom the bonds were sold to; it was the terms of the bonds. Econ 101 says never issue bonds in a foreign currency. Furthermore, a sovereign country should never issue bonds subject to another state's laws.

 

[Don Alberto]

I'll let readers read again your answer, nothing to add.

PS: you don't have to use insults (which you did repeatedly), I didn't insult you. Furthermore you wouldn't insult me in front of me.

Where I come from it is a bloody insult to write "Clear example of manipulation (while posting links with no real substance).".

You claim that I manipulate, although you hadn't checked if I was right or not.

 

[Don Alberto]

The error was not whom the bonds were sold to; it was the terms of the bonds. Econ 101 says never issue bonds in a foreign currency. Furthermore, a sovereign country should never issue bonds subject to another state's laws.

The bonds were sold to more than 500,000 buyers, app 44 percent of the value (app 36 000 million) bought by retail investors, typically saving for their future pension only to have it stolen by Argentina.

The vast majority of the bonds could not have been sold in Argentine currency or under Argentine law.

Argentina is the Queen of Default, having defaulted 5 or 6 times; add one more if we count the incidence where most of the provinces defaulted.

Argentina has also redominated its currency so many times, that a debt in Argentine currency could become worthless within a few months. e.g. 1983 when 10,000 old pesos became 1 new peso or January 1992 when 10,000 australs became 1 peso.

US$ and Euros and foreign law was the only alternative, if Argentina were to sell bonds. Both English and German law for some of the bonds, hundreds of holdout pensioners filed lawsuits against Argentina in Frankfurt a few years ago.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

The bonds were sold to more than 500,000 buyers, app 44 percent of the value (app 36 000 million) bought by retail investors, typically saving for their future pension only to have it stolen by Argentina.

The vast majority of the bonds could not have been sold in Argentine currency or under Argentine law.

Argentina is the Queen of Default, having defaulted 5 or 6 times; add one more if we count the incidence where most of the provinces defaulted.

Argentina has also redominated its currency so many times, that a debt in Argentine currency could become worthless within a few months. e.g. 1983 when 10,000 old pesos became 1 new peso or January 1992 when 10,000 australs became 1 peso.

US$ and Euros and foreign law was the only alternative, if Argentina were to sell bonds. Both English and German law for some of the bonds, hundreds of holdout pensioners filed lawsuits against Argentina in Frankfurt a few years ago.

Here we have another "expert".

 

[Bajo_cero2]

The bonds were sold to more than 500,000 buyers, app 44 percent of the value (app 36 000 million) bought by retail investors, typically saving for their future pension only to have it stolen by Argentina.

The vast majority of the bonds could not have been sold in Argentine currency or under Argentine law.

Argentina is the Queen of Default, having defaulted 5 or 6 times; add one more if we count the incidence where most of the provinces defaulted.

Argentina has also redominated its currency so many times, that a debt in Argentine currency could become worthless within a few months. e.g. 1983 when 10,000 old pesos became 1 new peso or January 1992 when 10,000 australs became 1 peso.

US$ and Euros and foreign law was the only alternative, if Argentina were to sell bonds. Both English and German law for some of the bonds, hundreds of holdout pensioners filed lawsuits against Argentina in Frankfurt a few years ago.

Here we have another "expert".

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Here we have another "expert".

Te repetís...

 

[ajoknoblauch]

The error was not whom the bonds were sold to; it was the terms of the bonds. Econ 101 says never issue bonds in a foreign currency. Furthermore, a sovereign country should never issue bonds subject to another state's laws.

Perhaps, but if Argentina never issued bonds in a foreign currency or subject to another state's laws, it would issue no bonds whatsoever. How do other countries manage? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chile/government-bond-yield