ajoknoblauch
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 6,358
- Likes
- 3,908
I wouldn't use the same language, but it's hard to disagree with the analysis.
"outlaws": Do You Agree?
- Thread starter sergio
- Start date
I wouldn't use the same language, but it's hard to disagree with the analysis.
Bajo_cero2
Registered
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 7,958
- Likes
- 4,408
Ignorancy is a bliss.
If you read better, as i sugested, Griesa can enact a sentence but he cannot enforce it. It is a basic concept at international públic law but it is also at the contract of the restructured bonds.
Only the Hague INTERNATIONAL Court can enforce a sentence after double checking if the judge enacted a valid sentence. Guess what, Griesa's sentence cannot survive this test.
Countries cannot be forcéd to accept the Hague Court, i remind you that Argentina proposed it but the US didn't accept it. Guess why?
This is why Griesa insist in a "negotiation" that it is an euphemism for a voluntee payment.
It is the bondholders who sue the boNY because the sentence of Griesa was an excess of jurisdiction, also known as an excess of power.
I also doubt that bond contracts are issued at The Hague.
Argentina can go on blaming "vultures" (1% of the people who are holding out, and in that whole 7% are quite a few Argentine holdouts, BTW), they can go on decrying the horrible people who are trying to destroy them financially and talk about how unfair debtors are. Of course, it still seems to me that no one takes into account the completely dishonest, careless and stupid things the Argentine government does with whatever money they have (no matter where it comes from) and who don't seem to give a rat's ass about those who invested their money and were asked to take pretty much the same haircut as Argentina forced on its citizens overnight some 13-14 years ago.
I really can't believe that anyone would give more credence to the "feelings" of the Argentine government than those who are holding out for more money than the government was willing to give. You might not like vulture funds, but the Argentine government has sure done a number on a large portion of expats and other non-Argentines around the world who follow this, making them feel sympathy for a gang of crooks, considering the "vultures" are a tiny portion of the debtors and a small percentage of the "holdouts". In fact, without the resources the "vultures" brought to the table I doubt the other holdouts would have had much of a chance at any kind of cohesive response to the Argentine government. (not to mention that as I understand it, the "vultures" didn't buy the bonds for pennies on the dollar as has been stated so many times, but rather paid somewhere around 50% of the value, whereas the Argentine government never even reached 30%. If this is true, how is it that the Argentine government itself is not simply a dying venomous snake about to get eaten by vultures at the very least?).
My first comment has to do with the upholding of the rule of law and contracts, which was the reason why Argentina (whichever government it was) went to New York because no one would ever trust an Argentine court to actually be reasonably detached and rule honestly. You can bitch about Griesa all you want, but as in most court proceedings, no one but those involved and/or reporting were actually there and it's real easy to twist things and say "this or that is right" while completely ignoring the actions of the Argentine government.
People are also ignoring the fact that Griesa's tough stance has a lot to do with maintaining reasonably-priced bonds for government agencies around the world. People who invest want to know that at the very least the entity offering the bonds (borrowing the money) are going to be held to their contract. People have said that this incident is going to remove New York as a serious bond issuer and I say the rulings that have been handed down, while unenforceable here in Argentina at least will help keep the interest rates on bond issuances for risky entities within a reasonable interest rate, which would not have happened otherwise. This, of course, would save probably billions of dollars in interest rates for many poor governments around the world, but let's not talk about that, poor Argentina is always the victim and never the doer of wrong.
This is just my unprofessional opinion, of course and we are all free to have our own opinions. I don't begrudge anyone else their opinion, but I just can't see Argentina as the victim in this.
Argentina can go on blaming "vultures" (1% of the people who are holding out, and in that whole 7% are quite a few Argentine holdouts, BTW), they can go on decrying the horrible people who are trying to destroy them financially and talk about how unfair debtors are. Of course, it still seems to me that no one takes into account the completely dishonest, careless and stupid things the Argentine government does with whatever money they have (no matter where it comes from) and who don't seem to give a rat's ass about those who invested their money and were asked to take pretty much the same haircut as Argentina forced on its citizens overnight some 13-14 years ago.
I really can't believe that anyone would give more credence to the "feelings" of the Argentine government than those who are holding out for more money than the government was willing to give. You might not like vulture funds, but the Argentine government has sure done a number on a large portion of expats and other non-Argentines around the world who follow this, making them feel sympathy for a gang of crooks, considering the "vultures" are a tiny portion of the debtors and a small percentage of the "holdouts". In fact, without the resources the "vultures" brought to the table I doubt the other holdouts would have had much of a chance at any kind of cohesive response to the Argentine government. (not to mention that as I understand it, the "vultures" didn't buy the bonds for pennies on the dollar as has been stated so many times, but rather paid somewhere around 50% of the value, whereas the Argentine government never even reached 30%. If this is true, how is it that the Argentine government itself is not simply a dying venomous snake about to get eaten by vultures at the very least?).
My first comment has to do with the upholding of the rule of law and contracts, which was the reason why Argentina (whichever government it was) went to New York because no one would ever trust an Argentine court to actually be reasonably detached and rule honestly. You can bitch about Griesa all you want, but as in most court proceedings, no one but those involved and/or reporting were actually there and it's real easy to twist things and say "this or that is right" while completely ignoring the actions of the Argentine government.
People are also ignoring the fact that Griesa's tough stance has a lot to do with maintaining reasonably-priced bonds for government agencies around the world. People who invest want to know that at the very least the entity offering the bonds (borrowing the money) are going to be held to their contract. People have said that this incident is going to remove New York as a serious bond issuer and I say the rulings that have been handed down, while unenforceable here in Argentina at least will help keep the interest rates on bond issuances for risky entities within a reasonable interest rate, which would not have happened otherwise. This, of course, would save probably billions of dollars in interest rates for many poor governments around the world, but let's not talk about that, poor Argentina is always the victim and never the doer of wrong.
This is just my unprofessional opinion, of course and we are all free to have our own opinions. I don't begrudge anyone else their opinion, but I just can't see Argentina as the victim in this.
Bajo_cero2
Registered
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 7,958
- Likes
- 4,408
El Queso, the conflicts between States are solved, if both States agree, at Hague International Court.
Griesa enacted a sentence but he cannot enforce it to a country. To enforce it, the US has to accept the jurisdiction of the Hague but, the Court is going to analyze if it is acording to law.
He tried to enforce it and this is why others bondholders are suing the boNY, it was out law.
As far as you gave your opinión, i have nothing to say on that, i respect disagreement.
Griesa enacted a sentence but he cannot enforce it to a country. To enforce it, the US has to accept the jurisdiction of the Hague but, the Court is going to analyze if it is acording to law.
He tried to enforce it and this is why others bondholders are suing the boNY, it was out law.
As far as you gave your opinión, i have nothing to say on that, i respect disagreement.
Bajo_cero2
Registered
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 7,958
- Likes
- 4,408
http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2014/08/26/actualidad/1409068048_669501.html
On the other hand, this is a smart strategy i suggested some time ago. Having a sentence, the vultures can go for the black money Argentines has abroad, about 300 billion, and, if they do it seriously, it can be a win win situation because if Argentines bring the money back to Argentina escaping from the vultures and the Central Bank can have 300 billion in deposits, the economy should be without any more inestability.
On the other hand, this is a smart strategy i suggested some time ago. Having a sentence, the vultures can go for the black money Argentines has abroad, about 300 billion, and, if they do it seriously, it can be a win win situation because if Argentines bring the money back to Argentina escaping from the vultures and the Central Bank can have 300 billion in deposits, the economy should be without any more inestability.
camino no tomado
Registered
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2013
- Messages
- 123
- Likes
- 150
wild_horses
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2014
- Messages
- 214
- Likes
- 152
