what's the deal with $USD in argentina?

[sesamosinsal]

Just FYI -- Schwab Bank in the USA charges no fees whatsoever. Everything is refunded at the end of the month. No ATM fees, no foreign transaction fees. Zero, zip, nada. The exchange rate is at the market rate.

I think the limit is something like $800 USD per day. This is not imposed by any ATM, but Schwab Bank. I was told a few years ago that this limit could be raised at my request if I called Schwab Customer Service.

 

[citygirl]

Those are the fees for withdrawing money from an ATM, nothing to do with purchases. I pulled that from an article from last May - will try and chase it down again on the internet but those are correct when I went to specific banks websites to check.

I know of no way to take out more than 1000 USD (peso equivalent) per day and have tried using different banks back when I did pay rent and needed larger sums. The only way would be if you had multiple accounts/ATM cards.

And it is an issue for lots of travelers (or at least the ones I've seen). I have several friends that rent out apts and had multiple tourists (1 week/2 week/1 month rentals) who showed up with no cash and couldn't take out the money needed to rent the apt. Does that mean everyone has an issue? Of course not but many of the people I've seen did have issues and didn't have multiple cards or weren't near a Citbank which I believe is the ONLY bank that allows you to even take out in pesos the equivalent of 1000 USD. Others for sure do not - I want to say the limit is 3000 pesos per day and couldn't even pay the rent, let alone the security deposit.

Whatever people want to do really. If I were a tourist, the thought of traveling without the cash, having to leave my luggage at the apt or lug it around after a 10+ hour flight to have to go find money (and let's hope the ATMs have money) and potentially deal with paying to withdraw money which is pricey for many people + the headaches of having to use multiple cards - it's not worth it. YMMV.

 

[scarface]

Many owners will start pricing their apartments at an alternative Pesos rate that will be parallel to the unofficial rate

You reiterate this point ad nauseum. No one disputes it. We get it. Do you understand that it is best for tourists and expats to have the option to pay in pesos?

...and other owners will simply decide that short term rentals are too much of a hassle now that they won't be paid in Dollars, which is the only real incentive to rent to tourists short term.

That is an absurdity. Check the classifieds of the Herald if you think there isn't much of a temp apt industry. It will thrive even when landlords cease trying to improperly obtain dollars.
You have lost all credibility so I won't bother to dispute you other POVs.

 

[perry]

I know many foreign landlords who have taken their property off the markets off the short term rental markets and now only rent long term. The numbers do not add up for short term rentals when you factor in empty apartments, expensive furnishings, wear and tear , and clients who are here for one week and expect 5 star service in a rented apartment .

 

[scarface]

I know of no way to take out more than 1000 USD (peso equivalent) per day and have tried using different banks back when I did pay rent and needed larger sums. The only way would be if you had multiple accounts/ATM cards.

And it is an issue for lots of travelers (or at least the ones I've seen). I have several friends that rent out apts and had multiple tourists (1 week/2 week/1 month rentals) who showed up with no cash and couldn't take out the money needed to rent the apt. Does that mean everyone has an issue? Of course not but many of the people I've seen did have issues and didn't have multiple cards or weren't near a Citbank which I believe is the ONLY bank that allows you to even take out in pesos the equivalent of 1000 USD. Others for sure do not - I want to say the limit is 3000 pesos per day and couldn't even pay the rent, let alone the security deposit.

Whatever people want to do really. If I were a tourist, the thought of traveling without the cash, having to leave my luggage at the apt or lug it around after a 10+ hour flight to have to go find money (and let's hope the ATMs have money) and potentially deal with paying to withdraw money which is pricey for many people + the headaches of having to use multiple cards - it's not worth it. YMMV.

So we are now down to the short strokes.
1.International travelers can get excellent exchange rates for their dollars (better than what they would get at a casa de cambio/local bank) by using ATMs if they choose their financial institutions wisely. You concede this, but argue some may have to pay from 1% to 3% more than if they paid in dollars carried with them from afar because of fees associated with ATM usage.
2. There may be a daily limit on the amount of pesos one can withdraw using one ATM card of US $1000 (although I would bet that if there is a limit it can be doubled by using both the Link and Banelco systems and or using the cards inside the bank at the exchange desk). You argue this limit is a serious problem for a signifcant portion of travelers. I disagree. I maintain that by planning to carry more than one ATM card and/or using bank exchange desks travelers need not worry they won't be able to get pesos if they just travel with plastic. There might be a very rare exception in which case the traveler would need to bring dollars assuming other prior arrangements weren't made.
3. You share the opinion of those people who would prefer to travel from country to country and through airports with lots of cash because they find it less worrisome than using ATMs to obtain local currency after they arrive. In my experience you are in the minority.You disagree.
4. You apparently don't think it is important to allow short term tourists the option to pay in pesos. I do. The law so mandates. You agree that longer term expats should have the right to pay rent in pesos no matter what the lease provides regarding dollar payments.
Is that about it?

 

[solerboy]

Greedy is somebody who wants more than what he deserves.

Regards

I know the meaning of greed, I posted the definition of greed to this forum about a week ago. My original post was to defend the landlords who were being called greedy. I stated from the outset that I do not know the Argentine law on this matter.

But definitions of the law and definitions of words are not the same thing.

When parties enter into a contract, if they are not sure of the law or the contract terms they should seek legal advice. The signing of a contract should at least indicate that one understands what one is signing (even if in reality most people do not).

If a landlord and tenant sign a contract which contains an "illegal" clause then both parties have equally agreed to that "illegal" clause.

For one party to then seek to be excused from that clause on the grounds that it is illegal is in my view is immoral if nothing else. Particularly when the cost of complying with the clause is not onerous.

And no one yet has been able to explain why someone wanting to receive the sum as agreed in a contract is being greedy.

Illegal maybe, greedy no.

 

[TheBlackHand]

And just factor in the few nutt cases ( see above ) and there are not that many reasons to rent short term anymore. I have quite a few expat friends that own apartments in the Capital. The majority have decided to do only long term rentals. The money is close to the same after costs and they have a rentee with a guarantee and a two year commitment. Not to mention they have a legally enforceable contract. The only thing some owners used to see and an incentive was that they were at least paid in Dollars and didn't have to go to the hassle of changing them themselves. If you take that away, there is no reason to rent short term anymore. I personally can't think of one.

I know many foreign landlords who have taken their property off the markets off the short term rental markets and now only rent long term. The numbers do not add up for short term rentals when you factor in empty apartments, expensive furnishings, wear and tear , and clients who are here for one week and expect 5 star service in a rented apartment .

 

[scarface]

If a landlord and tenant sign a contract which contains an "illegal" clause then both parties have equally agreed to that "illegal" clause.
For one party to then seek to be excused from that clause on the grounds that it is illegal is in my view is immoral if nothing else. Particularly when the cost of complying with the clause is not onerous.

You have a very unique, even perverse, view of immorality.
In the eyes of the law, a clause that is void may not be enforced because it is considered a nullity. The law reflects society's mores and values. The law was passed by elected lawmakers for a reason. You may not agree with it, but can you imagine the chaos that would result if everyone could choose the laws they wish to obey and which they can disregard. For most english speakers, it is correct to say that it is immoral to violate the law. Yes there are exceptions when civil disobedience is ethical, but not in a commercial context as a lease payment term. By definition, it is not immoral to stand on your legal rights especially if you were unaware of them when entering the contract. I will concede it may be "fast dealing" to agree to pay dollars if you know such a term is unenforceable. I presume we are not talking about that situation since as a practical matter, no one here even knew what the law was until Bajo_ Cero2 informed us.

And no one yet has been able to explain why someone wanting to receive the sum as agreed in a contract is being greedy.Illegal maybe, greedy no.

Stop parsing words. It is greedy to overreach, to try to gain something to which one is not entitled. The law says a landlord is not entitled to get dollars in payment of a lease. It is an overreach to knowingly try to get dollars. Stop beating a dead horse.

 

[scarface]

I know many foreign landlords who have taken their property off the markets off the short term rental markets and now only rent long term. The numbers do not add up for short term rentals when you factor in empty apartments, expensive furnishings, wear and tear , and clients who are here for one week and expect 5 star service in a rented apartment .

It's a case of supply and demand. Temp apts now are a relative bargain in BA. When fewer become available, the prices will go up and they will remain profitable.

And just factor in the few nutt cases ( see above ) and there are not that many reasons to rent short term anymore. I have quite a few expat friends that own apartments in the Capital. The majority have decided to do only long term rentals. The money is close to the same after costs and they have a rentee with a guarantee and a two year commitment. Not to mention they have a legally enforceable contract. The only thing some owners used to see and an incentive was that they were at least paid in Dollars and didn't have to go to the hassle of changing them themselves. If you take that away, there is no reason to rent short term anymore. I personally can't think of one.

Yeah, it's real pain in the ass to have to comply with the law. Why, its downright immoral. Who are the nutt cases?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

If a landlord and tenant sign a contract which contains an "illegal" clause then both parties have equally agreed to that "illegal" clause.


For one party to then seek to be excused from that clause on the grounds that it is illegal is in my view is immoral if nothing else. Particularly when the cost of complying with the clause is not onerous..

There cannot be agreement about clauses against public order.

The landlord know that this clause is illegal, so, who is immoral?

Let s clarify this. The landlord can buy dollars at 4.29 with the pesos he receive from the tennant ONLY if he pays his taxes. The landlords wants dollars to evade taxes. I repeat, who is immoral?

And no one yet has been able to explain why someone wanting to receive the sum as agreed in a contract is being greedy.

Illegal maybe, greedy no.

Well, as I explained, to want to get more than what you deserve is greedy. Law says you deserve pesos, you want dollars, that s greedy. Landlord know the law and the tennant doesn t. He is trying to get an illegal advantage abusing of the lack of knowledge of the tennant. Nobody here knew what the law says about thos before I explained. In fact, there are many websites that tries to confuse tennants providing false informating. If this is not a fraud, what a fraud is?

Regards