Jump to content

Talk:Argentine debt restructuring

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMF, Clearstream and the holdouts

[edit]

I've reverted part of what Tazmaniacs (talk · contribs) wrote on the holdouts, while hopefully the sense of the rest. The following statement...

Part of Argentine's debt was owned by Clearstream clearing-house ("bank of banks"), which has been involved in a major financial scandal in Luxembourg.

... should have a proper source/reference, but in any case needs to be more specific (how much of the debt?) and is probably not a good idea to include as such. Argentine debt holders are many, why is this one singled out? Let's have a list of major creditors instead, if possible, and not a reference to a scandal in the middle of the text.

I've also removed my own statements about the likelihood of challenges presented by the holdouts in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This was especially inappropriate now that everyone's still shocked by the payment to the IMF. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearstream is a clearing house. Which means that it is a sort of "bank of banks", centralizing debit & credit operations for various banks and corporations. The scandal in question is explained by the creation, along the legal normal numbered bank accounts, unpublished accounts. According to Ernest Backes, former #3 of Clearstream, a lot of the funds composing the Argentine debt transited through Clearstream. This means that Clearstream facilitate tax evasion which has been a major cause of the Argentine economic crisis. Notwithstanding the complexity of financial operations, especially concerning the underground economy, I think these allegations are important - and serious enough, backed by sources, etc. - to be included in this article. Tazmaniacs

I don't doubt its seriousness. I'm wondering whether this should be more prominently mentioned somewhere in Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002), since Clearstream was involved in the whole process. Could you integrate the above into a specific subsection in either article (or both), and provide a source (attributing it to someone is not enough)? This would be helpful for others who wish to verify and learn more about this issue. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steadfast investors not totally without recourse!

[edit]

> and also, the first priority of a sovereign nation is the well being of its inhabitants. Hence, the debt will take decades to be fully paid, if ever. <

However, those holding those debts could do two things if they are rich and powerful enough. First is to confiscate argentinian property abroad, like embassy buildings and sell them to recover their losses. The second, even steeper act would be to assemble a private military force and wage war on Argentina in order to force a surrender, than curb away argentinian territories and sell those lands to a neighbouring country wishing to enlarge its territory and pocket the price as the debt payment. (The shameful defeat in the Falklands shows that argentinians have never been strong or compentent militarily, so a sizeable mercenary force of ex-SAS and ex-french-legionaries could give them a kicking easily.)

Since private property is a more basic and sacred natural right, which exists even when a country or a state does not exist or has already fallen apart, the issue of souvereignity cannot be used to prevent collection of debts. For example George Soros is rich enough and ruthless enough to raise a private army if he wishes to collect overdue bonds by conquering and selling argentinian lands. That guy is ruining one or more medium to small sized foreign country every month on average. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Title

[edit]

this article should really have the date in the title, as the Argentine debt has been restructured at other times.Justinc (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shut out of financial markets.

[edit]

About:

For four years, Argentina was a pariah, effectively shut out of the international financial markets.

Is that so, and is it in proper context? Net capital inflows had been plummeting since mid 1998 and were in negative territory before the default. In the years following the default, net direct foreign investment was positive. A major thesis is that it is capital inflows that fueled a speculative bubble, which was reversed in 1994 when the US raised rates. Soon after the default, the Argentinian government ran a primary surplus, and domestic saving (and lending) increased, so *even if* shut out of financial markets is true, it's effect was mitigated, to say the least.Lip gloss for2 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However there seems to be too much use of the word however

[edit]

Can we delete all uses of the word "however" from this article until we get down to just the facts, however long that might take? Hcobb (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Appeals decision (August 2013)

[edit]

About:

The ruling determined that holdouts should be repaid the full face value, and on highly unequal terms to the 93% who had accepted the 2005 and 2010 swaps at a 70%-75% discount.

The first part of this statement is factually incorrect. In its opinion of October 26, 2012 (page 25, line 8) the Court of Appeals held (its opinion of August 23, 2013 didn’t change this):

For example, Argentina can pay all amounts owed to its exchange bondholders provided it does the same for its defaulted bondholders. Or it can decide to make partial payments to its exchange bondholders as long as it pays a proportionate amount to holders of the defaulted bonds. Neither of these options would violate the Injunctions. The Injunctions do not require Argentina to pay any bondholder any amount of money;

The second part could be considered tendentious; in its opinion of August 23, 2013 (page 12, line 6) the Court of Appeals held:

We believe that it is equitable for one creditor to receive what it bargained for, and is therefore entitled to, even if other creditors, when receiving what they bargained for, do not receive the same thing. The reason is obvious: the first creditor is differently situated from other creditors in terms of what is currently due to it under its contract.

Nynva (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy pro-Argentina bias in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

[edit]

This article has a strong bias in favor of Argentina's position and fails to confront in detail any of the important aspects of New York law on which the case actually turns or the S.D.N.Y. or Second Circuit's decisions in the case. I can't fix all this insanely biased mess in one swoop, but I am going to try to make the discussion of what the actual legal case turns on a little bit clearer.--Coolcaesar (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am pulling this back to 25 July 2014 and editing from there. That was the last date on which the article appeared to reasonably summarize the situation. After that point it got really crazy and most of the edits after that point violate WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, etc. Many of the so-called sources cited in the edits after that date couldn't even get the names of the parties to the action right.--Coolcaesar (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good start. I agree there is a serious bias here. Eventually, we will fix it. bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coolcaesar is without a doubt one of the most knowledgeable contributors we've had on this article; and while I might differ from him in that he seems to support the vulture fund case, he's certainly a breath of fresh air from the slash-and-burn, blanket reversal, consensus-be-damned style employed by some others on this page (hi, Bob). Accordingly, I took great care to leave his edits alone. I did add notes on the Argentine and international reactions to this case, as well as some by academics that have followed this case from its outset such as Joseph Stiglitz (if someone can find a Nobel Laureate that backs Singer's case, they're welcome to add note of that). Thanks again, Coolcaesar, for your time and trouble. 98.166.157.157 (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plain crazy statement re N.Y. Judiciary Law

[edit]

I just deleted a really bizarre and plain crazy statement in this article about Section 489 of the New York Judiciary Law. Section 489 expressly states that it does NOT apply where all the bonds, promissory notes, etc. were issued by or are enforceable against the same obligor and involve an "aggregate purchase price of at least five hundred thousand dollars." In other words, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to this article because the transaction at issue in this article is not a small transaction for less than $500,000. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chill, Coolcaesar

[edit]

Surely you must want to live up to your moniker. Nevertheless, thanks for pointing that out; It's no surprise that the loophole is bigger than the law. In any case it's a moot point now, since Singer apparently got what he wanted (the CDS payout).

Nice work if you can get it.

98.166.157.157 (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Types of default

[edit]

The lead says "Argentina was declared in selective default by Standard & Poor's and in restrictive default by Fitch". Do those terms actually exist? Is there such a thing as a "selective" or "restrictive" default that is different from a normal default, as far as international economic institutions are concerned, or is it just political speech? Of course, Kirchner and Kicillof say that Argentina is not in default despite what happened, but surely if a country is in default or not will not depend on mere political rethoric. Cambalachero (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the rating agencies' own terminology, yes. It simply means that some bondholders are collecting (those under European and Argentine Law), but not others (those under New York Law). The fact that New York Law bondholders' payments are being stopped by way of court order isn't a factor in the determination, hence their objection to the semantics. 98.166.157.157 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest issue regarding Gustavo Ferraro

[edit]

A WP:COI issue has been raised regarding Gustavo Ferraro, who apparently played some role in this crisis. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Gustavo Ferraro. If you're up to speed on this issue, please take a look at that article. Was he a significant player in the crisis? --John Nagle (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has taken up the gauntlet on this, so I will. It is evident that Ferraro was involved in the restructuring. I am unsure as to what his connection to Boudou was, but there was clearly some amount of connection. He was assigned by Gramercy to negotiate much of the terms.
Ferraro essentially was a consultant for the administration in its restructuring process.
Gramercy was undeniably involved in the restructuring (http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/06/18/gramercy-funds-sold-argentine-government-bonds-at-a-profit-this-year/). Ferraro worked for Gramercy and was assigned to the restructuring due to his expertise and contacts. His involvement was expansive and he continued advising both parties during the restructuring. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DaltonCastle is missing the point. He has opinions from editors that are fringe theories as his justification. This kind of blatant use of Wikipedia as instrument for slander will not be tolerated. We have no background on this individual. This contributor deceitfully violated Wikipedia Guidelines by trying to skirt the orphan tag. We can put the entries worthiness to a vote. --SimpleStitch (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lord! STOP SAYING I "SKIRTED WP POLICY"!!! It was an edit summary error. Big deal. And no, these are not fringe theories when they are covered in reliable sources. To be covered in a reliable source, even if partially or entirely incorrect, it has to have some credible evidence.

More:

DaltonCastle (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Let sources lead the way... bobrayner (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look into this more? A user, keeps redacting anything about Ferraro's involvement in the debt restructuring. I need some help here because I know this user will revert anything I do without any discussion and then will become hostile and accusatory. I don't care for that kind of behavior from anyone so could someone please help? DaltonCastle (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to the ruling and 2014 Default - Financial Responses - ISDA CDS Payout

[edit]

The statement "The ISDA, of which Singer's Elliott hedge fund is one of 15 bank members, granted Singer and fellow distressed securities fund plaintiff Aurelius Capital CDS insurance payout of USD1 billion on August 1" is not supported by the article it cites as support. ISDA did make a determination which led to a payout of $1bn, but the article explicitly states that Singer has denied holding any CDSs on the Argentine debt it owns. A more accurate statement would not reference Singer or Aurelius, saying that "ISDA made a ruling which allowed for a CDS insurance payout of USD 1 billion on August 1."Btaylor0000 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged article

[edit]

Arrived here after a move was reverted on another page relating to this one. I saw some serious issues on the article and decided to tag it. Looking at this talk page, it seems a couple of editors who are renowned right-wing POV-pushers have had their hands all over it and that probably explains why. It is important in articles like these to include the Argentine point of view and not dismiss it as the view of a particular government. For help with this in future, contact someone from Wikiproject Argentina who actually reads news from Argentina and understands its domestic affairs so that this systemic bias can be prevented. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Argentine debt restructuring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argentine debt restructuring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to explain how the pari passu ruling prevented payments to the non-holdouts

[edit]

Currently, the #Argentina 2014 "selective default" section of the article states that:

As a result of the earlier rulings for the holdout bondholders, Argentina now faced a situation whereby:
  1. The 7% of bonds held by the "Holdout" bondholders had to be paid at full face value, whereas the other 93% had agreed to be repaid around 30% of the bonds' face value;
  2. The 93% of renegotiated bonds could not have repayments made without also making repayments (on a larger scale) to the 7% of holdouts;
  3. Any repayments to the holdouts related to full face value would potentially trigger all earlier bondholders being entitled to repayments at full face value as well, effectively unwinding the entire intent of the renegotiations of 2000 - 2010, and creating an extra liability of $100 billion that Argentina could not afford to incur.
The U.S. judicial pari passu ruling therefore forced Argentina to miss the scheduled bond payments being managed from New York, as from July 30, 2014 [...].

The section fails to explain how the ruling would have prevented Argentina from simply ignoring it and continuing to pay only the non-holdouts (like they were already doing), given that the courts had already ruled that, due to Argentina's state and sovereign immunity, the holdouts had no way of actually forcing Argentina to pay them anything. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 18:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argentine_debt_restructuring&oldid=1205558738"