Latin America
Related: About this forumWho Shot Argentina?
Who Shot Argentina?
The Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case about Argentina's debt is a big deal for international finance.
By Mark Weisbrot
June 24, 2014 | 2:45 p.m. EDT
When Cristina Kirchner first ran for president of Argentina in 2007, she had a campaign commercial with adorable young children answering the question, What is the IMF (International Monetary Fund)? They offered cute little ridiculous answers like The IMF is a place where there are many animals, and the punch line from the narrator was: We have succeeded in making it so that your children and grandchildren wont know what the IMF is.
To this day, there is no love lost between the IMF and Argentina, since the fund presided over Argentinas terrible economic collapse of 1998-2002, as well as numerous failed policies in the years prior. But when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of vulture funds trying to collect the full value of Argentine debt that they had bought for 20 cents on the dollar, even the IMF was against the decision.
So it surprised many observers last Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to even review the appellate courts ruling. The court only needs four justices to grant a petition for certiorari, or review, and this was an extremely important case. Most experts agree that it has serious implications for the international financial system. Perhaps most importantly, the appellate court ruled that Argentina must pay the vulture funds if it is going to pay the more than 90 percent of bondholders who accepted a restructuring agreement in 2005 and 2010.
What does this mean? In the midst of a deep recession and unable to finance huge debt payments, Argentina defaulted on its debt at the end of 2001. The default was the right move; the Argentine economy began a robust recovery just three months later. But it was not until 2005 that 76 percent of the bondholders agreed to accept a restructuring that included a haircut of about two-thirds of the value of their bonds. By 2010, more than 90 percent of the bondholders had joined, accepting new bonds in place of the defaulted ones.
More:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/06/24/supreme-court-dismisses-case-between-argentina-and-us-vulture-funds
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,542 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)it's your term. Interesting.
Bacchus4.0
(6,837 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)reassure us that he's "not lying" when no one ever accused him of that. Something about 'protesting too much'?