Argentina | paulhunterjones

By Arturo C. Porzecanski* The austerity measures that President Mauricio Macri announced yesterday to deal with the sharp depreciation of the Argentine peso and acceleration of inflation in the past couple of months are a belated but entirely appropriate effort to stem the country’s massive capital flight. His administration intends to lower government spending and […]

via Argentina: From Gradualism to Shock Therapy — AULA Blog

A government-imposed austerity measure affects everyone differently. The measure is usually designed to restore an economic balance between affordability and politically popular programs. At some point, a country must govern by implementing financially viable programs and not engage in risky deficient spending. Most citizens support governments that offer them services and benefits whose costs are not passed on to them. Elected offices prefer to cut costs rather than raise revenue by increasing taxes.

Former Argentine Presidents Nestor and Cristina Kirchner governed for 12 years based upon a populist mandate. As with all socialist endeavors, there comes a time when “the bills must be paid and accounts balanced.” President Marci has tried to eliminate gradually costly subsidized programs. Dr. Porzencanski makes the case in this post that time has run out for Argentina to slowly put its finances in order. I believe that Dr. Porzencanski’s analysis is intellectually sound. What was not discussed in the post was Argentina’s ability to pay back the money it had just borrowed. Do investors believe that Argentina can pay the political price for financial stability? The peso will continue to lose value as long as investors believe that Argentines will not accept Greece-like austerity programs. It is unreasonable to expect investors to automatically have confidence in Argentina’s ability to repay the money it has already borrowed.

For more than 12 years the Republic of Argentina has battled so-called vulture funds in US federal courts. This litigation grew out of the country’s massive sovereign debt default in 2001. At that time most investors did everything possible to unload their portfolios of the country’s debt. Yet, there were courageous investors who were willing to speculate on the country’s debt rising up from the financial abyss. A few funds invested billions into purchasing Argentina’s junk bonds. Though Argentina has renegotiated much of its 2001 debt with bondholders and has paid these “exchange bondholders” pennies on their original debt, the funds who took the risk of investing in the junk bonds have refused to renegotiate the contractual terms of their bonds. These funds want to be paid what they were promised and not a penny less. Who can blame them for demanding full payment.

Most legal experts and financial advisers close to the litigation have little sympathy for the former South American economic powerhouse. Don’t Cry for Me Argentina is their response when Argentina demands justice that it does not deserve. On October 26, 2012 the United States Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit decided the case of NML Capital v. the Republic of Argentina. The Court affirmed in part and remanded in part the lower court’s decision of Federal Judge Griesa of the Southern District. In the case Judge Griesa ruled against Argentina in granting the applications of the Plaintiffs. Much to the chagrin of Argentina; its fiery pronunciations of sovereign integrity and legal (quasi political) arguments that it had a sovereign right to force restructuring upon debt holders were judicially debunked by the District Court.

It did not surprise anyone that Argentina appealed the court’s decision to the Supreme Court. While Argentina was litigating its case before the Supreme Court Argentinians in high office were waging a battle to wind public opinion. Clearly Argentina was (is) looking to negotiate a settlement with the non-exchange bondholders. Yet the country’s last formal offer of settlement was rejected on or about March 27, 2013 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit as being inadequate. I wrote at that time that Argentina was heading for another debt default. The U.S. courts are not going to let politics trump the law or their decisions. Argentina’s total disregard for the judicial decisions and judgments makes a mockery of America’s judicially system and the sanctity of the law.

The high court next considered and disposed of Argentina’s (its banks’ claim) that its foreign assets were not subject to discovery by the non-exchange bondholders. The Justice’s were almost unanimous in deciding against the Latin America country. Justice Anthony Scalia writing for the court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not limit the scope of discovery available to a judgment creditor in a federal post-judgment execution proceeding against a foreign sovereign. In the well written decision Justice Scalia specifically alluded to the fact that Argentina had waived part of its immunity by choosing to litigate in the U.S. courts. The Republic of Argentina stands properly before the court like any other person. Argentina’s dreaded “vulture funds” are now positioned to discovery the Republic’s assets worldwide. What follows next is rather obvious; the non-exchange bondholders will seek to attach the discovered assets in hopes of satisfying their judgments.

Pages: 1 2