ARGENTINA: HEDGE FUNDS HAVE NOT WON YET

ELLIOT CAPITAL HEDGE FUNDS, A CLIENT AND SHAREHOLDER OF FITCH RATING AGENCY?

 

ARGENTINA: "HEDGE FUNDS HAVE NOT WON YET"

It is not a coincident that US Rating Agencies only recently downgraded Argentina significantly, just in time when the verdict regarding Elliot Capital Hedge funds, versus Argentina is about to go in its final round. After all Hedge Funds are the best clients of Rating Agencies and in the case of Fitch rating, who downgrade Argentina, even shareholders.

The verdict and downgrading is part of a power struggle between the International Financial Institutions and Argentina. In 2001 Argentina defaulted, largely because of IMF doctrines, since then the country learned its lesson, paid back its entire dept to the IMF and thus was not subjected to IMF austerity doctrines, something the IMF is still furious about. Thus the IMF currently is entering its second round of in-flight, penalizing Argentina for not letting it conduct an audit in how Argentina obtains its economic data. If Argentina would nicely and unquestionably adhere to the rules of these institutions, the entire case would look somewhat different.

The entire showdown is revenge by international financial institutions simply because Argentina does not adhered to their doctrines which would enable them to control Argentina's Economy and its agriculture commodities. 

ARGENTINA: "HEDGE FUNDS HAVE NOT WON YET"

Interview conducted by "Der Standard", an Austrian Daily Newspaper with Economist Andres Musacchio

If the U.S. hedge fund wins the legal battle against Argentina, it would have consequences for Europe itself

STANDARD: The U.S. hedge fund Elliott Capital sued Argentina before a New York court. Why is the case attracting so much worldwide attention?

Musacchio: Because the verdict could have enormous repercussions on future sovereign debt crises. The hedge fund has bought Argentine bonds after 2001, after the country officially declared default. After its bankruptcy, Argentina has taken tedious agreements with its creditors to reduce the national debt. 97 per cent of investors agreed to the countries dept conversion, both in 2005 and 2010. But Elliott Capital refused. If the hedge fund in New York wins its case and Argentina has to pay back most of its debt to Elliott, it would be tantamount to the premium for uncooperative behavior.

STANDARD: The hedge fund has never agreed to the dept conversion: Legally, the lawsuit seems questionable.

Musacchio: Elliott Capital is not a conventional lender, which borrowed Argentina money and now needs to reclaim its money. The hedge fund has bought the debt at a time when the securities were traded in the market with 15 percent of their actual value. Now they demand from Argentina to pay back 100 percent of the sum, including interest. This is speculation in its purest form, and I believe that even in this extreme case the financial industry will side with Argentina.

STANDARD: Why?

Musacchio: Because in case the hedge funds win, it would jeopardize all future debt reliefs. The purpose of dept relief is that the creditors of a financially constrained country waive some of their demands in order to not lose everything. If, it shows that it does not pay off to participate in a debt conversion, future creditors will refuse from the beginning to agree to negotiate for settlement. Particularly in Europe, one expects that Greece and soon Portugal, Ireland and perhaps Spain have also to conduct a dept conversion, which would have disastrous consequences.

STANDARD: Why does the Argentine government not simply drawback and pay the fund, after all it’s only about one billion Euros, surely Argentina could afford this amount?

Musacchio: The amount is not the issue. Last year Argentina paid back a debt of 25 billion euros, thus paying the billion is affordable. But there is a moral question: For President Cristina Kirchner, dept relief policies are the main components of her governing strategy.

STANDARD: How do you think the lawsuit will end? Argentina was sentenced to pay the amount, but achieved a delay until March.

Musacchio: Nothing has been decided yet. The hedge fund has not won. Cristina Kirchner during the pending lawsuit several times stated that Argentina will not pay Elliott Capital, even if Argentina should lose the trial in New York. This statement infuriated the New York judge, which is why he set bail for Argentina to pay. Since Kirchner refused to pay the bail, it could easily happen that Argentina's payments to its other creditors - with whom there are no disputes – will be seized. That would technically mean bankruptcy for the country. Whether that happens remains to be seen in March when the next court decision is due.

STANDARD: Can EU countries learn something from Argentina's debt relief policy?

Musacchio: I believe that these countries will not advance if they don’t obtain a debt relief. Just as was the case in Argentina in 2001, the debts of the countries in question are too high. The real lesson from the Argentine crisis is however that the debt relief restructuring alone will not solve the problem. The debt conversion was only a first step to correct the balances of the current accounts.

STANDARD: What's the second step?

Musacchio: After the restructuring the Argentine peso depreciated massively, the government launched a program for the re-industrialization of the country and tried to revive the internal market. All these measures have stabilized the economy and ensured that growth returned. The difference to Europe is that Argentina for a while was able to isolate itself from the rest of the world and thus managed to overcome the crisis. For the southern European countries this will be difficult: Spain and Portugal are much too dependent on exports to Germany than, for example, Argentina and its trade relations with the U.S. Furthermore relations between banks in Europe are much tighter. I think that an important step for the stabilization of the euro zone will be that Germany finally abandons its policy of wage competition. The purchasing power of Germany has to increase; the country should not only export to the troubled southern European countries, but also increase its imports. 

By András Szigetvári via DER STANDARD, (Austrian Daily Newspaper, Translated from German to English by Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring )

Andres Musacchio, is an economist at the Institute for Economic and Social History at the University of Buenos Aires. He was a guest at the Austrian Research Foundation for International Development (ÖFSE), where he gave a speech regarding the Argentine crisis.

Argentinian Central Bank Targets Growth, Not Lower Inflation

Background:

Fitch downgrades Argentina in the wake of Elliot Capital Hedge Funds lawsuit against Argentina

Fitch Ratings agency announced it has downgraded Argentina's long-term foreign currency Issuer Default Rating from “B” to “CC,” with a negative outlook, as it sees a “probable default” if the country misses its payment to holdout investors.

The agency stated in a communiqué that “the increased probability that Argentina will not service its restructured debt securities issued under New York law on a timely basis reflects US District Judge Griesa's decision on Nov. 21 to remove the stay order on the ruling that Argentina must pay 1.33 billion dollars to holdout investors concurrent with or prior to its payments due to holders of the 2005 and 2010 restructured debt.”

Fitch assured that a missed payment could lead to a “cross default on all exchanged debt securities issued under international law.”

“A missed coupon payment of any other external securities would also trigger a cross default on all exchanged bonds issued under international law,” it continued.

Fearing Argentina will disobey his order, Griesa wants 1.33 billion deposited in a US escrow account by Dec. 15 to ensure payment if all appeals trying to overturn or block his decisions fail.

The “holdout” investors are suing to recover the full value of bonds that Argentina stopped paying in 2002, setting up a battle with the country's government which brands them as “vulture funds” and has refused to pay them.

Fitch put a negative outlook on the credit which is two steps away from outright default.

Argentina has vowed not to pay the holdout investors, led by Elliott Management's NML Capital Ltd and Aurelius Capital Management, prompting Griesa to order the payment be made before the 2nd Circuit rules on his decision.

Fitch highlighted Argentina's 2005 “Lock Law” which prohibits “re-opening the exchange or from conducting any type of settlement with holdouts without prior authorization from Congress” as a likely reason that payment will not be made.

If no payment is made a technical default would ensue, with uncertainty remaining over treatment of credit default swap contracts, which have surged in prices as investors scramble for protection from a default or restructuring.

“The uncertainty related to the impact of the US Court ruling is likely to further damage confidence and intensify political and social tensions in the country and undermine growth prospects,” Fitch said in its statement.

“While the authorities have been able to stabilize international reserves by progressively tightening capital controls, this has come at the expense of increased economic distortions. The sustainability of this strategy is also vulnerable to international commodity prices, especially soy,” Fitch said.