Comments

1
"It is easy to guess that those who are willing to restructure the debt are not as wealthy as those who want to hold out (they are few in number and called holdouts)."

No, this isn't easy to guess in the slightest. One could easily speculate that the richest groups can afford to take the hit, or simply feel that it's time to cut their losses and take something now rather than nothing later.

So do you actually know for a fact that the holdouts are actually larger entities and this was just clumsy wording or are you simply speculating here?
2
Second block quote: the copied text was pasted twice.
3
Wall Street has already moved to New Jersey. The only financial business left on Wall Street itself is the Stock Exchange, a wholly symbolic enterprise. The real trading occurs in machines, not on trading floors. Wall Street is now crowded with moms with strollers, not traders.Some of the business has moved to Midtown, namely the executives and fancy boys but the bulk of it is at the other end of the George Washington Bridge now.
4
Additionally, unless you are defining holdout bondholders as "larger" than the nations who wanted the court case to go the other way (including the United States), the statement I pointed to in my previous comment makes even less sense.
5
@1) the article says they are few in number. i say: "a guess." why the guess? so, you are telling me the courts would actually rule against the bondholders with the deepest pockets? americans can be so optimistic sometimes. it's even kind of cute.
6
See: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ju…

for a more human-centered context to this story.

Also with regard to @1. The "holdouts" are mostly hedge-funds that bought the bonds from the initial investors AFTER Argentina defaulted on their debt, hoping that Argentina would eventually be forced to repay.
7
6, still deep pockets. but thanks for the link.
8
@6) i hate the human story. here is the best economic story i have read so far: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree…

thanks for the lead.
9
@5 No, I'm not telling you that at all. What I am telling you is two things:

1. It's unclear if you knew for sure the differences in wealth between those who were willing to settle and those who were not. It's confusing because you could easily look into the bondholders and see who was interested in settling and who was not. If you did know, then using the word "guess" doesn't make sense.

2. If you didn't know, and it appears that you don't, then why didn't you look it up if you wanted to make that claim?

Further more, stop putting words in other people's mouths, I can speak for myself. The counter examples I provided were there to show how your statement isn't self evident, not a personal view of mine.
10
The alternative to this ruling would be what? Screwing over the bondholders who have valid financial instruments? That would send a shudder through the entire bond market. All bondholders would then be subject to massive hits on their investments if enough of them agree to a restructure deal with a troubled issuer. That allows serial deadbeats, like Argentina, to clear their debts by just bribing a few bondholders to take a discount. Then, poof!, 85% of your debt goes away and the next kleptocrat can run up the bill again.
The court sided with the rule of law, and bondholders of all stripes should appreciate that.
11
@9) im sorry the word "guess" is imperfectly understood by you, and it is not my business to repair your education. but my guess was based on the information provided by the NYT post, and the post came highly recommended from an economist i admire. but now it turns out that wall street is under the boot of billionaire vultures. i have guesses about this as well, but i will keep them to myself so as to spare you more confusion.
12
@11 Fuck you Charles, all I asked for was clarification.

Fuck you twice for being too lazy to check your claims. You work for a newspaper, after all.
13
@12) I will provide a fuller guess of this story on monday. i actually thanked you for the link, by the way.
14
" The breed of bondholders called holdouts do not give a fuck about Wall Street (investments must have no risks whatsoever)"

Huh? This is the opposite of reality. Holdouts are taking on higher risk for higher expected returns. They can afford to take on higher risk because they are super fucking wealthy.
15
@ Charles. these incident-specific pockets r not deepr than IMF, all Wall Street ever pockets. this doesn't necessarily fit ur pet categories

Marxism is funny for the science fetish and dialectics smooshing up against a taste for swiftness and proly brashness

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.