Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Argentina Enters Technical Default – 30 Days ‘Til Bust?

    Argentina Enters Technical Default – 30 Days ‘Til Bust?

    During the past two weeks Argentina’s soccer team has rolled over its competition to advance to the World Cup Quarterfinals. Meanwhile, the team’s country has, yet again, collapsed into default.

    For 12 years, Argentina has been engaged in a financial and legal row with private creditors in the US over payments on its government bonds—either long overdue or unwarranted, depending on which side you ask.

    The country failed to make court-ordered payments yesterday to holders of its restructured and original—or “holdout”—debt. It is now in technical default, having missed the payment, and has a 30-day grace period to negotiate with creditors before entering true default.

    Argentina’s path to financial insolvency began in the last week of 2001 when Argentina announced it was defaulting on $132 billion of its debt, which was then one-seventh of all the money borrowed by the Third World. The announcement came in the midst of the 1998-2002 Argentine depression, itself a result of poor government policy and external economic crises.

    Despite the default, some US investors scooped up these seemingly worthless bonds at enormous discounts in hopes of some future payment. In 2005 and in 2010 Argentina restructured its debts and offered these bondholders swaps to replace their original bonds for new ones at downgraded terms, and 93% of investors did take up the offer. The country also passed a law forbidding payment on the original bonds.

    However, a small contingent of investors opted out and insisted on payment on the original bonds. The Argentine government and many elements in the international press have since called these investors “vultures.

    Today, the figure in dispute between the vulture funds—led by Elliott Management Corp.’s affiliate NML Capital Ltd. and Aurelius Capital Management LP—and Argentina is $1.33 billion plus accrued interest, but the problem does not end at that hefty figure.

    In mid-June, US District Judge Thomas Griesa ruled that Argentina must pay this sum at the same time—yesterday, June 30—it was to make scheduled payments of $832 million to holders of the restructured debts. Argentine officials characterized making the dual payments as “impossible” since they do not have enough available funds, but the US Supreme Court ruled to not hear Argentina’s appeal of this court order.

    The country’s stock markets tumbled 11 percent in light of the news, while President Cristina Kirchner called the courts’ decisions “extortion.”

    On Thursday, June 26, Argentina deposited $832 million at New York banks in order to meet the Monday coupon payment deadline for the restructured debts, but Griesa ruled that making and receiving these payments were illegal since no payments were made to the holdout investors.

    “The absurd ruling…constitutes a sophisticated way to try and bring us to our knees before global usurers,” Economy Minister Axel Kicillof said in a televised speech.

    Kirchner Argentina Default

    Since Argentina failed to furbish the payments to the holdout investors, too, the money was returned to the country and Argentina entered technical default. Argentina is now in its 30-day grace period, and if there is no payment or further restructuring the country will enter “full-blown default” according to the Wall Street Journal.

    Along with the protestations of those in the Argentine government, many in the press have rallied around Argentina and decried the US hedge funds and courts. In addition to condemning the “predatory funds profiteering from misery,” some say that the creditors who incurred higher risks by buying the defaulted debt should not expect due payment or be surprised by another default. These arguments, however, say nothing to the legal matter at hand—the prevailing court order which Argentina disagrees with and also failed to comply with.

    An actual issue still left unanswered concerns the status of the restructured bondholders, who accepted worse terms in 2005 and 2010 to guarantee payment.

    Kirchner and the UN trade agency UNCTAD contend that if Argentina does pay the holdout investors, then the country must also make full payments (i.e. pre-restructuring figures) to the restructured debt holders due a “Rights upon Future Offers” clause. This could boost Argentina’s obligations up to $15 billion according to Kirchner, or to $120 billion according to an online memo published by UNCTAD. UNCTAD also writes in the memo “copy cats will abound” based on this legal precedent, though there is not further explanation on what this statement means exactly.

    Despite the chaos that would all but surely follow a default, many investors and analysts feel confident the financial disaster will be averted. Argentina’s 2033 bonds have rallied 17% this year, and the Financial Times reported that the Argentine government has already settled claims with the Paris Club of creditor nations and with Respol, a Spanish oil company.

    The Financial Times reports further:

    Investors have so far shrugged off the legal too-ing and fro-ing as they believe Buenos Aires’ actions and rhetoric are largely for domestic political consumption. With the economy in recession, they mask Argentina’s underlying desire to regain access to international credit to fund development of the country’s huge shale gas reserves and also avert another financial crisis.

    However, since investor optimism does not necessarily translate into government rationality, Argentina’s economic fate remains in the air for the next thirty days.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    imfine, the vultures probably have purchased default insurance on those bonds. If Argentina defaults, they still get paid. This is why the vultures are not making any deals.

    I’m surprised that so many commenters are pro-Argentine here. As if a government who goes around nationalizing foreign investment (that Spanish oil firm) and serial defaulting is somehow the victim.

    Now, if Argentina were a company, and a judge could take it over and restructure, then I’d be more sympathetic.

      imfine in reply to ADS. | July 2, 2014 at 2:04 pm

      Whoever ends up with those bonds are going to take the local bonds regardless if a swap is triggered. I would be surprised if the Vultures had swaps, sounds pretty risky. I wouldn’t sell a vulture a swap on anything approaching reasonable terms.

      I am not sympathetic to Argentina, they had this coming, but part in parcel if you know someone is a bad risk for lending money too and you do it, it’s your fault for making the deal. I see no reason why this needs to be a matter of state. the people buying these bonds took high interest rates in exchange for the risk. If the lenders were giving them a free loan, then I could see a moral obligation to assist, but not this.

      I don’t know if a “default credit swap” is still in play in this particular case. That depends on who underwrote the original CDS, and if those companies are still solvent (cough, AIG, cough, Bear-Stearns) and if there wasn’t some triggering mechanism which excuses the execution of the swap.

      I suppose we’ll all find out.

    Enrique Massot | July 2, 2014 at 10:56 pm

    Argentina’s path to insolvency was started by previous governments that included the 1976-1983 civic-military dictatorship. They heavily borrowed under horrendous payback conditions, leading to the 2001 catastrophic default.
    Elected in 2003, Nestor Kirchner negotiated lower bond values with 93 per cent of the country creditors in 2005 and 2010, paying those creditors regularly and in time ever since.
    It paid off its debt to the IMF two years early and negotiated compensation with expropriated Repsol, more recently renegotiating its debt with the Paris Club.
    The Kirchners have not sought skipping the country’s obligations. However, they negotiated with their country’s economy in mind.
    As a result, Argentina grew and today’s debt in relation to the GDP is a fraction of what it was in 2001.
    Paul Singer buys bonds from distressed countries for a fraction of their face value, and then sues for 100 per cent when those countries began their path to recovery. Such predatory practices, while legal, have siphoned millions from countries where a few dollars make a life-death difference.
    Argentina did the right move by sending its payment by deadline. Judge Thomas Griesa’s decision to block payment to rightful creditors may come back to bite him as he has hold hostage a majority of creditors in an attempt to benefit less than 1 per cent of creditors–Singer and company. The other seven per cent did not sue.
    Watch for the next chapters to unfold.

      pjm in reply to Enrique Massot. | July 3, 2014 at 11:05 pm

      “As a result, Argentina grew and today’s debt in relation to the GDP is a fraction of what it was in 2001.”

      Because it ran away and defaulted on 80 % of what they owed !

      Try not to make them virtuous over it !

      “Paul Singer buys bonds from distressed countries for a fraction of their face value, and then sues for 100 per cent when those countries began their path to recovery.

      Bullshit. They refused to take the 90 % ‘discount’ of repayment of what they bought.

      IOW – go back to your hovel down there where you live, Enrique.

    Fact: Paul Singer’s vulture fund Elliot Management is the main “creditor” in this suit, having bought up lots of Argentine debt cheap after default. He’s notorious for pressing suits against the poorest countries, like Congo-Brazzaville.
    Fact: Singer is a philanthropist who gives to right-wing pro-war foundations, the Republican party, and … LGBT groups. He gave the Human Rights Campaign $1.5 million to support gay rights internationally …
    Fact: Argentina, the target of his extortion this time, has some of the most progressive LGBT rights laws and policies anywhere in the world.
    More on the contradicitions of Singer’s vulture philanthropy? Read

    John Bond | July 8, 2014 at 8:33 pm

    I´m not a legal expert, but as far as I can tell, Argentina made a payment to the Indenture Trust, but BoNY did nothing with it (BoNY still has the money in an account at Argentina´s Central Bank).

    So, how come this is a “default” (or “technical default”) on exchange bonds? The republic actually made the payment, but the bondholder did not receive the payment because of the injunction.

    I´m not sure which term is the best in this situation…

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend