undefined | Better HN

0 pointsPeterisP11y ago0 comments

Well, given all this hassle, the papers weren't worth nearly their nominal value - and they actually gave money to the original lender, while Argentina didn't; so on that regard they're more fair than Argentina's government at least.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

lmm11y ago· 2 in thread

Argentina did give money (or rather, replacement bonds) to the original lender. Not 100%, but an amount they agreed to (which could equally well describe the holdouts' purchases). And Argentina has kept up the interest payments to the original lenders, right up until the holdouts got this court injunction to stop them.

PeterisPOP11y ago

No, Argentina didn't give money, nor replacement bonds to the original lender - they're the holdout's we're talking about.

They didn't agree to the restructuring amount, and kept the original bonds until selling them to the current bondholder; and as far as I understand, Argentina has not kept up the payments to those who refused the restructuring, that's the whole start of those court proceedings.

john_b11y ago

> "Not 100%, but an amount they agreed to"

They are holdouts precisely because they didn't agree to a haircut. Argentina declined to write a collective action clause into their bonds so that they could sell them for a higher premium. This is the price associated with accepting that risk.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse