capt.harlock
MENA IL CAMMELLO FAN CLUB
anche io penso sia la piu' probabile
Titoli di Stato area non Euro ARGENTINA obbligazioni e tango bond (3 lettori)
- Creatore Discussione SINIBALDO
- Data di Inizio
anche io penso sia la piu' probabile
carib
rerum cognoscere causas
Pari passu case will take longer than most expected (merrill)
We hosted a conference call on July 25, Argentina: What's Next, to hear the views who provided and update and the potential implications of the frequent market moving stories that have come out in the last several weeks. Our key takeaway is that the case is likely to last far longer than many of us had expected and that valuations need to should be reassessed in this light.
Argentine assets have been very volatile recently as investors try to assess the likelihood of a Supreme Court review and support from different parties for or against Argentina in the lawsuit regarding the pari passu clause. To discuss those issues, as well as economic and market implications, we were joined by two experienced Shearman & Sterling (S&S) attorneys, Henry Weisburg and Stephen Marzen, to discuss their views of the legal aspects of this case. Their views do not necessarily reflect the views of BofAML and we further note that we are not providing any legal advice.
We summarize the key points here and below and we include a selection of their comments from the call.
Point #1: The attorneys believe that nothing of substance has changed in the court case since March 26, when the Appeals Court denied rehearing en banc (that is, a rehearing of last October's decision by the full court), except that the court is, in fact, taking more time to rule than they did last October. (Last October's decision came three months after oral arguments; five months have already passed since the oral argument on February 27.) No one knows the reasons for the delay, but the attorneys said it is not likely to affect the outcome, just the timing.
Point #2: This is a high profile case and after last October's decision, many new parties submitted briefs with additional arguments. The attorney's posited that one reason for the delay may be that the court has chosen to address each argument individually when it publishes its decision. The delay is not necessarily an indication that the judges have changed their views on this case.
Point #3: The Appeal Court's ruling could be delayed even further because court law clerks often rotate over the summer and new law clerks will take time to read the briefs, learn the record, and pick up writing where their predecessors left off.
Point #4: The attorneys noted that Argentina is an important sovereign, and even though Argentina has always lost this case on the merits, it has received every procedural conceivable break for stays, extensions of time and additional briefings with the second circuit. Thus, they have concluded that it is slightly more likely than not that the second circuit would give Argentina another stay.
Point #5: At the same time that the Appeals Court is working on its decision, the Supreme Court is dealing with the petition for review (petition for a writ of certiorari). Argentina filed its petition on June 24. The holdouts' opposition is currently due on August 26. And a reply would be due 10 days after that. Friends of the court may file supporting briefs (amici curiae briefs) at various times along the way. If the Court decides the petition on those papers, review would be granted in late September or denied on the first Monday in October, when the Supreme Court resumes work after its summer recess. Instead of deciding whether or not to review on the current briefs, the Supreme Court could also call for the views of the Solicitor General (a "CVSG"). If the Supreme Court issues a CVSG, they estimate that Argentina's petition may not be decided until February 2014, because the SG on average takes four and a half months to submit his views. If the SG does not submit his views by late December, Argentina's petition could be denied early in 2014, but if granted would likely not be heard until the fall. In the latter event, they estimate that the case would likely not be finally decided until late 2014 at the earliest or June 2015 at the latest.
Point #6: Importantly, the questions that Argentina presented for review by the Supreme Court do not include the pari passu question but are instead: 1) Are injunctions on foreign state's property outside the US beyond the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA); and 2) Does compelling payment of past due claims exceed federal equitable powers. S&S think that the argument are well written but still have low probability of being accepted.
Point #7: Although the chance of the Supreme Court asking the views of the Solicitor General on any case is very low (less than 1%), in this case they believe that it is likely higher because the United States supported Argentina in the Appeals Court and Argentina's petition refers to that support ten times. They cautioned however, that even if the Supreme Court issues a CVSGs, one should not assume that the SG will recommend that the Supreme Court grant review.
We hosted a conference call on July 25, Argentina: What's Next, to hear the views who provided and update and the potential implications of the frequent market moving stories that have come out in the last several weeks. Our key takeaway is that the case is likely to last far longer than many of us had expected and that valuations need to should be reassessed in this light.
Argentine assets have been very volatile recently as investors try to assess the likelihood of a Supreme Court review and support from different parties for or against Argentina in the lawsuit regarding the pari passu clause. To discuss those issues, as well as economic and market implications, we were joined by two experienced Shearman & Sterling (S&S) attorneys, Henry Weisburg and Stephen Marzen, to discuss their views of the legal aspects of this case. Their views do not necessarily reflect the views of BofAML and we further note that we are not providing any legal advice.
We summarize the key points here and below and we include a selection of their comments from the call.
Point #1: The attorneys believe that nothing of substance has changed in the court case since March 26, when the Appeals Court denied rehearing en banc (that is, a rehearing of last October's decision by the full court), except that the court is, in fact, taking more time to rule than they did last October. (Last October's decision came three months after oral arguments; five months have already passed since the oral argument on February 27.) No one knows the reasons for the delay, but the attorneys said it is not likely to affect the outcome, just the timing.
Point #2: This is a high profile case and after last October's decision, many new parties submitted briefs with additional arguments. The attorney's posited that one reason for the delay may be that the court has chosen to address each argument individually when it publishes its decision. The delay is not necessarily an indication that the judges have changed their views on this case.
Point #3: The Appeal Court's ruling could be delayed even further because court law clerks often rotate over the summer and new law clerks will take time to read the briefs, learn the record, and pick up writing where their predecessors left off.
Point #4: The attorneys noted that Argentina is an important sovereign, and even though Argentina has always lost this case on the merits, it has received every procedural conceivable break for stays, extensions of time and additional briefings with the second circuit. Thus, they have concluded that it is slightly more likely than not that the second circuit would give Argentina another stay.
Point #5: At the same time that the Appeals Court is working on its decision, the Supreme Court is dealing with the petition for review (petition for a writ of certiorari). Argentina filed its petition on June 24. The holdouts' opposition is currently due on August 26. And a reply would be due 10 days after that. Friends of the court may file supporting briefs (amici curiae briefs) at various times along the way. If the Court decides the petition on those papers, review would be granted in late September or denied on the first Monday in October, when the Supreme Court resumes work after its summer recess. Instead of deciding whether or not to review on the current briefs, the Supreme Court could also call for the views of the Solicitor General (a "CVSG"). If the Supreme Court issues a CVSG, they estimate that Argentina's petition may not be decided until February 2014, because the SG on average takes four and a half months to submit his views. If the SG does not submit his views by late December, Argentina's petition could be denied early in 2014, but if granted would likely not be heard until the fall. In the latter event, they estimate that the case would likely not be finally decided until late 2014 at the earliest or June 2015 at the latest.
Point #6: Importantly, the questions that Argentina presented for review by the Supreme Court do not include the pari passu question but are instead: 1) Are injunctions on foreign state's property outside the US beyond the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA); and 2) Does compelling payment of past due claims exceed federal equitable powers. S&S think that the argument are well written but still have low probability of being accepted.
Point #7: Although the chance of the Supreme Court asking the views of the Solicitor General on any case is very low (less than 1%), in this case they believe that it is likely higher because the United States supported Argentina in the Appeals Court and Argentina's petition refers to that support ten times. They cautioned however, that even if the Supreme Court issues a CVSGs, one should not assume that the SG will recommend that the Supreme Court grant review.
carib
rerum cognoscere causas
Stephen Marzen is a partner in the Litigation Group at S&S. Prior to his 21 years at S&S he held relevant government posts, as law clerk to US Supreme Court Justice John Stevens, law clerk to an Appeals Court Judge, and assistant to the solicitor general in the US Justice Department.
Henry Weisburg, a partner at S&S, has been successful on some very high profile cases and as a result was just selected 2012 Global Lawyer of the Year by The American Lawyer. He deals with international arbitration and international litigation and has dealt many times in Argentina cross-border financial disputes, expropriations, banking insolvencies and sovereign debt restructurings.
Q: Do you think there are significant changes since the end of March when the court denied the rehearing en banc?
S&S: Nothing has changed since the en banc denial. After the court invited Argentina to propose an alternative payment schedule, Argentina did not adequately respond. But since those filings as far as the court has concerned, nothing has happened. The court does not operate under any deadline, does not give any indication of progress and does not preannounce when the decision will be reached. There is no way of knowing.
However, in our view, the court is taking longer than we would have expected, based on how long it took the court on the prior October decision, with the same judges. You cannot read anything into that as far as pertains to the outcome. Unlike the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit does not take a formal recess during the summer. But the court gets quieter in August.
Q: In terms of timing, what do you think the time frame is regarding the stay and what do you expect the court to do about it? Specifically, how long after the appeals court makes its decision will investor know whether the court will lift the stay? If the stay is lifted, how long does it take the Supreme Court to make decisions to re-impose the stay?
S&S: It is a very procedural set of questions. The timing is hard to say. First, the situation here is somewhat unusual. When Judge Griesa issued orders in November, he refused to stay those orders and promptly the Second Circuit stayed the district court order, pending further order of this court. When the Appeals Court finally rules, look at what they say about this existing stay. They could leave it in place, not mention it in the decision, they could lift it immediately, or lift it effectively on a future date pending some future event.
If it rules against Argentina, and if lifts the stay, then Argentina reapplies for a new stay in the Second Circuit, which could take a few days. They may grant it. If they deny it, Argentina will then go to the Supreme Court to ask for a stay. Judge Ginsburg makes the decision. She has the power to grant a stay or not and she has the right to refer the stay application to the full court if she thinks the issue is important. In any case, it would be handled quickly. They would have final result in a matter of days or a few weeks at most.
Q: Let's turn to the Supreme Court. What do you think are the issues that Supreme Court will address in order to decide whether to take the case? Given the issues, will they the SG's opinion? How do you think SG will react? How will the court rule if it takes the case?
S&S: Certiorari was filed by Argentina on 24 June. There is an extension so that plaintiffs have until August 26 to respond. Since we have Argentina's petition, we know what the issues are. There are two questions. For some reason, most of the press focuses on the pari passu issue, IMF, lobbying of SG, Republic of France and so forth. But the pari passu clause is not one of the two questions Argentina presented for review. The two cases in the application to the Supreme Court are:
1) Whether Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) protects Argentina from injunction of immune assets outside of the U.S. and therefore it is beyond enforcement by the FSIA,
2) Can a federal court issue a prejudgment injunction to ask a foreign state to pay a monetary claim.
In terms of timing, the opposition will be filed in late August, 10 days after the opposition is filed, the papers will be bundled to chambers, the Supreme Court law clerks will prepare a memo, and the Supreme Court will review it. Toward the end of September, the Court will release orders for the cases it grants review. On October 7, it releases and publishes an order listing the large number of cases denied review from summer lists.
On the merits, Argentina's chance of review are not strong. The Supreme Court looks for conflicts among lower federal courts or between federal and state courts to decide which questions to review. The conflicts that Argentina cites in its petition are sharp. The conflicting cases hold that an attachment by any other name is still an attachment, even if it is phrased as an injunction. But the injunctions against Argentina really don't turn over any money to the hedge funds. They require equal treatment. And they do place a condition on the use of immune assets. But Argentina offers no case on what conditions are appropriate or when a condition might go too far. Argentina's petition is well written, but it doesn't have an argument why the conditions in the injunction are tantamount or functionally equivalent to an attachment.
Statistically, the prospects of getting a review are low. On the paid docket, 4.2% of applications are granted review. If the Supreme Court calls for views of the solicitor general (SG), the chances rise to 42%, 10 times higher. When the SG makes a recommendation, the Court follows it almost 80% of the time.
The support of the SG at the petition stage is absolutely critical. But it does affect timing. If the Court in October calls on the SG for his views instead of immediately granting or denying cert, it can add an additional 4-4.5 months. Other agencies and lower courts need to be included and consulted before the SG actually presents his views. So if in early October the SG's views were invited, the government's brief would not be filed until around February, which is too late for review in Oct 2013-June 2014 period. So even if the SG recommends cert we will be looking at briefing in the spring or summer of 2014 and argument early in the October Term of 2014. This sets back the resolution of the case by a full year. The arguments would not be until the fall of 2014 with a decision any time from about December 2014 to June 2015.
Q: How many times a year or a term does the court request SG review?
S&S: Recently it has been average of 16 cases. Not all of them are recommendations for granting review. The Supreme Count hears arguments on only about 75 cases per year. The Supreme Court uses the SG's views to help it manage its docket. Also note that for more than 80% of petitions for Supreme Court review, no response is provided, and the Supreme Court just processes those petitions by denying them. In cases that raises a question of a federal interest (such as if the constitutionality of a federal statute is questioned), the Supreme Court will invite the SG to express his views.
Q: Is this Argentina case a good one for calling the SG?
S&S: Argentina's petition mentions the US view in the Appeals Court 10 times. Most of the time if a statute would affect US, then the SG gets involved.
Henry Weisburg, a partner at S&S, has been successful on some very high profile cases and as a result was just selected 2012 Global Lawyer of the Year by The American Lawyer. He deals with international arbitration and international litigation and has dealt many times in Argentina cross-border financial disputes, expropriations, banking insolvencies and sovereign debt restructurings.
Q: Do you think there are significant changes since the end of March when the court denied the rehearing en banc?
S&S: Nothing has changed since the en banc denial. After the court invited Argentina to propose an alternative payment schedule, Argentina did not adequately respond. But since those filings as far as the court has concerned, nothing has happened. The court does not operate under any deadline, does not give any indication of progress and does not preannounce when the decision will be reached. There is no way of knowing.
However, in our view, the court is taking longer than we would have expected, based on how long it took the court on the prior October decision, with the same judges. You cannot read anything into that as far as pertains to the outcome. Unlike the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit does not take a formal recess during the summer. But the court gets quieter in August.
Q: In terms of timing, what do you think the time frame is regarding the stay and what do you expect the court to do about it? Specifically, how long after the appeals court makes its decision will investor know whether the court will lift the stay? If the stay is lifted, how long does it take the Supreme Court to make decisions to re-impose the stay?
S&S: It is a very procedural set of questions. The timing is hard to say. First, the situation here is somewhat unusual. When Judge Griesa issued orders in November, he refused to stay those orders and promptly the Second Circuit stayed the district court order, pending further order of this court. When the Appeals Court finally rules, look at what they say about this existing stay. They could leave it in place, not mention it in the decision, they could lift it immediately, or lift it effectively on a future date pending some future event.
If it rules against Argentina, and if lifts the stay, then Argentina reapplies for a new stay in the Second Circuit, which could take a few days. They may grant it. If they deny it, Argentina will then go to the Supreme Court to ask for a stay. Judge Ginsburg makes the decision. She has the power to grant a stay or not and she has the right to refer the stay application to the full court if she thinks the issue is important. In any case, it would be handled quickly. They would have final result in a matter of days or a few weeks at most.
Q: Let's turn to the Supreme Court. What do you think are the issues that Supreme Court will address in order to decide whether to take the case? Given the issues, will they the SG's opinion? How do you think SG will react? How will the court rule if it takes the case?
S&S: Certiorari was filed by Argentina on 24 June. There is an extension so that plaintiffs have until August 26 to respond. Since we have Argentina's petition, we know what the issues are. There are two questions. For some reason, most of the press focuses on the pari passu issue, IMF, lobbying of SG, Republic of France and so forth. But the pari passu clause is not one of the two questions Argentina presented for review. The two cases in the application to the Supreme Court are:
1) Whether Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) protects Argentina from injunction of immune assets outside of the U.S. and therefore it is beyond enforcement by the FSIA,
2) Can a federal court issue a prejudgment injunction to ask a foreign state to pay a monetary claim.
In terms of timing, the opposition will be filed in late August, 10 days after the opposition is filed, the papers will be bundled to chambers, the Supreme Court law clerks will prepare a memo, and the Supreme Court will review it. Toward the end of September, the Court will release orders for the cases it grants review. On October 7, it releases and publishes an order listing the large number of cases denied review from summer lists.
On the merits, Argentina's chance of review are not strong. The Supreme Court looks for conflicts among lower federal courts or between federal and state courts to decide which questions to review. The conflicts that Argentina cites in its petition are sharp. The conflicting cases hold that an attachment by any other name is still an attachment, even if it is phrased as an injunction. But the injunctions against Argentina really don't turn over any money to the hedge funds. They require equal treatment. And they do place a condition on the use of immune assets. But Argentina offers no case on what conditions are appropriate or when a condition might go too far. Argentina's petition is well written, but it doesn't have an argument why the conditions in the injunction are tantamount or functionally equivalent to an attachment.
Statistically, the prospects of getting a review are low. On the paid docket, 4.2% of applications are granted review. If the Supreme Court calls for views of the solicitor general (SG), the chances rise to 42%, 10 times higher. When the SG makes a recommendation, the Court follows it almost 80% of the time.
The support of the SG at the petition stage is absolutely critical. But it does affect timing. If the Court in October calls on the SG for his views instead of immediately granting or denying cert, it can add an additional 4-4.5 months. Other agencies and lower courts need to be included and consulted before the SG actually presents his views. So if in early October the SG's views were invited, the government's brief would not be filed until around February, which is too late for review in Oct 2013-June 2014 period. So even if the SG recommends cert we will be looking at briefing in the spring or summer of 2014 and argument early in the October Term of 2014. This sets back the resolution of the case by a full year. The arguments would not be until the fall of 2014 with a decision any time from about December 2014 to June 2015.
Q: How many times a year or a term does the court request SG review?
S&S: Recently it has been average of 16 cases. Not all of them are recommendations for granting review. The Supreme Count hears arguments on only about 75 cases per year. The Supreme Court uses the SG's views to help it manage its docket. Also note that for more than 80% of petitions for Supreme Court review, no response is provided, and the Supreme Court just processes those petitions by denying them. In cases that raises a question of a federal interest (such as if the constitutionality of a federal statute is questioned), the Supreme Court will invite the SG to express his views.
Q: Is this Argentina case a good one for calling the SG?
S&S: Argentina's petition mentions the US view in the Appeals Court 10 times. Most of the time if a statute would affect US, then the SG gets involved.
carib
rerum cognoscere causas
BofAML's views on Argentina Strategy
For a fuller background on the case and the bonds see Argentina: No Magic Wand to Stop the Court, March 2013. We believe that what is priced in these lofty prices is a small probability that each of several positive outcomes could pass that would enable Argentina to pay on the exchange bonds and that any disappointment degrades value.
We believe the current prices are too high and do not sufficiently price in the risks of a negative outcome. We think that there are several turning points over time, each with a small potential probability of a positive outcome that would enable Argentina to pay coupon on the exchange bonds. At each point, if the outcome for Argentina is negative, we would expect bond prices to deteriorate, as the probability of an ultimate positive resolution declines. Below we think are some of the pivotal points where some investors are expecting there could be a positive outcome.
First, though we think it is reasonable to assume there is a a very small probability, that the court decides not to enjoin financial intermediaries, if the Court were to do so we would expect the prices of the bonds to increase significantly.
Second, were the ruling to go against against Argentina, the expectation of many is that the stay would remain in place by the Appeals Court. We think this has a reasonable likelihood and that bonds would rally some, but not a lot. However, if the stay is lifted, in our view, the bonds should sell off some but we think the expectation would be that there would be a request for an emergency stay at the Supreme Court level.
Third, we are of the view that investors expect the Supreme Court will grant the stay if the Appeals Court does not. If they do not, we expect that the bonds would fall harder and CDS will be triggered.
Fourth, some investors are expecting that that the Supreme Court will hear the case. If so, we expect the bonds to rally a lot, and if not, then we think the bonds would fall very hard.
Fifth, if the Supreme Court hears the case some believe they will rule in favor of Argentina. In that case, in our view, the bonds could rally to a level 30% higher than today,and the plaintiffs would be left with yet another claim that will remain unpaid. But even if the court rules against Argentina and any remaining stays were to be lifted, there would still be a residual expectation that an exchange into local law could be viable.
We believe that the chances are tipped against Argentina in almost all of those potential positive outcomes, discussed above that the market is overestimating the ability to effect a comprehensive exchange into local law bonds and that the demand for a large amount of long local law Argentine bonds will not be high.
On the other hand, we believe that if Argentina choses not to pay on the exchange bonds as a result of the court decision it will do everything it can to pay on the current local law debt to prove that the US courts are to blame..For this reason, we recommend the Boden 15s. Among the exchange bonds, the Pars are at $33.5 and were at a low in March of $31.25 so we do not see much downside on those.
We believe it is reasonable to assume the probabilities of the potential positive outcomes above above are very low and that the 20% rally that has taken place in the exchange bonds over the last 4 months is excessive. We do recognize that a likely extension of the decision by even a year could justify a higher price of around 10% because of the high coupon income relative to the price, but we think the prices rallied too much and there will be a correction at the next decision point.
For a fuller background on the case and the bonds see Argentina: No Magic Wand to Stop the Court, March 2013. We believe that what is priced in these lofty prices is a small probability that each of several positive outcomes could pass that would enable Argentina to pay on the exchange bonds and that any disappointment degrades value.
We believe the current prices are too high and do not sufficiently price in the risks of a negative outcome. We think that there are several turning points over time, each with a small potential probability of a positive outcome that would enable Argentina to pay coupon on the exchange bonds. At each point, if the outcome for Argentina is negative, we would expect bond prices to deteriorate, as the probability of an ultimate positive resolution declines. Below we think are some of the pivotal points where some investors are expecting there could be a positive outcome.
First, though we think it is reasonable to assume there is a a very small probability, that the court decides not to enjoin financial intermediaries, if the Court were to do so we would expect the prices of the bonds to increase significantly.
Second, were the ruling to go against against Argentina, the expectation of many is that the stay would remain in place by the Appeals Court. We think this has a reasonable likelihood and that bonds would rally some, but not a lot. However, if the stay is lifted, in our view, the bonds should sell off some but we think the expectation would be that there would be a request for an emergency stay at the Supreme Court level.
Third, we are of the view that investors expect the Supreme Court will grant the stay if the Appeals Court does not. If they do not, we expect that the bonds would fall harder and CDS will be triggered.
Fourth, some investors are expecting that that the Supreme Court will hear the case. If so, we expect the bonds to rally a lot, and if not, then we think the bonds would fall very hard.
Fifth, if the Supreme Court hears the case some believe they will rule in favor of Argentina. In that case, in our view, the bonds could rally to a level 30% higher than today,and the plaintiffs would be left with yet another claim that will remain unpaid. But even if the court rules against Argentina and any remaining stays were to be lifted, there would still be a residual expectation that an exchange into local law could be viable.
We believe that the chances are tipped against Argentina in almost all of those potential positive outcomes, discussed above that the market is overestimating the ability to effect a comprehensive exchange into local law bonds and that the demand for a large amount of long local law Argentine bonds will not be high.
On the other hand, we believe that if Argentina choses not to pay on the exchange bonds as a result of the court decision it will do everything it can to pay on the current local law debt to prove that the US courts are to blame..For this reason, we recommend the Boden 15s. Among the exchange bonds, the Pars are at $33.5 and were at a low in March of $31.25 so we do not see much downside on those.
We believe it is reasonable to assume the probabilities of the potential positive outcomes above above are very low and that the 20% rally that has taken place in the exchange bonds over the last 4 months is excessive. We do recognize that a likely extension of the decision by even a year could justify a higher price of around 10% because of the high coupon income relative to the price, but we think the prices rallied too much and there will be a correction at the next decision point.
Acchiappaladri
Nuovo forumer
Quindi tu "senza alcun dubbio" ritieni che si verificherà lo scenario c), seguito (fra le diverse possibili evoluzioni) proprio dal default (e qui immagino io che tu ne stia considerando uno di natura "tecnica" come dall'autunno scorso ipotizza il mercato).
Mi dispiace ma io non riesco a condividere ad oggi la tua certezza.
Come giorni fa illustravo un po' più ampiamente in un altro forum, constato che quanto tu credi sarebbe una conseguenza di ciò che il governo argentino ad oggi continua a dichiarare e di quello che la maggioranza degli analisti e il mercato dei CDS continuano a ritenere più probabile per la sentenza sulla esecuzione della garanzia pari-passu, cioè la conferma se non totale almeno sostanziale della sentenza di primo grado del Giudice Griesa attualmente sospesa.
Però la situazione è molto incerta e complicata e anche nello scenario di conferma se non totale almeno sostanziale della sentenza di primo grado potranno esserci sviluppi molto diversi a seconda sopratutto di:
QUANDO verrà emessa la sentenza;
CHI sarà al governo in argentina in quel momento;
QUANTO sarà rimasto (in miliardi di dollari VERI, liquidi) nelle casse pubbliche argentine in quel momento.
Acchiappaladri
Nuovo forumer
Vedo solo ora e mi scuso per aver trascurato per troppo tempo questo bel forum.
La risposta che ti diede l'amico GiveMeLeverage va nella direzione giusta ma per chiarezza va completata.
Per non fare confusione è necessario non mescolare considerazioni di carattere giudiziale con considerazioni di carattere finanziario o politico: io da anni sostengo che chi non voglia operare semplicemente d'azzardo sui TdS argentini deve fare valutazioni sullo scenario complessivo, facendo facendo appunto tutte queste considerazioni cercando di capire come si influenzano fra di loro.
Però ogni tipo di considerazione va fatta secondo i criteri che valgono nel suo specifico ambito.
Le opinioni personali sulla opportunità e interpretazione di una clausola di garanzia "pari-passu" presente in alcuni contratti (regolamenti di obbligazioni, TdS o no) sono le più varie e tutte rispettabili quando sincere.
Però le opinioni personali NON hanno (PIù) alcuna rilevanza giudiziale per il diritto commerciale degli USA (in senso esteso, dello Stato di New York in senso stretto):
dopo almeno un paio di anni di dibattimenti e sentenze di più gradi sull'autentico significato della clausola "pari-passu" nei contratti sotto quella giurisdizione, ora a New York è stata fatta giurisprudenza.
Negli USA il significato giuridico di "pari-passu" è stato esplicitato da chi è istituzionalmente competente in modo D E F I N I T I V O.
Nemmeno l'Argentina nell'ultimo tentativo di ricorso alla sentenza d'appello contesta più la dottrina del "pari-passu", limitandosi ad attaccare delle sue conseguenze esecutive nel caso specifico.
Questo concetto è PACIFICO per tutti gli operatori del settore (a parte le lecite polemiche processuali di qualche fondo e intermediario che nella causa sul "pari-passu" ancora da terminare sono intervenuti per difendere loro interessi): ad esempio mesi fa il regolamento delle nuove emissioni di nostri BTP ho letto che è stato modificato rispetto al solito per tener conto della evoluzione del diritto americano sul pari-passu, tutto ciò senza scossoni al mercato.
Ordinaria amministrazione di aggiornamento tecnico degli strumenti finanziari.
Come per qualunque altra legge o sentenza, qualcuno per sue ragioni può ritenere che non sia giusta od opportuna:
però la legge o sentenza rimane quella lì e chi vuole rimanere nella legalità deve rispettarla nella concretezza degli affari o di altri comportamenti pubblici.
policeman
Forumer storico
Gianluca,sai benissimo che qualsiasi modifica nelle condizione dell' bond è considerato default,tranne nell' caso di un approvazione di una maggioranza dei bond-holders.
se sbaglio please correct me
have a nice evening
Acchiappaladri
Nuovo forumer
Corretto:
ovviamente appena l'emittente Repubblica Argentina dovesse non pagare più la neocartaccia esattamente secondo le condizioni del suo regolamento ci sarà un credit event tale da far dichiarare alla ISDA il default della neocartaccia, e se l'emittente renderà comunque disponibili agli obbligazionisti il denaro che a loro sarebbe spettato da regolamento ma con variazioni "tecniche" (valuta, piazza, ecc.) si tratterà appunto di default "tecnico".
Ma non è questo il concetto che volevo evidenziare nel mio commento al tuo.
Provo a spiegarmi meglio: NON sono convinto che al 100%, sicuro come la morte, qualora fra X giorni la corte d'appello di New York completasse in modo molto sfavorevole per l'emittente la sua sentenza sul "pari-passu", allora seguirebbe il default "tecnico" della neocartaccia.
La Repubblica Argentina mica è obbligata a violare una sentenza a lei favorevole! Fra l'altro almeno ad oggi l'emittente dispone di abbastanza dollari per pagare tutti persino se fosse confermata al 100% la sentenza di Griesa.
Ci sono molti modi in cui, in linea di principio, la storia potrebbe continuare (almeno per un po') senza default della neocartaccia.
Tralasciando i modi "giudiziali", così ben prospettati nelle analisi che abbiamo letto negli ultimi due giorni, IMHO potrebbe essere lo stesso governo argentino che, perchè "costretto", pagherà tutto come da sentenza nonostante tutte le dichiarazioni minacciose e intransigenti fatte fino ad ora.
Potrebbe PERSINO accadere con l'attuale governo Ladroprogresista e con un nuovo, diverso governo la probabilità sarebbe più alta.
Ultima modifica:
Acchiappaladri
Nuovo forumer
Vedo che sono arrivate anche le Truppe Corazzate
Adesso ci mancano solo le Salmerie e ci siamo tutti
Come avrebbe detto il povero Catalano, per poter pagare in futuro i TdS argentini performing (ancora, per il momento) ci vogliono i soldi (quelli veri, verdini con sopra le facce di Washington e colleghi).
Come è noto la principale fonte di dollari per l'Argentina da parecchi anni è rappresentata dalle esportazioni di SOIA che sono pesantemente tassate (con meccanismi peculiari) dal governo di Buenos Aires.
Quindi la capacità di pagamento dell'emittente Repubblica Argentina dipende molto dal mercato della soia.
Come è noto negli ultimi due mesi è in atto un pronunciato calo del prezzo internazionale della soia (da un picco molto alto che aveva raggiunto): ho letto diverse analisi che danno cedente per il resto dell'anno il prezzo per considerazioni sulla congiuntura internazionale e sulla previsione di abbondanti raccolti nell'emisfero boreale (negli USA sopratutto).
Io vedo una conferma di queste previsioni nel attuale DISACCOPPIAMENTO dei prezzi del petrolio e della soia.
In molti periodi, anche lunghi, vi è stata una forte correlazione positiva fra i due prezzi: aumenta il petrolio e aumenta anche la soia, e viceversa.
Negli ultimi 2-3 mesi il petrolio è molto aumentato ma, appunto insolitamente, la soia non solo non l'ha seguito ma è molto calata.
Insomma, anche da questo sembra che per il prossimo futuro il mercato mondiale sarà saturo di soia.
Considerando anche le notizie lette recentemente di calo per la prossima stagione delle aree coltivate a soia in Argentina (sembra che, a causa della tassazione altissima, per i terreni meno vocati la coltivazione della soia non sia più redditizia per i produttori), mi sembra anche solo per questi motivi "agricoli" molto probabile uno scenario 2014 con forte riduzione delle entrate di dollari nelle casse pubbliche argentine (e nell'economia argentina nel suo complesso).
Nel 2014 sono in programma grossi pagamenti dei TdS argentini: potrebbero allora mettere a dura prova le riserve pubbliche di valuta.
Ultima modifica: