3 ms·

This is the second default in 13 years, with (as you mention) no strong regional bank to support them, and (most likely) in a country without the political will

• tomp 12y ago
  From another article linked in the HN comments, it seems that this is really a finalization of the 2001 default. Argentina is not able to pay the (current) bond holders only because the courts won't let it do so.
  • PeterisP 12y ago
    Argentina is able to pay the current bondholders, it's simply choosing not to pay them because part of that money will go also to those bondholders Argentina dislikes.
    • encoderer 12y ago
      In the story they said Argentina has transferred $500MM to pay bond holders, but the bank refuses to transfer it because the court ruled they could not selectively pay and any cooperating banks would be in contempt. Is there another layer to the story I'm missing?
      • PeterisP 12y ago
        That's the exact thing - they have the money to pay, but they have to give a proportion of that money to the holdout bondholders (the "not selective" part), and they refused to do that, despite all the negotiations. Courts didn't rule that they can't pay, courts ruled that they can't ignore the other bondholders when paying. [edit] A car analogy - if a court says you can't drive until you pay your parking fines, then it doesn't mean that you're maliciously completely prevented from driving, it simply means that you're compelled to pay the fine at last.
        • encoderer 12y ago
          that makes sense