Gesamtzahl der Seitenaufrufe

Freitag, 1. August 2014

Economistas alertan a EE.UU. por las consecuencias del fallo de Griesa

Jueves, 31 Julio 2014 20:27

Economistas alertan a EE.UU. por las consecuencias del fallo de Griesa

  • Cien profesionales pidieron que el Congreso tome acciones para mitigar las secuelas del dictamen.
Por 
Economistas alertan a EE.UU. por las consecuencias del fallo de Griesa
Un grupo de más de cien economistas del mundo, entre los que se encuentra el premio Nobel de Economía Robert Solow y el ex economista jefe del Banco Mundial, Branko Milanovic, enviaron un escrito al Congreso de Estados Unidospara que "tome acción para mitigar las perjudiciales consecuencias" de la sentencia del juez de Nueva York, Thomas Griesa, que exige que Argentina pague a los fondos buitre "al mismo tiempo que a la mayoría de los acreedores".
La misiva, firmada por economistas de universidades y centros de estudios de Estados Unidos, Londres, Argentina, México, Uruguay, Colombia, Alemania, India, Brasil e Italia, entre otros países, advierte que la decisión de Griesa "podría causar daño económico innecesario al sistema financiero internacional", en línea con las advertencias de Joseph Stiglitz.
"El fallo de la Corte distrital de Nueva York y especialmente su requerimiento judicial que está actualmente bloqueando a Argentina efectuar el pago al 93 por ciento de sus tenedores de bonos extranjeros, podría causar daño económico innecesario al sistema financiero internacional, así como a los intereses de Estados Unidos, Argentina y a 15 años de política bipartidista de Estados Unidos, de alivio de deuda", mencionó la carta.
El economista y codirector del Centro para Investigación Política y Económica (CEPR), institución que colaboró en la circulación del escrito, afirmó que "es una opinión ampliamente compartida entre economistas, que el intento de la Corte de forzar a Argentina en un default que nadie quiere, ni el deudor ni más del 90 por ciento de acreedores, es erróneo y perjudicial".
El texto alertó que el fallo del magistrado distrital podría "torpedear un acuerdo existente con aquellos tenedores de bonos que eligieron negociar" y que siendo que los gobiernos soberanos no tienen opción de declarar la bancarrota, "la decisión de la Corte obstaculizaría gravemente la capacidad de los acreedores y deudores de concluir una reestructuración ordenada si ocurre una crisis de deuda soberana".
Esto, continuó la nota, "podría tener impacto negativo significativo en el funcionamiento de los mercados financieros internacionales, tal como advirtió el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) en repetidas ocasiones".
Por último, el documento concluyó que la orden del tribunal de Nueva York "crea un peligro moral" siendo que los inversores podrán "obtener un pago total sin importar cuán riesgosa sea la inversión inicial".
Texto completo:
July 31, 2014
Dear Member of Congress,
We note with concern the recent developments in the court case of Argentina vs. NML Capital, etc. The District Court's decision – and especially its injunction that is currently blocking Argentina from making payments to 93 percent of its foreign bondholders -- could cause unnecessary economic damage to the international financial system, as well as to U.S. economic interests, Argentina, and fifteen years of U.S. bi-partisan debt relief policy. We urge you to act now and seek legislative solutions to mitigate the harmful impact of the court's ruling.
For various reasons, governments sometimes find themselves in situations where they cannot continue to service their sovereign debt. This was Argentina's situation at the end of 2001. After years of negotiations, Argentina reached a restructuring agreement with 93 percent of the defaulted bondholders, and has made all agreed-upon payments to them.
The court's decision that Argentina cannot continue to pay the holders of the restructured bonds unless it first pays the plaintiffs mean that any "holdout" creditor can torpedo an existing agreement with those bondholders who chose to negotiate. While individuals and corporations are granted the protection of bankruptcy law, no such mechanism exists for sovereign governments. As such, the court's ruling would severely hamper the ability of creditors and debtors to conclude an orderly restructuring should a sovereign debt crisis occur. This could have a significant negative impact on the functioning of international financial markets, as the International Monetary Fund has repeatedly warned.
Those who invested in Argentine bonds were compensated with high interest rates, to mitigate the risk of default. There are inherent risks when investing in sovereign bonds, but the court's ruling creates a moral hazard, by allowing investors to obtain full repayment, no matter how risky the initial investment.
The plaintiffs in the case purchased Argentine bonds on the secondary market after default, often for less than 20 cents on the dollar. While these actors could have accepted the restructuring and still made a very large profit, they instead have fought a decade-long legal battle, seeking exorbitant profits in excess of 1,000 percent and creating financial uncertainty along the way.
The recent developments will also directly impact the United States and its status as a financial center of the world economy. While much of the developing world's debt is issued under the jurisdiction of New York law and utilizing New York-based financial institutions, the court's ruling will make it more likely for sovereign governments to seek alternate locations to issue debt. Britain and Belgium, for example, have already passed legislation aimed at preventing this type of behavior from "holdout" creditors.
In addition, the court has put restrictions on New York banks, preventing them from distributing regularly scheduled interest payments to holders of the restructured bonds. Already, banks have faced lawsuits from investors, creating greater uncertainty for U.S.-based financial institutions.
Argentina has expressed a willingness to negotiate, and has recently reached agreements with the Paris Club as well as claims by international investors.
We hope that you will look for legislative solutions to prevent this court decision, or similar rulings, from causing unnecessary harm.
Sincerely,
Robert Solow, Nobel laureate in Economics, 1987, MIT Professor of Economics, emeritus
Dani Rodrik, Albert O. Hirschman Professor in the school of Social Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey
Branko Milanovic, Luxembourg Income Study Center, the Graduate Center CUNY, former Lead Economist in the World Bank's research department
Andrew Allimadi, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs
Gar Alperovitz, University of Maryland
und viele andere mehr....

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen