Gesamtzahl der Seitenaufrufe

Mittwoch, 20. Mai 2015

Moratorium on Moscow?

Moratorium on Moscow?

On May 28, Ukraine will pay $88m in interest on its $2.25bn bond due 2022.
On June 20, it will also pay a $75m coupon on that $3bn bond owed to Russia.
Well, we say ‘will.’
This might get in the way first:
On Tuesday, the Ukrainian government announced it would send a draft bill post-haste to the Verkhovna Rada to authorise it to stop paying its international debts.
And by post-haste, the bill was passed within hours.
It would apply to a list of bonds which are officially subject to Ukraine’s bid for $15bn in debt relief — which as we’ve noted before, includes the Russian bond maturing at the end of this year.
What makes this particularly interesting isn’t just the timing of the move to a moratorium, but also the rhetoric.
For those whose Ukrainian is rusty — some highlights from the statement:
1) The debt is referred to as an “issue of justice”;
2) Of the $17.5bn in IMF lending and $7bn in other official loans pledged to Ukraine, the government says it’s received $3bn this year — and paid $2.4bn on servicing its private hard-currency debt;
3) There’s a reference to debt borrowed by the previous government of Viktor Yanukovich as “wasted in vain” for the country; and…
4) “The government has the right… not to return loans borrowed by the Yanukovich kleptocratic regime”
The Russian bond was, meanwhile, one of the last financial acts of Yanukovich’s government.
This is all getting a whiff of the odious about it…
COMMENTS (2)

By submitting this comment I confirm that I have read and agreed to the FT Terms and Conditions. Please also see ourcommenting guidelines.
iTrade
There is a fine line being walked here, I think.
At the end of the day, the overthrow of the Yanukovitch government was due to external impulses, as a result of the political reality that without external aid, UAH was not going to be able to close off its CIS Free Trade Zone membership for the EU's exclusivity without going bust.
It is documented that the EU's response that triggered this decision was that 'they were not the IMF'. Odiousness cannot be readily argued at this stage, nor Financial coercion by Russsia, which called out the EU for its forcing of a free trade zone choice...Thus, the Russian bond placement was freely negotiated and it would be difficult to argue otherwise.
The language being used now, maybe should be imprecise enough to make American investors understand that haircuts are required all around, though preferred lenders' status must be maintained.
It's not a political statement, this is just how it really is.
Rasmalai
The reference to debt lent under the Yanukovych era refers not only to the Russian USD3bn but also the other sovereign Eurobonds, the bulk of which were also lent to the Yanukovych regime. This is about also sending a message to the private sector creditors, that the government in Kyiv is willing to take its gloves off in order to get a hair cut on debt.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen