paulhunterjones

Venezuela is South America’s forth largest economy. Many people forget that it was one of the founding countries of OPEC. By the early 1990s Venezuela was the third largest oil producing nation in the world. These facts get lost in the never-ending debate over the effects of President Hugo Chavez’s push towards socialism.

The late Hugo Chavez was considered a defender of the poor. He was admired by many of his contemporaries because of his ability to stand up to Western imperialism. The left-leaning South American presidents supported President Chavez’s efforts to lead Venezuela down a path to socialism. In my opinion no head of state of any South America country have Chavez’s political sophistication or ability to manipulate public opinion. For years President Chavez convinced his supporters that their lot in life had improved because of his leadership. Without Chavez’s imposing personality and fiery rhetoric it is likely that Venezuelans will start to question the nation’s economic health. The Venezuelan community be surprised to learn that President Chavez ruined the nation’s oil industry by using its revenues like a piggy bank to fund his socialist experiment. It is time for Venezuelans to ask where the government gets the money to fund so many expensive social programs.

After waging a long battle with cancer Hugo Chavez died on March 5, 2013. According to a statement released by the military he died of a massive heart attack. Most commentators believe that he had returned from Cuba because no further treatment would arrest the progress of his disease. If is safe to assume that Chavez knew that his time was up. I do not believe that Chavez was actually in charge of the country’s daily operations during his last few weeks. The late president was probably consulted on major policy decisions and actions.

On February 8, 2013 the government devalued its currency by 32%. At that time it was suggested that this action was designed to clear the decks for a new economic regime. Most economists concluded that the devaluation by itself would not lead to an appreciable improvement in the economy. I think that the devaluation was part of a strategy to give the President’s presumptive successor a political advantage in the soon to be held elections. I do not believe that this monetary action was taken to improve the lives of poor Venezuelans.

Generally speaking the value of a given currency is determined by its relativity to the value of another currency. This exchange rate is normally based upon the amount of the home currency which is needed to purchase one unit of the foreign currency. It is common for countries to base their currencies upon the U.S. dollar or Eurozone euro. Currencies rise and fall depending on movements in the financial markets. Today major currencies are said to “float” along with market conditions.

Many third world nations have elected to fix the value of their currencies. The New York Fed. Reserve Bank explains how this method of evaluating a country’s currency works:

“Under a fixed exchange rate system, only a decision by a country’s government or monetary authority can alter the official value of the currency. Governments do, occasionally, take such measures, often in response to unusual market pressures. Devaluation, the deliberate downward adjustment in the official exchange rate, reduces the currency’s value; in contrast, a revaluation is an upward change in the currency’s value.”

Venezuela’s national currency is the bolivar. Its exchange rate is fixed to the US dollar. Many of the world’s Third World Nations’ currencies are fixed. In order to sustain a fixed exchange rate, a country must have sufficient foreign exchange reserves to purchase all offers of its currency at the established rate. Because of the Venezuela’s political and economic isolation the country has always had problems maintaining an adequate amount of foreign reserves. Over the last few years Venezuela has not been able to support (defend) its currency. The country has devalued the Bolivar numerous times the last decade. Most commentators and financial experts believe that Venezuela’s economic problems cannot be addressed by constantly devaluing the Bolivar.

Pages: 1 2

In December 2001 the world saw Argentina voluntarily walk away from its debt obligations. In a storm of nationalistic rhetoric the country defaulted on billions of dollars of sovereign debt. The massive default caused the Argentine economy to collapse. The difficult economic times drove more than half of the country’s population below the poverty line. Not surprisingly; international lenders and institutions have been reluctant to again lend money to the country. It must be stated that since the default Argentina has reached agreements with about 90% of the bondholders. The investors have been offered a small percentage of their original investment and had their defaulted bond exchanged for new ones. The country has twice restructured the new debt. Some of these exchange bondholders had to believe that receiving something for their investment was better than receiving nothing. They might be right, but only to a limited extent.

It did not come as a surprise to the commentators and experts that investors would eventually grow weary and suspicious of Argentina’s constantly restructuring its debt. These restructurings were basically forced upon the exchange bondholders. The restructure terms clearly favored Argentina. In October 2009 Japan’s finance minister criticized the South American country over its debt restructuring scheme(s). He accused Argentina of not negotiating in good faith with it creditors. Has Argentina ever respected the interests of its bondholders?

Photo Eduardo Di Baia, AP

About 10% of the original bondholders decided to sue to recover their complete investment(s). In a earlier post I discussed the torturous and never-ending path of the litigation. I also considered the significance of Argentina’s latest appeal in the 10 year legal battle with the 2001 bondholders. I believe that the courts have finally reached their limits with Argentina’s refusal to pay on money judgments while continuing to litigate the same legal arguments over and over. The courts are aware of President Fernandez’ public declarations that Argentina will never pay “vulture funds.”

On February 27, 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit (Court) heard oral arguments on Argentina’s latest appeal. The presiding judges made it clear that they were not there to interpret the terms of the bond contracts but to enforce them. The Court dispensed with any notion that Argentina might have had about litigating de novo the underlying case. The issue before the court centered on the federal court’s imposed repayment scheme. The attorney for the Argentine Republic intimated that his client would be amenable to payment but under a different scheme. This limited and qualified suggestion of a possible settlement of the payment issue intrigued the Court. The judges directed appellant (Argentina) to file its plan for the cancellation of the plaintiffs’ judgments. The order was as follows:

At oral argument on Wednesday, February 27, 2013, counsel for the Republic of Argentina appeared to propose that, in lieu of the ratable payment formula ordered by the district court in its injunction and accompanying opinion of November 21, 2012, Argentina was prepared to abide by a different formula for repaying debt owed on both the original and exchange bonds at issue in this litigation. Because neither the parameters of Argentina’s proposal nor its commitment to abide by it is clear from the record, it is hereby ordered that, on or before March 29, 2013, Argentina submit in writing to the court the precise terms of any alternative payment formula and schedule to which it is prepared to commit.

Pages: 1 2