Talk:Argentine debt restructuring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] IMF, Clearstream and the holdouts

I've reverted part of what Tazmaniacs (talk • contribs) wrote on the holdouts, while hopefully the sense of the rest. The following statement...

Part of Argentine's debt was owned by Clearstream clearing-house ("bank of banks"), which has been involved in a major financial scandal in Luxembourg.

... should have a proper source/reference, but in any case needs to be more specific (how much of the debt?) and is probably not a good idea to include as such. Argentine debt holders are many, why is this one singled out? Let's have a list of major creditors instead, if possible, and not a reference to a scandal in the middle of the text.

I've also removed my own statements about the likelihood of challenges presented by the holdouts in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This was especially inappropriate now that everyone's still shocked by the payment to the IMF. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearstream is a clearing house. Which means that it is a sort of "bank of banks", centralizing debit & credit operations for various banks and corporations. The scandal in question is explained by the creation, along the legal normal numbered bank accounts, unpublished accounts. According to Ernest Backes, former #3 of Clearstream, a lot of the funds composing the Argentine debt transited through Clearstream. This means that Clearstream facilitate tax evasion which has been a major cause of the Argentine economic crisis. Notwithstanding the complexity of financial operations, especially concerning the underground economy, I think these allegations are important - and serious enough, backed by sources, etc. - to be included in this article. Tazmaniacs

I don't doubt its seriousness. I'm wondering whether this should be more prominently mentioned somewhere in Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002), since Clearstream was involved in the whole process. Could you integrate the above into a specific subsection in either article (or both), and provide a source (attributing it to someone is not enough)? This would be helpful for others who wish to verify and learn more about this issue. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)