There's a not-so-civil war within the billionaire class

I think they're getting scared.

The finger pointing has begun.

Check out this Fox News story by Charles Couger and Alex Pfeiffer, featuring an extended cameo by Tucker Carlson. The story calls out veteran billionaire greedbag Paul Singer on his being one of those slimeballs who give capitalism a bad name.

Funny thing is, you're watching this on media owned by another billionaire greedbag, Rupert Murdoch!


See what I mean!

Announcing the million dollar Falling Downs Hedgie of the Year Award

That's right folks, the think tank here at Falling Downs will hand out a ONE MILLION DOLLAR PRIZE to the hedge fund manager who you believe has contributed the most to civil society in the past year!

Who will be the hedgie of the year?

Vote early and vote often for your fave hedge fund manager!

Will it be Bill Ackman? The guy who looted the CPR?

Paul Singer? The guy who looted Argentina?

The erstwhile Canadian, the guy who looted Robert Schad's company, but who's name escapes me due to my early onset Alzheimers?

Vote early and vote often! This is an unprecedented prize in the anus of business awards! Never before has a million dollar prize been bestowed on the billionaires who have been destroying the economy!

Just send your nomination, along with the entry fee of one million dollars (US dollars, if you don't mind) c/o this blog.

We promise to send everyone who supplies a nomination a free Falling Downs coffee mug!

Triumph of the shitbags

At a quarter million page views I think I can say this blog has proven some sort of staying power. Ya, I know, considering the wisdom found on this page, you'd think it would be a quarter million page-views per day, not over five years.

I don't get it either.

I'm averse to calling down regular folks on whatever wrong-headed opinions they may express on the world wide web. I'm even reluctant to call out working journalists on the bullshit they too often spew, simply because at the end of the day they are folks who work for their pay.

But I'm not averse to calling shitbags "shitbags."

Paul Singer is a shitbag.

Paul Singer is a billionaire hedgie who gets richer by fucking over the poorest of the poor all around the world. He's also a big deal in American politics, because he's a big donor to political candidates.

Singer recently won his case against Argentina. That's mostly because a new right-wing government came to power in that country.

Here at Falling Downs we've been banging away against the Singer case for years.

We lost.

The people of Argentina lost way more.

Paul Singer won big.

The architect of Singer's win was a judge appointed by Richard Nixon.

No wonder Singer funds the GOP.

Singer v Argentina: financial crimes against humanity

Paul Singer's immoral campaign to extort unearned wealth from the people of Argentina has hit the wall.

Bankruptcy is a funny thing. I remember a real estate broker in Guelph who had survived three bankruptcies. He kept his fine home and his fancy cars throughout, and if his financial history impacted his standing in the business community, it didn't show.

On the occasion of my own bankruptcy, I recall my elderly mafioso neighbour imparting some words of wisdom; "things happen, son; sometimes you just gotta tip it and move on."

Business folks large and small routinely shift their "non-performing assets," i.e mistakes, into their weakest holding company, pull the plug, and carry on as though nothing had happened.

None of the Reichman brothers had to move house or skimp on meals when their Olympia and York flamed out in what was at the time the biggest bankruptcy in Canadian history.

However, if you hear Paul Singer tell the tale, bankruptcy by a nation state is an affront to God, and he is doing God's work when he uses the courts to put the squeeze on already-crippled national economies.

It's not that Singer lent those countries money and wants it back. The Singer M.O. is to wait till a country defaults, buy up their bonds at pennies on the dollar, and then use his vast resources and political influence to extort face value plus interest on that discounted debt.

The reason this works with a nation state and not with an individual or corporate debtor is because in theory, a nation state could amortize those debts so far into the future that eventually they would be paid. In the meanwhile, the citizens of that country will have to forgo a few frills like education and health care, but at least they're confirming Singer's idea of the rule of law.

Thus, when the people of Peru or Congo or Argentina have to do without so that Paul Singer's vulture funds can make a few un-earned billions, all is well with the world.

That's the American way!

Oh lookee!.. as US courts back US hedge fund weasels, China steps in with an offer Argentina can't refuse

The mere thought that American courts can dictate the finances of sovereign nations is a throwback to the colonial era.

The Singer v Argentina case is almost two hundred years removed from France extorting 90 million francs from Haiti after the slaves declared their independence.

Paul Singer doesn't realize that times have changed.

Slaves are still slaves in his world. Singer has left no stone unturned and no palm ungreased in his quest to turn his Argentina bonds, bought for pennies on the dollar after the default of 2001, into full face value plus interest!

That would turn his hedge fund's $48 million investment into a billion plus!

That's how the richest get even richer these days. No contribution to the greater good, no jobs created, no communities supported... pretty much just straight-ahead theft from the people of Argentina.

And so far the US court system has backed him every step of the way.

It may be unjust and immoral, but Singer will be celebrated in the financial press as a great capitalist hero if he can pull this off.

But here come those commie-capitalists to spoil the party. China just inked a deal for 7.5 billions that by-passes the Singer controversy and even the prospect of another Argentine default.

Hedgie Singer might want to hedge his bets by going long on the Yuan.

How American bullying alienates allies and invites blowback

The Paul Singer v Argentina case is much in the news these days.

Singer runs Elliot Capital, the hedge fund spear-heading the drive to to get Argentina to pay out face value plus interest on the government bonds they bought for pennies on the dollar after the Argentina default of 2001.

Singer's strategy has been to use the US legal system to violate Argentine sovereignty, and thus far the US legal system has been all too happy to play along.

"This is how a hedge funder brings an entire country to its knees" gloats the headline at Business Insider. 

What's wrong with that picture?

How is it acceptable for an American vulture fund to bring an entire economy to its knees? Singer brings nothing to the economy aside from opportunistic exploitation of the misfortune of others. His vulture fund doesn't further the common good, doesn't create jobs, does nothing aside from enrich a few already-rich people by punishing an entire society.

Is this what America is about on the world stage today?

Here's another gloating headline about the American judicial system screwing over BNP Paribas to the tune of nine billions. The French bank is guilty of violating US sanctions against Iran, Sudan, and Cuba.

What up here? It's a FRENCH bank. What should be on trial is the legality and morality of US sanctions on Iran, Sudan, and Cuba, not a foreign bank that helps those countries get around the illegal American sanctions.

But, America gets away with this bullying because it can!

These are manifestations of an American superiority/American exceptionalism complex that will eventually come back to bite America hard.

Surprise! American courts side with American vulture fund to screw 40 million Argentines

That was yesterday.

The cherry on top was the downgrade Standard and Poor's issued on Argentine debt today.

Obviously, in determining the "greater good", American courts have no problem putting the interests of one opportunistic American hedge-fund operator ahead of the interests of 40 million Argentinians.

This is a case that has gone on for years, and revolves around Paul Singers attempts to use the courts to extort face value plus interest on Argentine sovereign debt he bought for pennies on the dollar.

This is a prime example of the sort of destructive economic activity that should be taxed at a rate of 100%.

Paul Singer's attempted rape of Argentina gets thumbs up from New York appeals court

The government of Argentina has been forced to petition the US Supreme Court in the next instalment of the ongoing battle with US hedgie Paul Singer.

Singer's hedge funds bet big on defaulted Argentine debt, buying up all they could at pennies on the dollar after Argentina defaulted on its foreign debt in 2002.

The Singer strategy is to employ the courts to force the defaulter to make good on 100% of the face value of the debt.

In a nutshell, this case pits the people of Argentina against the opportunistic machinations of a small group of American uber-capitalists looking for free money.

Vultures v. Argentina gets a second wind

Here at Falling Downs we've been pontificating forever about the sordid spectacle of rich-world hedge funds fucking over the poor people in the so-called developing world.

Paul Singer is one of the leading architects of this brilliant scheme to make the richest people in the world richer at the expense of the poor people of the world.

His brazen pursuit of the government of Argentina through whatever court system he deems most sympathetic to his cause has already cost many millions of dollars.

Paul Singer can afford to keep doing this because the legal system in the world he lives in puts his interests ahead of those millions of people who will be paying the tab should he prevail in this matter.

And even if he loses, his legal costs will be tax-deductible.

Paul Singer v. the people of Argentina

In 2008, seven years after the Government of Argentina defaulted on $95 billion in sovereign debt, hedge funds managed by Paul Singer bought up some of those defaulted bonds for pennies on the dollar. Ever since, Singer has been using the American courts in an attempt to force Argentina to pay out those bonds at face value.

This case highlights some of the more egregious abuses that finance capital imposes on its host societies. While Singer's distressed-debt investment strategy has made him a wealthy man, has it contributed anything positive to society?

No. Hedge funds like Singer's represent an opportunistic and non-productive pool of capital that seeks to turn legal technicalities and political influence into windfall gains. Hedge-funds are the Rumpelstiltskins of the modern era.

The legal system is their spinning wheel. When lawyers for Singer, a long-time Republican Party insider and huge financial backer, appear in front of judges appointed by Republican presidents, does anyone imagine that the other side will get an impartial hearing?

Singer v Argentina; does the revolution start here?

Attorneys acting for the state of Argentina have filed papers to overturn a ruling that would oblige the country to reward American speculators who were hoping to make a killing trading in defaulted Argentine bonds.

The gist of the Argentinian argument is that a sovereign state is not obliged to abide by rulings handed down in another state.

Makes sense to me.

The spectacle unfolding before us is a crucial battle between the common good and private interests. What's different here is that we have a sovereign state arguing for the common good, and another sovereign state acting on behalf of the private interests.

Do American courts have the right to impose their remedies beyond the borders of America?

The Singer camp apparently believes so. It's Paul Singer's bond funds that have spear-headed this drive to impose American jurisprudence on the planet.

And why not? If they can pull this off, American lawyers will indeed be the masters of the universe!

Meet Judge Thomas P. Griesa, last hope of the bond vultures

Judge Griesa's ruling in favour of Paul Singer has reinvigorated Singer's Elliot Management's battle over getting Argentina to pay face value plus interest on bonds dating from the default of 2002. Singer runs a bond vulture fund and purchased the debt at a huge discount.

One small victory for humanity over Vulture Fund douchebags

The UN Tribunal for Laws of the Sea has ordered that Ghana release the Argentine ship ARA Libertad.

The ship was seized in October pursuant to court actions brought by American Vulture Fund wheeler-dealer Paul Singer. Singer's funds bought Argentine sovereign debt at huge discounts around the time of Argentina's default ten years ago, and has been using the courts to try to force Argentina to repay their bonds at face value.

It's a great strategy when it works. Several years ago Singer's funds made an estimated 400% windfall profit pursuing the same strategy with discounted Peruvian bonds. That's a windfall Peru's impoverished campesinos continue to pay for.

The irony is that Argentina's legitimate creditors have long ago settled with the government. The Singer funds, which never lent Argentina any money but bought the distressed paper on the open market, now claim that the integrity of the global financial order is at risk if opportunistic paper-shufflers like themselves are not paid off in full.

Sounds to me like a great argument for a 100% tax on non-productive economic activity.

Judge confirms that US is still center of universe

Judge Thomas Griesa delivered more than a decision in his New York courtroom this week; he delivered a searing father-knows-best scolding to go along with it.

Griesa's robes were in a twist over the fact that Argentina's government has been fighting an American bond vulture fund through the courts for ten years over its 2002 debt default and restructuring. While well over 90% of Argentina's creditors went along with the restructuring, a hedge fund controlled by American Paul Singer was busy buying up the Argentine bonds at pennies on the dollar.

Singer accumulates positions in distressed sovereign debt and then uses the US court system to hold out for full payment while other creditors are settling for less. The strategy is a Singer specialty and has made him and his investors a substantial fortune.

This fortune must in the long run come out of the pockets of the citizens of whichever country Singer's vulture fund has targeted.

Decisions that impact the well-being of 40 million Argentines need to be made in Buenos Aires, not in New York City.

Vulture fund tactics spiral into international incident

Paul Singer made it onto Forbes billionaire list on the backs of some of the poorest people in the world.

Singer was one of the pioneers of buying distressed sovereign debt, then holding out for full payment using the American court system to bully impoverished third world nations.

There is a drama unfolding today in the African country of Ghana, where the government has been persuaded to enforce an American court order in favor of Singer's hedge fund.

Back in 2002, as Argentina's economy was collapsing, Singer's hedge funds bought hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Argentine bonds for pennies on the dollar. He has spent the last ten years taking the Argentine government through the US court system to get full payment on those bonds.

His argument is cloaked in the usual brew of self-righteous faux indignation about a promise being a promise, etc, and oh my God, if people can just walk away from their debts, civilization as we know it will collapse.

That's an argument that is favorably received by Republican appointees on the bench when made by major donors to the Republican party. Then a pliable foreign country seeking to curry favor with the US can be persuaded to enforce America's judicial decisions.

That's what Ghana has done by seizing an Argentine naval vessel as surety for Singer's bonds.

The Argentinians are having none of it. This could blow up into a major international incident at any moment.