External Debt Payments

mondongo · Sep 22, 2005

Temistocles Montas, the President's chief economic advisor, stated that DR$54Billion of the budget goes to pay the the extenal debt.

Well, my friends, he is telling you a bold faced lie.

During the first 6 months of the year, and according to the PLD's own documents at the Central Bank, the Govt only paid DR$5Billion in interest. They paid DR$6.5Billion in debt that was maturing. This is a total outlay of DR$11.5Billion for the 1/2 year.

But what the sly dogs neglect to tell you is that at the same time, they borrowed DR$12Billion!!! So the net effect on the budget was actually a surplus of DR$500Million.....what a friggin' country!!!

How can these people get away with such blatant mis-representation of their own published facts!!!

project9 · Sep 22, 2005

You're doing the same thing he did: posting some numbers without any trace of evidence behind it. Still i give more credibility to what you said.

suarezn · Sep 22, 2005

Mondongo is right. In a document in the Central Bank website they say this:

Los pagos por servicio de la deuda p?blica externa fueron
realizados de manera oportuna y ascendieron a US$379.5
millones, aumentando en 4.5% respecto a igual per?odo de
2004.

In oher words they spent 379.5 million USD * 30 = 11,385 Million pesos. So where is all the tax money going? Maybe Nals can shed some light...

mondongo · Sep 22, 2005

http://www.bancentral.gov.do/publicaciones_economicas/infeco/infeco2005-06.pdf

This document contains it all. It's in Spanish and its long.

Go to page numbered 15, there is table on the bottom of the left hand side. You will see the numbers I quote in US$.

Point 1. is ths amount they borrowed and part of which they used to pay off the maturing debt.
Point 2.1 is the amount of maturing debt.
Point 2.2 is the amount of interest they paid.
Point 3. is amount left over after all transactions.

Go to page labeled: "Anexo No. 8", almost half way down the document.

Gastos Totales --> Gastos Corrientes --> Intereses --> externos: DR$4.87Billion.

They paid DR$4.87Billion in interest for the first half year. Annualized, DR$9.74Billion.

BOTTOM LINE:

There you have it: it's DR$9.74Billion.......NOT DR$54Billion....in their own words....

jstnorv05 · Sep 25, 2005

Interest and Principle

You quoted the figure only for interest payments but a very important part of debt is that it consists of interest and PRINCIPLE.

mondongo said:
http://www.bancentral.gov.do/publicaciones_economicas/infeco/infeco2005-06.pdf

This document contains it all. It's in Spanish and its long.

Go to page numbered 15, there is table on the bottom of the left hand side. You will see the numbers I quote in US$.

Point 1. is ths amount they borrowed and part of which they used to pay off the maturing debt.
Point 2.1 is the amount of maturing debt.
Point 2.2 is the amount of interest they paid.
Point 3. is amount left over after all transactions.

Go to page labeled: "Anexo No. 8", almost half way down the document.

Gastos Totales --> Gastos Corrientes --> Intereses --> externos: DR$4.87Billion.

They paid DR$4.87Billion in interest for the first half year. Annualized, DR$9.74Billion.

BOTTOM LINE:

There you have it: it's DR$9.74Billion.......NOT DR$54Billion....in their own words....

jstnorv05 · Sep 25, 2005

I think you left out the very important next line of your quote "
Ese incremento se origin? en su mayor?a, por
nuevos vencimientos de deuda bilateral no renegociable
con el Club de Par?s y deuda con la banca privada." Further, "En el per?odo en consideraci?n, el registro de atrasos
asciende a US$374.0 millones los cuales corresponden
principalmente, por un lado a los vencimientos de 2003 y
2004 que fueron negociados con el Club de Par?s y cuyos
contratos bilaterales no han sido firmados y ratificados
todav?a, y por el otro, a los vencimientos del semestre con
vocaci?n de una nueva reestructuraci?n con dicho Club y
con la banca privada." The key word here is "atrasos" in other words a good chunk of the increase was due to payments not made in 2003-2004.

suarezn said:
Mondongo is right. In a document in the Central Bank website they say this:

Los pagos por servicio de la deuda p?blica externa fueron
realizados de manera oportuna y ascendieron a US$379.5
millones, aumentando en 4.5% respecto a igual per?odo de
2004.

In oher words they spent 379.5 million USD * 30 = 11,385 Million pesos. So where is all the tax money going? Maybe Nals can shed some light...

suarezn · Sep 25, 2005

jstnorv05 said:
I think you left out the very important next line of your quote "
Ese incremento se origin? en su mayor?a, por
nuevos vencimientos de deuda bilateral no renegociable
con el Club de Par?s y deuda con la banca privada." Further, "En el per?odo en consideraci?n, el registro de atrasos
asciende a US$374.0 millones los cuales corresponden
principalmente, por un lado a los vencimientos de 2003 y
2004 que fueron negociados con el Club de Par?s y cuyos
contratos bilaterales no han sido firmados y ratificados
todav?a, y por el otro, a los vencimientos del semestre con
vocaci?n de una nueva reestructuraci?n con dicho Club y
con la banca privada." The key word here is "atrasos" in other words a good chunk of the increase was due to payments not made in 2003-2004.

OK, so what's your point? The bottom line is that according to their own document they only paid about 12 billion pesos to service the external debt and NOT 54 billion pesos like Montas said. Did I miss a part of the document where they explained the other 42 billion? If so could you direct me there?

jstnorv05 · Sep 25, 2005

In order to respond to that I would first have to see the quote he is reffering to. In a strange coincidence the number that he quotes is the exact number of "Gastos corrientes" from the exact document he was using to refute this number. Unless I see the quote myself I would have to assume its a mistranslation.

suarezn said:
OK, so what's your point? The bottom line is that according to their own document they only paid about 12 billion pesos to service the external debt and NOT 54 billion pesos like Montas said. Did I miss a part of the document where they explained the other 42 billion? If so could you direct me there?

suarezn · Sep 25, 2005

It's possible this was a mistatement from his part (Montas), because Gastos Corrientes as you know is not external debt.

Here is an article about Montas statement. Periodico Hoy

jstnorv05 · Sep 25, 2005

Without seeing the quote I don't know if it was a mistatement on Montas' part or on Mondongo's.

suarezn said:
It's possible this was a mistatement from his part (Montas), because Gastos Corrientes as you know is not external debt.

suarezn · Sep 25, 2005

jstnorv05 said:
Without seeing the quote I don't know if it was a mistatement on Montas' part or on Mondongo's.

See the quote. Here it is again...Montas' Statement

jstnorv05 · Sep 25, 2005

Comparing next year's projected spending with this year's past spending

Here is the first part of the article "De forma preliminar, el gobierno prev? para el pr?ximo a?o ingresos estimados en RD$175,000 millones, pero los gastos en n?mina, deuda externa, subsidios y bienes y servicios exceden esa cantidad, inform? el secretario t?cnico de la Presidencia, quien asegur? que de no aprobarse la reforma fiscal como est? planteada "se caer?n el pa?s, las finanzas p?blicas y el acuerdo con el Fondo Monetario Internacional".
The key words here are "para el proximo ano" He is talking about next year. The numbers from the Doc are from Jan-Jun of this year. Now I understand the mistake you both made.

suarezn said:
See the quote. Here it is again...Montas' Statement

suarezn · Sep 25, 2005

Ok...I give you that he's talking about what they will have to pay for next year. Still are we to belive that payments are going to go from let's say 23 billion (Assuming that for the rest of this year they will need another 11.5 billion) up to 54 billion specially when we know that they have re-negotiated most of the debt to for the next few years. If that's the case then they have not done as good of a job as they claim...

mondongo · Sep 26, 2005

jstnorv05 said:
Here is the first part of the article "De forma preliminar, el gobierno prev? para el pr?ximo a?o ingresos estimados en RD$175,000 millones, pero los gastos en n?mina, deuda externa, subsidios y bienes y servicios exceden esa cantidad, inform? el secretario t?cnico de la Presidencia, quien asegur? que de no aprobarse la reforma fiscal como est? planteada "se caer?n el pa?s, las finanzas p?blicas y el acuerdo con el Fondo Monetario Internacional".
The key words here are "para el proximo ano" He is talking about next year. The numbers from the Doc are from Jan-Jun of this year. Now I understand the mistake you both made.

First of all, that is not a quote form Montas. That is a quote from the reporter. The only relevant quote from Montas gives the clear impression that the numbers are for calendar year 2005. The income fot the first half of the year, not including externally borrowed money is already DR$76Billion.

Did you not know that the original 2005 spending estimate was DR$207Billion? They are currently well under that for the first half (goog for them).

But that is besides the point. The numbers I posted are OF COURSE only the interest. Don't you know that every govt in this sphere REFINANCES all its debt when it comes due? Did I not state that clearly in my post? "Point 1" in my post tells you unequivocally that they borrowed money to pay the maturing debt. This does not appear on the INCOME/EXPENSES statements that they are talking about.

I get tired of explaining it to those who can't understand or just have a see-through agenda to try and mis-represent the data.

mondongo · Sep 26, 2005

oops double post....too excited i guess

NotLurking · Sep 26, 2005

mondongo said:
First of all, that is not a quote form Montas. That is a quote from the reporter. The only relevant quote from Montas gives the clear impression that the numbers are for calendar year 2005. The income fot the first half of the year, not including externally borrowed money is already DR$76Billion.

Would you please provide a link to your source of Montas' quote? All references I have found are in accord with jstnorv05 'impression' and NOT yours.

Ex.

Hoy.com.do said:
Mont?s habl? al participar junto a Miguel Cocco, director de Aduanas, y Juan Hern?ndez, director de Impuestos Internos, en una reuni?n con el presidente de la C?mara de Diputados, Alfredo Pacheco, y los miembros de la comisi?n de finanzas de ese hemiciclo, presidida por el diputado reformista Marino Collante.

Dijo que de los ingresos esperados no se puede gastar m?s de RD$168,000 millones, porque el gobierno est? obligado a un superavit fiscal para el pr?ximo a?o. De esta cantidad, agreg?, a los poderes independientes hay que entregarles unos RD$18,000 millones.

Detall? que "de los RD$150,000 millones que quedan al gobierno, RD$40,000 millones se van en sueldos y salarios; RD$54,000 millones en pago de deuda externa; RD$43,000 millones en transferencia, incluyendo el subsidio a la electricidad y al gas licuado de petr?leo; RD$23,000 millones en bienes y servicios".*

Source: Hoy.com.do

*This section in bold is a direct quote by Montas (as noted by the reporter with the quote marks).

Ex2.

Hoy.com.do said:
El equipo econ?mico explic? que el gobierno ha planificado cobrar impuestos por RD$170,737 millones el a?o pr?ximo y sus gastos estar?n alrededor de RD$164,339.7 millones, lo que representar? un excedente de RD$7,000 millones.

Los recursos ser?n distribuidos en RD$141,599 millones para el poder Ejecutivo, RD$9,906 millones para el poder Legislativo, el poder Judicial y la Junta Central Electoral y RD$12,885 millones en los Ayuntamientos.

En sueldos y salarios se gastar?n RD$39,000 millones, para el pago de las deudas RD$54,000 millones y RD$47,000 millones en transferencia para presas y acueductos.

De acuerdo con los informes ofrecidos a los diputados el gobierno desmontar? RD$32,000 millones que ahora cobra en impuestos como consecuencia de la aplicaci?n del DR-CAFTA.

El equipo econ?mico lo integraron el secretario T?cnico de la Presidencia, Juan Tem?stocles Mont?s, el director de Impuestos Internos, Juan Hern?ndez y el director de Aduanas, Miguel Cocco.

Source: Hoy.com.do

This reporter (Luis C?rdenas), although doesn't have a direct quote by Mont?s, also got the same 'impression' jstnorv05 and I got from Mont?s: he's talking about NEXT fiscal YEAR, NOT THE CURRENT fiscal year as you want us to believe.

mondongo said:
...who can't understand or just have a see-through agenda to try and mis-represent the data.

hmmmm.... that sure sounds fitting now.

NotLurking

jstnorv05 · Sep 26, 2005

I was trying to put the quote in context because it was clearly taken out of context on the original post. Here is what Montas' said IN CONTEXT. Dijo que de los ingresos esperados no se puede gastar m?s de RD$168,000 millones, porque el gobierno est? obligado a un superavit fiscal para el pr?ximo a?o. De esta cantidad, agreg?, a los poderes independientes hay que entregarles unos RD$18,000 millones.

Detall? que "de los RD$150,000 millones que quedan al gobierno, RD$40,000 millones se van en sueldos y salarios; RD$54,000 millones en pago de deuda externa; RD$43,000 millones en transferencia, incluyendo el subsidio a la electricidad y al gas licuado de petr?leo; RD$23,000 millones en bienes y servicios".

"Si se suman esos renglones, ustedes se dan cuenta que se pasa en t?rminos de dinero la cantidad de recursos que el gobierno tiene a su disposici?n, y no hemos hablado de inversi?n p?blica lo que demuestra las limitaciones para el pr?ximo a?o", expres?. Insisti? en que ante esta realidad, el gobierno no puede "darse el lujo" de que se reciban menos ingresos de los proyectados.

The end of this quotes is Montas stating "demuestra las limitaciones para el pr?ximo a?o" That is a direct quote from Montas. He is trying to say that the projections for next year demonstrate that unless they make some changes they will be running a deficit, which, unlike Hippo they are trying to avoid. Now either you misunderstood the article or you intentionally misrepresented it. So either you're understanding of Spanish is not that good, in which case you should probably not comment on articles and economic reports written in Spanish. The second possibility is that you understand Spanish but don't understand the situation as well as you think you do and therefore should probably not comment on any articles about economics in any language. The other possibility is that you have a hidden agenda are are intentionally misrepresenting what is being said, in which case post away because you will be found out.

mondongo said:
First of all, that is not a quote form Montas. That is a quote from the reporter. The only relevant quote from Montas gives the clear impression that the numbers are for calendar year 2005. The income fot the first half of the year, not including externally borrowed money is already DR$76Billion.

Did you not know that the original 2005 spending estimate was DR$207Billion? They are currently well under that for the first half (goog for them).

But that is besides the point. The numbers I posted are OF COURSE only the interest. Don't you know that every govt in this sphere REFINANCES all its debt when it comes due? Did I not state that clearly in my post? "Point 1" in my post tells you unequivocally that they borrowed money to pay the maturing debt. This does not appear on the INCOME/EXPENSES statements that they are talking about.

I get tired of explaining it to those who can't understand or just have a see-through agenda to try and mis-represent the data.

Criss Colon · Sep 26, 2005

The "World Bank",Just Forgave 18,poor,mostly African Countries

of all their debt! Why not the DR?????????????
Mondongo has educated,convinced,and converted me to understand what a "Self-serving" buch of over paid bureaucrats control the "WB","IMF",and the other int.NGO "Loansharks"!
We have discussed their "Modus-Operandi" here before.
Loan money to a "Poor" country to finance questionable projects.Re-negotiate the terms of the loan,make the load interest free,forgive the loan,loan more,and repeat!The reason "Paul Wolfowitz"(Yes former Bush Sec of Defense,"author" of the "Go In Too Light" policy in Iraq!)gave for forgiving the loans was that "many" were negociated under previous governments.Same reason I am going to use when I declair bankruptsy!!!
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Chirimoya · Sep 26, 2005

That's because the DR has not got the dubious honour of being a 'HIPC' (Highly-Indebted Poor Country).

Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia

The bolded countries on the list are the ones in this hemisphere which are due for debt relief.

Does anyone know how far off the DR is from HIPC designation? The odds are that some future government will 'succeed' in getting us there.

Escott · Sep 26, 2005

Chirimoya said:
That's because the DR has not got the dubious honour of being a 'HIPC' (Highly-Indebted Poor Country).

The bolded countries on the list are the ones in this hemisphere which are due for debt relief.

Does anyone know how far off the DR is from HIPC designation? The odds are that some future government will 'succeed' in getting us there.

Perhaps that is what Leonel is trying to get done with the metro and fantasy Island? Maybe he is smarter than we think

External Debt Payments

Bronze

New member

Gold

Bronze

New member

New member

Gold

New member

Gold

New member

Gold

New member

Gold

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

New member

Platinum

Well-known member

Gold