makecents

Sorry. Correct. I think I've been pretty clear about it. Why does it bother you so much?

If its value was "recognized" as you appear to agree, then it had to have a value. I have never said that the Saddam's CBI accepted that value after they declared it invalid, only that this declaration was not followed by the kurds who kept using it even at banks in the north, and its valued slightly improved over the 13 years while the Saddam dinar tanked. The existing value of the Swiss dinar in teh north was then accepted for purposes of the bremer exchange. There was no point at which you could buy up Swiss dinars for next to nothing, then sell them the next day have this claimed huge RV. Prior to the bremer exchange the price for a Swiss dinar (if available) was the same as it was priced during the bremer exchange.

I do so not to alter the context but to respond to each point the poster made. If you feel I have taken something out of context, please point it out. What has this got to do with this thread? You also already posted the same thing elsewhere, what is the point of that? It just make the conversation hard to follow if it is in multiple places. (I responded to your post in the other thread).

Since you posted my answer, I fail to see why you asked the question.

Because as a high risk emerging market the few bonds Iraq has issued pay higher interest. The fund has about $40M USD worth if you look at they annual report. Investing in government bonds is not remotely the same as investing in the counties currency. So the fund manages think Iraq will pay its debts and thus they'll get a good return. Seems straight forward.

Where have I said that? What I said was that according to the Saddam's CBI it had "no" value, not 0 nor .00000000000000000001 or anything. The CBI did not have it as zero on its books as it was no longer in the CB'is books. The CBI during this period (1990 to 2003) did not exchange at some tiny rate, they did not recognize the Swiss dinar at all (once the original exchange period was over and the CBI no longer recognized it). Yet it was in use as physical cash, and in banks and used in contracts all in the north. How could that be if its value was equal to 0 or your .0000....001 ? During the bremer exchange its value was recognized to match the value on the street. The value on the street of the Swiss dinar did not change during this process.

They were not REvalued at all. The CBI (or the CPA more accurately I think) just acknowledged their actual value in the market place. That is why no one made money off of them. They were exchanged for their current value, not "a gazzillion percent RV" as you have claimed.

Please point out where I have not done so. I DO respond to content and do not get into asserting motives for people. I'm not saying I'm perfect here, but I think the vast majority of my posts are on the dinar, Iraq, and whats possible and not about the person posting.

As I have pointed out in the thread you first posted this in, the copyright banner appears on every page on the MOP site and is not part of the document. Since the doc is talking about how it makes no sense to use Saddam's official but fictitious rate of $3.2 and proposes $1.134 instead, that puts it way in the past (1999 or 2000 or maybe even the mid 90s).

Perhaps you are not aware of the way web sites work. That copyright is NOT contained in the document but shows on every MOP page. Clearly as I pointed out, this doc is talking about the fact that it makes no sense to plan for the future based on Saddam's fictitious exchange rate of $3+. This puts it way in the past.

Have a great evening/weekend!

Ah, right you are. My mistake. But notice point 2 Since the exchange rate has not been $3.2 dollars per dinar since 2003/2004 (or even before that), this must be a very old document.

The Swiss dinar never stopped being used, despite Saddam's pronouncements (that is the similarity to his proclamation about the Saddam dinar relative to reality). That is clear from the Bremer exchange announcement. If they were revalued (as people use that term here) then the folks that held them would have made huge fortunes, but there is no evidence of that. You're not going to accept that, which is your choice of course. But I see no reason to keep going back and forth on it. So for planning purposes over the next 3 years the MOP is suggesting using a rate that is 3% higher than the current rate. Ok, that ( rising 1% per year) is certainly doable. Not sure what they base it on, but very slow increases like that are certainly possible.

True enough. But, I would not say that their culture is known for getting along with each other. So it seems reasonable that such an event with random winners, is not going to lead to more harmony. I am not nor have ever said that I was an expert. Their economy is growing, inflation is stable and not too high, oil production is increasing, relations with their neighbors are improving. That seems to fit "pretty well" wrt their economy to me. Not so to you? They of course have a big corruption problem, the government has a hard time agreeing to anything, and violence is still an issue, but those are not economic issues and I don't see a big RV helping with any of those problems.

Why not actually respond to the point rather than taking something out of context? Massive social unrest is not a good way to get a country "back on its feet". And how is Iraq not back on its feet now? The economy seems to be doing pretty well.