Goldman Sachs and Venezuela: A Representation of an Innate Philosophy


Today’s very short post looks at the news that Goldman Sachs, having recently bought $2.8 billion’s worth of bonds issued by the Venezuelan state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), is being heavily criticised for doing so by opposition leaders in the country. For this short post, the actual details of this sale will be scrutinised because it reveals an understanding of the philosophy of big financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, as if that were needed at this point, which is important to consistently repeat – the acceptance of such a philosophy can never be allowed to become the ‘norm’.

The obvious criticism stemming from the opposition in the economically-ravaged country that is swaying from one crisis to the next, is that the bond sale represents the Bank as ‘aiding and abetting the country’s dictatorial regime’ and that, ultimately, ‘Goldman Sachs decided to make a quick buck off the suffering of the Venezuelan people’. Now, before we continue, it is important to get one thing straight – it is systemically important that financial institutions like Goldman contribute to the flow of credit in the global capital marketplace, and in that sense there should not be any criticism. So, on what grounds are the Venezuelan opposition basing their criticisms? The actual details reveal the source of the criticism when we see that the Bank only purchased $2.8 billion’s worth of bonds – they actually paid just $865 million for the bonds, or 31 cents on the dollar. The ‘fire-sale’ nature of the bond sale signifies the ‘blood in the water’ that is required for the feeding frenzy to begin, with the opposition suggesting that the cut-price sale demonstrates that Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro, ‘did not have the country’s best interests in mind when he agreed to the transaction’; if that is the case, then Maduro is in excellent company with Goldman Sachs.


Goldman Sachs do not owe any responsibilities to the Venezuelan people, unfortunately. Technically, the leading management at Goldman have acted in their best interests, and the interests of their shareholders, as every piece of Company Law legislation dictates that they must. However, the bank have made a ‘quick buck’ off of the Venezuelan people, and it will be fascinating to see the reaction of the bank if the oppositions pledge to not honour the bonds ever materialises – but, Goldman will profit from this transaction. Large financial institutions like Goldman operate on returns, and must consistently seek to provide returns for those depending on them by any means necessary – unfortunately, dispersed shareholders can accumulate to create an incredible effect upon the culture of an institution so that ethical manoeuvers, considered business practices, or even just a reduced rate of return are viewed with severe hostility. Investors and Shareholders must take a lot of the blame for this parasitic culture that is a blight upon modern society, because as Goldman have recently demonstrated, they will have no concerns with the effect of their actions as long as their targets are met. Those who force through their targets should watch the news of the deterioration of Venezuelan society and ask themselves ‘how much is that extra percentage point on the return on the Goldman shareholding really worth?’

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lloyds Bank and the PPI Scandal: The Premature ‘Out of the Woods’ Rhetoric

Image
Today’s very short post focuses upon the news that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has recently extended the deadline to claim compensation for mis-sold ‘Payment Protection Insurance’ (PPI). Whilst a lot of financial institutions will have to prepare to offset the extended deadline, it is Lloyds that has grabbed the business headlines by apportioning an extra £350 million to offset any further claims that may be made of it – however, this comes only a week or two after the Bank posted its best performance figures in over a decade, as was previously discussed in Financial Regulation Matters . This post will therefore argue that the rhetoric being advanced recently regarding Lloyds – rhetoric like Lloyds represents ‘ a modern day success story ’ is wide of the mark and creates a false sense of security that we simply cannot afford to believe in. The ‘ robust recovery ’ was heralded far and wide upon the publication of Lloyds Bank’s financial performance for the previous fi
Read more

The Analytical Credit Rating Agency: A New Entrant That Will Further Enhance Russia’s Isolation

Image
This short post is based upon a forthcoming article by this author that examines the viability of the latest entrant into the credit rating arena, the Analytical Credit Rating Agency (ACRA). The article, which is due to be published in the European Company Law Journal (and is available here in a pre-published version), looks at the chances of the ACRA succeeding when viewed within the parameters of perception , an aspect that underpins the credit rating sector. For this post, the focus will be upon introducing the ACRA, and then on examining the effect it may have upon the wider political issues affecting the Russian Federation. The Analytical Credit Rating Agency was established in November 2015 and comprises of 27 major Russian companies and financial institutions that serve as its shareholders. The agency, which became the first rating agency to receive accreditation from the Russian Central Bank under the new N 222-FZ Law which was designed to protect investors, has a re
Read more

The Case of Purdue Pharma, the Sackler Family, and the Opioid Crisis

Image
In the first of two short posts today, we will look at the case of the billionaire Sackler Family and their remarkable effect upon American society. The family, who own Purdue Pharma amongst a list of other ventures, have this week seen a massive legal action taken against them by the State of New York who argue that the company is ‘ responsible for the opioid epidemic ’ sweeping through the United States. The attorney-general for New York has called the lawsuit the ‘ nation’s most extensive ’ with respect to the pharmaceutical industry and comes right on the heels of a $270 million suit that was settled in the State of Oklahoma on exactly the same grounds. Whilst the company and the billionaire family who own it did not admit guilt (settling parties rarely do, hence why they settle outside of court) it has potentially opened the trapdoors for litigation. It comes as no surprise then that the company is reportedly considering bankruptcy proceedings in the face of such an onsl
Read more