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