Ukraine Deigns To Allow Goldman Sachs To Advise Government

Author:
Publish date:
Updated on

On the condition GS works for free.

Goldman Sachs, which hasn’t arranged a debt or equity sale in Ukraine since at least 1999, will advise the government of the former Soviet republic free of charge.The bank, led by Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein, will advise the administration of Prime Minister Mykola Azarov on managing its investments, state debt and “other issues of financial-policy implementation,” the government said in a statement dated June 20 and published on its website today.

The selection follows Goldman’s third attempt in 17 years to crack the neighboring Russian market where it has been ramping up presence and wooing the Kremlin for roles in asset sales. The bank, once the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history, wasn’t involved in a single deal since 1999 as the Ukrainian government and companies raised $41.4 billion in stock and debt sales during the period, Bloomberg data show.

Goldman Agrees To Advise Ukraine For Free [Bloomberg]

Related

Goldman Sachs Can Fix This

A week ago today, a man named Greg Smith resigned from Goldman Sachs. As a sort of exit interview, Smith explained his reasons for departing the firm in a New York Times Op-Ed entitled "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs." The equity derivatives VP wrote that Goldman had "veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say I identify with what it stands for." Smith went on to note that whereas the Goldman of today is "just about making money," the Goldman he knew as a young pup "revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients." It was a culture that made him "love working for the firm" and its absence had stripped him of "pride and belief" he once held in the place. While claiming that Goldman Sachs has become virtually unrecognizable from the institution founded by Marcus (Goldman) and Samuel (Sachs), which put clients ahead of its own interests, is hardly a new argument, there was something about Smith's words that gave readers a moment's pause. He was so deeply distraught over the differences between the Goldman of 2012 and the Goldman of 2000 (when he was hired) that suggested...more. That he'd seen things. Things that had made an imprint on his soul. Things that he couldn't forget. Things that he held up in his heart for how Goldman should be and things that made it all the more difficult to ignore when it failed to live up to that ideal. Things like this: