Although it is Wall Street’s biggest deal advisor, Goldman Sachs is not advising on the mammoth $28 billion takeover of Heinz. But the firm is involved in the widening investigation about suspicious options trades that came from a Goldman client account in Zurich just before the deal was announced.
Goldman isn’t accused of wrongdoing, but its communication strategy – if it has one – is doing nothing to help the firm’s battered reputation.
Today’s news reports that Goldman officials have told SEC investigators that the firm does not have ”direct access” to the identity of any account owner. According to the Wall Street Journal:
“Goldman informed me that it does not have direct access to information about the beneficial owner or owners behind any particular transaction or position” in the account, Megan M. Bergstrom, senior counsel for the SEC, said in a written statement filed in Manhattan federal court with the documents made public on Thursday.”
That sounds like a clever dodge on Goldman’s part. Sure, the beneficial owner might not be visible, but the firm ultimately has that information. And Swiss bank-secrecy laws are no longer the iron-clad barrier to getting cross-border cooperation on inquiries like this.
Goldman’s statement is an example of how giving a technically correct statement can leave the wrong impression. In this case, it suggests Goldman is being uncooperative or is hiding something nefarious. It also looks like the lawyers were left to craft a response to the SEC without much input from the communications pros.
Today, everyone assumes the worst whenever there is a regulatory investigation involving a financial firm. The only way to combat that is to communicate quickly and effectively – and without evasive language. Over to you, Jake Siewert.