December 13, 2017

DealBook: Trial of Former Goldman Trader Gets Under Way

Fabrice P. Tourre, the former Goldman Sachs trader, entered federal court in Lower Manhattan on Monday.Louis Lanzano/Associated PressFabrice P. Tourre, the former Goldman Sachs trader, entered federal court in Lower Manhattan on Monday.

2:04 p.m. | Updated
The seat for juror No. 6 proved especially nettlesome to fill on Monday in the civil trial of Fabrice Tourre, the former Goldman Sachs employee who has become a prominent face of the financial crisis.

Six people were rejected from the trial’s jury pool, including a professor and a mortgage underwriting.

Still, after less than two hours of questions, a nine-person jury had been seated for the civil trial Mr. Tourre. The five women and four men who will hear the three-week case represent a fairly diverse lot, having been through a brisk selection process overseen by the presiding judge, Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District Court in Manhattan. None of the jurors said yes when asked if he or she had heard of the ‘Fabulous Fab’ — the nickname Mr. Tourre is widely known by.

The Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 sued Mr. Tourre, arguing he was part of a conspiracy in 2007 to mislead investors when selling a mortgage security that ultimately failed. Mr. Tourre maintains he did nothing wrong.

Related Links



One prospective juror, who was selected, drew snickers from the audience when her profession was announced. She is a reverend, conjuring up memories a now infamous comment by Goldman’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, who joked during the financial crisis that he was merely doing “God’s work.” The comment drew sharp criticism at the time.

Several jury candidates professed ties to Wall Street or finance, or said they had read articles about the case. One woman worked as a mortgage underwriter who had ties to JPMorgan Chase. Another was a day trader who had owned Goldman stock at one point. A number of prospective jurors were dismissed because of their views on Wall Street.

“I have a fairly jaundice view of Wall Street,” announced one juror before he was dismissed.

The jury that was selected includes the reverend, a former retail stockbroker and a retiree. The two teams of lawyers needed only two rounds of cuts before arriving at the present jury.

Judge Forrest promised the jury that she would run the trial as efficiently as possible, telling them that while the trial is scheduled for three weeks, she will try and beat that timetable.

“I am known as a judge who moves things along,” she said. She later added, “I am a shark on time.”

Meanwhile, a small armada of TV trucks was lined up outside the courthouse in Lower Manhattan — but it wasn’t clear that they were all present for Mr. Tourre’s trial. There are five trials starting in the same court house on Monday. (Representative Charles B. Rangel was seen by the courthouse

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/trial-of-former-goldman-trader-gets-under-way/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Executive Covets Goldman Seat Where a Friend Snugly Sits

Lloyd Blankfein, left, chief of Goldman Sachs, and Gary Cohn, the bank's president, in 2010.Justin Lane/European Pressphoto AgencyLloyd C. Blankfein, left, chief of Goldman Sachs, and Gary D. Cohn, the bank’s president, in 2010.

Inside Goldman Sachs, Gary D. Cohn is the man who is waiting — and waiting — to be king.

He has long been considered the heir apparent of Lloyd C. Blankfein, who has been the chairman and chief executive of the elite Wall Street firm since 2006. But Mr. Blankfein has shown few signs that he is ready to step aside, Goldman insiders say.

After steering the firm through the financial crisis and surviving a firestorm over allegations that Goldman had bet against its own clients, Mr. Blankfein, 58, now appears to be enjoying himself. He has become an elder statesman of finance. But unlike past Goldman chieftains, he is not widely talked about as a candidate for a high-level job in Washington.

So Mr. Blankfein has regrown a beard and come to embrace the limelight, giving speeches on gay marriage and education, and attending celebrity Oscar parties. He often jokes that he plans to die at his desk.

It is no laughing matter for Mr. Cohn, who as Goldman’s 52-year-old president is the Prince Charles of Wall Street, a man for whom the crown seems just beyond his grasp. Mr. Cohn is growing increasingly restless, according to friends and colleagues. Some inside Goldman wonder if he will depart if Mr. Blankfein doesn’t move soon. That would throw a monkey wrench into Goldman’s succession plans, leaving the firm without a natural candidate ready to replace Mr. Blankfein.

It is perhaps no accident that whispers of Mr. Cohn’s restlessness are now being heard outside the firm’s gleaming Battery Park tower. A lot is riding on the studied dance of money, power and persuasion that Mr. Blankfein and Mr. Cohn are engaged in.

“You can’t understate the importance of the person who runs Goldman,” said Michael J. Driscoll, a former senior trader at Bear Stearns who now teaches at Adelphi University. “The head of Goldman is the de facto head of Wall Street.”

The dance between the two executives is made more intriguing by the lack of visible tension between them. By their own accounts, the two men are friends. For years, their families vacationed together, and Mr. Cohn recently attended the wedding of Mr. Blankfein’s eldest son.

But this is Goldman Sachs, a firm known for a focused ruthlessness in every trade and every deal, a place where ambition can be as outsize as the compensation. It is a firm that is no stranger to Machiavellian power plays: Mr. Blankfein’s predecessor, Henry M. Paulson Jr., who was later Treasury secretary, became chief executive in what was effectively a coup against his counterpart, Jon S. Corzine, who later entered New Jersey politics.

While Mr. Cohn is still the front-runner to succeed Mr. Blankfein, time is not his friend. The firm will continue to groom other contenders, increasing the chances that the leadership baton could be passed to one of them and not to Mr. Cohn.

The leading candidates to take over from Mr. Blankfein should Mr. Cohn leave or be passed over are Harvey M. Schwartz, Goldman’s chief financial officer, and its investment banking co-chief, David M. Solomon, according to people briefed on the firm’s succession plans. But neither man is currently being groomed for the top job.

A spokesman for the firm said: “We are pleased to have a very strong and stable leadership team with decades of experience at the firm. Eighteen of the 30 members of our management committee have been at Goldman Sachs for at least 20 years.”

Regardless of the outcome, the power dynamic at the top of Goldman, the world’s most profitable investment bank, is intensely watched within the firm because it can make or break the careers of a number of professionals.

The rumblings emerging from Goldman’s headquarters come during a long period of stability at the top. At the same time, some of its rivals have experienced upheaval. Over the last 12 months, a number of senior managers have left JPMorgan Chase, while Citigroup ousted its chief executive.

At Goldman, no such exodus is envisioned, but there is the challenge of keeping restless senior executives happy.

It is a particularly nettlesome problem for someone like Mr. Cohn, who has publicly said that he wants Mr. Blankfein’s job. Mr. Cohn is responsible for the firm’s day-to-day operations and is, by many accounts, very engaged despite his impatience. Mr. Cohn also helped navigate Goldman through the financial crisis. For those efforts, he has earned nearly $128 million since 2007, according to Equilar, a compensation data firm.

Still, it is almost certain that Mr. Cohn, who got his start as a metals trader, could make more money working at a hedge fund. Such a move, while tempting, would almost certainly come with less power than the job he wants at Goldman. As a result, some people inside Goldman feel that Mr. Cohn is not serious about leaving anytime soon.

For his part, Mr. Blankfein appears to have no great incentive to leave. A number of former top Goldman executives, including Mr. Paulson, Mr. Corzine and Robert E. Rubin, fashioned second careers out of government service. Yet Mr. Blankfein himself has acknowledged that a government post is an unlikely option, given the beating that he and other Wall Street bankers took during and after the financial crisis.

It wasn’t long ago that most of Wall Street wouldn’t have given Mr. Blankfein strong odds of survival. On his watch, Goldman was accused of defrauding investors and paid $550 million to settle the allegations. Mr. Cohn, a native of Shaker Heights, Ohio, is cut broadly from the same cloth as Mr. Blankfein. Should he get the top job, it would break an unstated tradition at the firm of passing the top job from a trader to a banker, as both men hail from the trading side of the business. Under their leadership, the business has tilted from advising and underwriting for corporate clients to emphasizing trading.

Mr. Cohn got his start at New York’s commodities exchange in 1983. He became known as “gum guy” because his job included holding the chewing gum needed to wet the throats of screaming traders. Soon, he began trading silver with his own capital, a job he had until Goldman came calling in 1990.

He took a pay cut for the opportunity to trade metals at Goldman, and struck up a close friendship with Mr. Blankfein. Over the years Mr. Cohn followed Mr. Blankfein up the corporate ladder, becoming co-president and co-chief operating officer when Mr. Blankfein became chief.

The men are both part of the Manhattan elite. Mr. Blankfein lives on Central Park West, while Mr. Cohn and his wife, an artist, live on the Upper East Side. Mr. Cohn, who has three daughters, also owns a house in the Hamptons not far from Mr. Blankfein’s home.

“All his frustrations aside, Gary has joked to me that he can see why Lloyd doesn’t leave,” said a friend who asked not to be named. “The two men really do both love what they do.”

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/executive-covets-goldman-seat-where-a-friend-snugly-sits/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Amid Protests, Blankfein Cancels College Talk

Lloyd C. Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs.Chris Kleponis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLloyd C. Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs.

The students of Barnard College were expecting to hear from Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, as part of a lecture series titled “Power Talks.”

But over the weekend, Mr. Blankfein informed the college that he was canceling his appearance, originally planned for Thursday night, because of a scheduling conflict.

“Mr. Blankfein has informed us that he must be in Washington D.C. that evening and will be unable to deliver his lecture as planned,” read a statement on the college’s Web site.

A planned visit by one of the most recognizable chief executives on Wall Street had stirred anger at Barnard, a liberal arts college whose president, Debora L. Spar, was elected to Goldman’s board this summer. The timing of Mr. Blankfein’s lecture, which coincided with the continued encampment of the Occupy Wall Street movement in lower Manhattan, certainly didn’t help matters.

Barnard students were planning a week of workshops to coincide with Mr. Blankfein’s talk. According to The Columbia Spectator, students called the series “School the Squid,” a reference to Matt Taibbi’s “vampire squid” characterization of Goldman Sachs in his now-infamous Rolling Stone take-down.

“CU Activists were planning a teach-in outside the Barnard gates to explain why he is not a responsible citizen nor a role model,” Yoni Golijov, a Columbia student, told The Spectator. Two other groups were reportedly planning simultaneous protests.

Several Twitter users had also picked up on Mr. Blankfein’s planned appearance in connection with Occupy Wall Street. “Who wants to give Goldman Sachs’s CEO a few problems on October 12?” wrote user @Austingst.

Had Mr. Blankfein spoken at Barnard, he would not have been the first financial executive to face backlash at a public appearance. In 2008, union activists interrupted a speech by David M. Rubenstein, the co-founder of the Carlyle Group, during a private equity conference at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

The students of Barnard may never know if threats of undergraduate unrest were to blame for Mr. Blankfein’s cancellation. A Goldman spokesman said that Mr. Blankfein had “cancelled because of a scheduling conflict.” And Kathryn Kolbert, the director of the Athena Center, said that while organizers were working with Mr. Blankfein to reschedule the event, any new date would “probably not be this fall.”

Barnard is refunding ticket-holders for Thursday’s event.

Whatever the cause of Mr. Blankfein’s no-show, the college may want to consider re-titling its lecture series “Power Talks, Except When It Doesn’t.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e5f217fab4eb68319f0ee07d6a75d373

DealBook: Goldman’s Shares Tumble as Blankfein Hires Top Lawyer

Goldman Sachs hired Reid Weingarten, a prominent criminal defense lawyer, as it expects its executives, including Lloyd C. Blankfein, below, the firm's chief, to be interviewed by the Justice Department.Michael Stravato for The New York TimesGoldman Sachs hired Reid Weingarten, a prominent criminal defense lawyer, as it expects its executives, including Lloyd C. Blankfein, below, to be interviewed by the Justice Department.Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News

8:57 p.m. | Updated

Goldman Sachs’s actions during the financial crisis returned to haunt it with a fury on Monday afternoon.

In late trading, shares of Goldman tumbled nearly 5 percent, knocking $2.7 billion off the firm’s market value, after a report that the firm’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, had hired a prominent criminal defense lawyer, Reid H. Weingarten.

Goldman, when confirming the hiring, portrayed it as routine, given the several government investigations faced by the firm. But the sharp reaction in the stock price showed the fragile nerves of investors, who are worried that potential legal liability could damage the firm and its earnings power.

A spokesman for Goldman said executives at the firm were expected to be interviewed by the Justice Department. The agency is conducting an inquiry that stems from a 650-page report produced earlier this year by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. That report said that Goldman had misled clients about its practices related to mortgage-linked securities.

“As is common in such situations, Mr. Blankfein and other individuals who were expected to be interviewed in connection with the Justice Department’s inquiry into certain matters raised in the P.S.I. report hired counsel at the outset,” Goldman Sachs said in a statement.

While investors apparently feared the worst on Monday, a person close to the matter said that Mr. Blankfein had not been subpoenaed and that no Goldman executive had received an individual subpoena. Goldman is cooperating with the Justice Department investigation.

Still, Monday’s stock fall underscored just how vulnerable Goldman’s stock would continue to be until the Justice Department and other authorities finished their investigations.

“Until Goldman resolves its legal issues, the company and the stock are vulnerable to all sorts of perceptions, real or perceived,” said Michael Mayo, an analyst with Crédit Agricole Securities.

With about 20 minutes left in the trading day, Reuters, citing an unidentified government source, reported that Mr. Blankfein had hired Mr. Weingarten. Mr. Weingarten has defended Bernard J. Ebbers, the former chief executive of WorldCom, and Mike Espy, a former agriculture secretary. Goldman’s stock price quickly tumbled, falling to its lowest level since March 2009. Its shares closed at $106.51.

The stock move also reflected the support Goldman shareholders had for Mr. Blankfein despite the problems the firm’s problems under his stewardship. At Goldman’s stakeholder meeting in May, shareholders voted 97 percent in favor of his leadership. Any suggestion that Mr. Blankfein’s legal woes were mounting, or that he might leave the firm, would be seen as a negative for the stock.

Goldman investors have been on a roller-coaster ride since April 2010, when the Securities and Exchange Commission accused Goldman of duping clients by selling mortgage securities that were secretly created by a hedge fund firm to cash in on the housing market’s collapse.

Since then, it has been dogged by investigations and speculation about investigations, all of which have taken its toll on stock. Goldman shares were trading near $180 a share before the S.E.C. filed its lawsuit. Goldman settled that suit a few months later, but its troubles were far from over.

This year came the Senate report, which led to a Justice Department inquiry. And in June, Goldman received a subpoena from the office of the Manhattan district attorney, which is also investigating Goldman’s role in the financial crisis.

Mr. Blankfein’s decision to hire his own lawyer is not unusual. Legal experts say that it is now common for a company’s chief executive to retain separate counsel from the corporation. It has become rare for a lawyer or law firm to represent both a company and its executives in a government investigation.

Mr. Weingarten, 61, is considered a skilled trial lawyer, having won acquittals for Mr. Espy, the former agriculture secretary, and Mark A. Belnick, the former general counsel at Tyco. He has also suffered his share of courtroom defeats. Mr. Ebbers, the head of WorldCom, was found guilty and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

On Monday, Mr. Weingarten was in the Federal District Court in Manhattan with his client Anthony Cuti, the former chief executive of Duane Reade, the drugstore chain. A judge sentenced Mr. Cuti to three years in prison for a scheme to falsely inflate the income and reduce the expense that the company reported. A jury convicted Mr. Cuti in June 2010.

Mr. Weingarten did not respond to request for comment on Monday. A spokeswoman for his law firm, Steptoe Johnson, declined to comment.

Steptoe is not the firm most closely associated with Goldman. The bank’s primary outside law firm is Sullivan Cromwell, a prominent and old-line New York law firm. Sullivan represented the firm in its $550 million settlement with the S.E.C. Also, when Mr. Blankfein testified as a witness earlier this year in the insider trading trial of Raj Rajaratnam, the former hedge fund manager, lawyers from Sullivan coached him on his testimony and accompanied him to court.

A native of Newark, Mr. Weingarten is a graduate of Cornell and the Dickinson School of Law at Penn State. Before becoming a criminal defense lawyer, he spent several years as a deputy district attorney in Pennsylvania and then joined the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section.

While at the Justice Department, he spent years bringing cases against corrupt politicians and worked with another young prosecutor, Eric H. Holder. Mr. Holder, now the attorney general of the United States, remains one of Mr. Weingarten’s closest friends.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=3cf43fd84639d52dc3afb671fa406ba9

DealBook: The Fine Print of Goldman’s Subprime Bet

Lloyd C. Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, has said that the firm did not have a “massive short” on housing.Chris Kleponis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLloyd C. Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, has said that the firm did not have a “massive short” on housing.

The vampire squid haters won’t like this column.

For the past several weeks, I have been trying to understand if Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman Sachs’s chief executive, could have perjured himself — as Senator Carl Levin has suggested — when he testified last year in front of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and declared, “We didn’t have a massive short against the housing market.”

Based on the subcommittee’s report, which was referred to the Justice Department, I wrote a column raising questions about Mr. Blankfein’s comments. At the time, his testimony seemed ridiculous in the face of evidence that Mr. Levin presented, which showed that the firm had regularly made large bets against the subprime market.

But upon further reporting — talking with executives at Goldman, who pointed me to other documents, and with officials in Washington, and then poring through the report, following the footnotes to the original sources and then cross-referencing them against other public records — I have come to a different and perhaps unsatisfying conclusion for those readers looking for a big scalp: Mr. Blankfein wasn’t lying.

That’s not to suggest Goldman always behaved well. There are other assertions in the subcommittee’s report that detail some pretty egregious activity by certain executives.

DealBook Column
View all posts


But after comparing the report with publicly available filings and documents, there are enough questions about the accuracy of certain parts of the Senate report to raise some red flags.

Take this example: The report unequivocally states that in 2007, Goldman “reported net revenues of $11.6 billion, of which $3.7 billion was generated by the structured products group in the mortgage department, primarily as a result of its subprime investment activities.”

The sentence was meant to show that Goldman’s shorting of the housing market had provided a large percentage of the firm’s revenue that year. The sentence in the report even included a handy citation for the information.

But in 2007, Goldman Sachs reported net revenue of $45.98 billion, not $11.6 billion. That’s a big difference.

When I spoke to Robert L. Roach, a counsel and chief investigator for the Senate subcommittee who helped draft the report, he said, “We made a mistake.” He said it was a “typo” and insisted that “we weren’t trying to cook anything.”

The figure was Goldman’s net earnings, not its net revenue. He pointed out that later in the report — 93 pages later in a different context — the report accurately described Goldman’s net revenue as $45.98 billion.

Mr. Roach protested that Goldman had never brought the mistake to his attention in the two months since the report was published. There has clearly been much antagonism between Goldman and the various bodies investigating the firm, even as Goldman says it is cooperating. Staff members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission complained when Goldman dumped hundreds of thousands of documents on it; Goldman said privately that the commission was engaging in political theater.

Yet there are other sections in the Senate report that appear to go beyond sloppiness. The report says that Goldman’s structured products group made $3.7 billion, mostly by going short in 2007. That is correct. But the report omitted the total net revenue for the mortgage department, which included structured products.

According to a document Goldman Sachs provided to the subcommittee and made public on its Web site a year ago, Goldman had “less than $500 million of net revenue from residential mortgage-related products — approximately 1 percent of the firm’s overall net revenues.”

In other words, while one part of the department had gone short, another part had gone long.

So when Mr. Blankfein contended that the firm was “not consistently or significantly net ‘short the market’ in residential mortgage-related products in 2007 and 2008” the numbers — if you believe them — are on his side.

Mr. Roach said he was unaware of where the figure of less than $500 million came from, although in the document that Goldman provided the subcommittee, a series of bar charts broke down its exposure for every quarter of 2007 and 2008. Mr. Roach pointed to a different document that showed the firm had made $1.13 billion.

This isn’t meant to say that part of the firm didn’t go short — it did and the firm has repeatedly said so. But the suggestion that the short was a huge directional bet by the firm to profit off a real estate collapse may not completely stand up.

One document the subcommittee cited as evidence that Goldman had been “massively short” was a presentation by Josh Birnbaum. Mr. Birnbaum, a Goldman trader who ran the structured products group, tried to persuade his bosses that he and his group were deserving of a bigger bonus because of their successful short positions. To make his point, Mr. Birnbaum said that “the shorts were not a hedge,” a quote that Mr. Levin’s report brandished as proof that Goldman was lying about its short position.

But it’s hard to give much weight to the quote. Left out of the subcommittee’s report was the answer Mr. Birnbaum gave under oath during his testimony. When asked whether the shorts had been hedged, Mr. Birnbaum said, “I was not aware of what the firm as a whole was — what the firm’s position on mortgages was.”

After his testimony, when he realized that the government had him saying “the shorts were not a hedge” in a presentation, he doubled back. He tried to suggest in written testimony that he believed what he had originally written in his presentation but that his other testimony had also been accurate — a hard circle to square.

More important, if Goldman made only $500 million in net revenue from its residential mortgages when Mr. Birnbaum’s unit made $3.7 billion from shorts, it is clear that it also had huge long positions. Had it been “massively short,” the firm should have made much more than $500 million.

Mr. Levin’s office referred questions about the report to the permanent subcommittee.

The senator also made use of Goldman’s “top sheets” as evidence the firm was short the residential housing market. The report says that a top sheet from June 25, 2007, shows that the firm was short $13.9 billion. That would be quite a big short position.

But in studying the document, the subcommittee may have mixed apples and oranges. It added in $4.1 billion worth of short positions for commercial real estate to residential real estate. And the subcommittee ignored the footnote on the bottom of the document that the “top sheet” had not included long positions in other parts of the business that people close to the firm said were in excess of $5 billion.

Subtract those positions, and Goldman had a net short position of less than $5 billion in residential mortgages — not nearly triple that.

Goldman haters will think that this column is an apology or spin for the firm. That wasn’t the point. Of course, some of what Goldman and others did ahead of the financial crisis is deeply troubling — and possibly even illegal — and they should be punished if a crime was committed. But on this particular score — about Mr. Blankfein’s testimony — the evidence is far from convincing.

As even Mr. Roach acknowledged, “It’s about how you define ‘massive’ and ‘large’ — and I’m not trying to be cute.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ee165a67bd4208ebc4e210573d24fc43

DealBook: Goldman Names Co-Head of Investment Banking

Goldman Sachs has made another round of senior staffing changes in its investment banking division, according to internal memos obtained by DealBook.

Richard Gnodde has been named co-head of investment banking. He will remain co-chief executive of Goldman Sachs International.

Mr. Gnodde will run investment banking with John S. Weinberg and David Solomon, the current co-heads. In addition, Gordon E. Dyal, global head of merger and acquisitions, will become co-chair of investment banking. Christopher Cole was the sole chair of that division.

Revolving Door
View all posts


London-based Yoel Zaoui, a top investment banker and head of the investment banking in Europe, becomes co-head of global merger and acquisitions. The other co-head is Gene Sykes.

Investment banking is a major profit engine at Goldman, producing $1.27 billion or 10 percent of Goldman’s net revenue in the first quarter. Monday’s staffing changes are aimed at putting more senior bankers in front of clients. Some of the people involved will see their managerial responsibilities reduced, according to a person familiar with the matter but who was not authorized to speak on the record.

“These important changes reflect the continued importance and growth of the firm’s global client franchise,” Lloyd C. Blankfein, the firm’s chief executive, and Gary D. Cohen, the firm’s president, said in a memo.

These aren’t the only changes Goldman has made to its banking franchise this year. The other changes involved the United States division. Today’s changes are focused on Goldman’s global operations.

In March, the firm announced that Michael Carr and Dusty Philip would be the new co-heads of mergers and acquisitions for the Americas.

The memo from Mr. Blankfein and Mr. Cohn:

We are pleased to announce two important changes in the Investment Banking Division. Richard J. Gnodde will join John S. Weinberg and David M. Solomon as co-head of Investment Banking. He remains co-chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs International. Gordon E. Dyal will join Christopher A. Cole as co-chairman of Investment Banking.

Richard is a member of the Management Committee, the Client and Business Standards Committee, the Public Policy Committee and the Steering Committee on Regulatory Reform. He served on the firm’s Partnership Committee from 1999 to 2004. Richard joined Goldman Sachs in London in 1987 in mergers and acquisitions. In 1997 he was appointed co-head of the firm’s Investment Banking Division in Japan and in 1999 became president of Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte. and co-head of Investment Banking in Asia. In that same year he moved to Hong Kong to become president of Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC. In 2005, Richard returned to London as vice chairman and assumed his current role in 2006. He was named managing director in 1996 and partner in 1998.

Gordon is a member of the Management Committee. He joined Goldman Sachs as a partner in 1998. From 1999 to 2001, Gordon was the co-head of European Mergers Acquisitions. In 2001, he was named co-head of Investment Banking in Europe and became global head of MA in 2004.

These important changes reflect the continued importance and growth of the firm’s global client franchise and the contributions that both Richard and Gordon have made to the firm and the Investment Banking Division.

Please join us in wishing Richard and Gordon continued success in their new roles.

The memo from Mr. Gnodde, Mr. Solomon and Mr. Weinberg:

We are pleased to announce that Yoël Zaoui and Gene T. Sykes will serve as global co-heads of Mergers Acquisitions. Together with Timothy J. Ingrassia and Jack Levy, who serve as co-chairmen of MA, as well as other senior merger leadership, Yoël and Gene will lead this important client franchise business.

Yoël is a member of the Management Committee, European Management Committee and Investment Banking Operating Committee, and is co-chair of the Senior Diversity Council. Yoël joined Goldman Sachs in 1988 in Mergers Acquisitions in New York and moved to London in 1989. He was appointed co-head of European Mergers Acquisitions in 1999 and became head of European Investment Banking in 2004. Yoël was named managing director in 1997 and partner in 1998.

Gene was co-chairman of Global Mergers Acquisitions and is chairman of Global Technology, Media and Telecommunications Investment Banking. He is a member of the Client and Business Standards Committee. Gene joined the Mergers Acquisitions Department in New York in 1984 and moved to Los Angeles in 1987. He became a partner in 1992.

Together, Yoël and Gene bring international experience, strong sector knowledge and deep client relationships to the Mergers leadership team and position the firm to continue to provide seamless coverage to clients who increasingly operate as cross-border institutions, seeking advice and execution expertise in every region.

Please join us in wishing Yoël and Gene continued success in their roles.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e946709082801e2f530b807481013146