New Jersey Governor Chris Christie shakes hands with Lloyd Blankfein lookalike outside Goldman Sachs on Wednesday

Editor’s note: Updated with reason for Christie’s visit.

These days it seems New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is everywhere, from TV talk shows and radio appearances to accompanying Prince Harry on a well-publicized tour of the devastated Jersey Shore. So maybe it’s not too surprising he was spotted outside of Goldman Sachs’s Lower Manhattan office Wednesday morning.

Christie, who filed papers last year to run for re-election in 2014, recently announced that he had gastric bypass surgery to deal with his weight problem and he was looking in good spirits on Wednesday. He had a thick security detail and shook hands with a guy who, from behind, looked like Lloyd Blankfein but turned out not to be. He buttoned his jacket and waved to onlookers on his way into 200 West Street.

Christie has a lot of connections to the Wall Street bank — starting with having beaten its former co-CEO Jon Corzine in the governor’s race in 2009 —but no clear reason to be visiting this week.

Goldman bankers helped Christie get into office that year by offering a cash-flow analysis of the state that formulated his view of the budget, according to a New York Times Magazine report in 2011. Christie’s hard-line on budgetary issues has been controversial  but has made him popular among fiscal hawks and some segment of the voting population.

Perhaps Christie’s closest link to is his brother, Todd, who ran the specialist stock trading firm Spear, Leeds & Kellogg. Goldman acquired the business in 2000, giving Todd a $60 million payout as CEO.

The merger worked out less well for Goldman, as stock trading has become less and less lucrative since that time, due to shrinking margins and high expenses, all mostly related to electronification. (When a reporter mentioned the deal to a senior Goldman executive last year, the exec joked that Goldman’s P&L on Spear, Leeds & Kellogg was nothing to write home about and was a lesson the bank is keeping in mind these days as it looks at the increasingly electronified bond and derivatives markets.)

New Jersey’s first lady, Mary Pat Christie, also worked as an investment banker at the bond trading firm Cantor Fitzgerald, but left after the Sept. 11, 2011 terrorist attacks. Yet Christie himself doesn’t have a lot of Wall Street on his resume – he was a lawyer and prosecutor for most of his career before becoming governor.

At Morgan Stanley’s annual meeting on Tuesday, Gorman
identified fixed-income, currency and commodities (FICC) trading
as the one place where he still has to prove himself to
investors, after shepherding his bank through a crisis of
confidence last year related to a ratings downgrade.

Since then, Morgan Stanley’s share price has nearly doubled
and its credit spreads have recovered to 2007 levels, Gorman
said. But while investors have confidence in his plans for the
increasingly profitable wealth management business, doubts
remain about bond trading, where Morgan Stanley lags rivals and
did not meet expectations last quarter.

“There will be a group out there that will always ask, why
aren’t you as big as the big banks? That’s always going to be a
question,” Gorman said after the shareholder meeting on Morgan
Stanley’s sprawling suburban campus in Purchase, N.Y.

He compared Morgan Stanley to a boutique retailer that isn’t
as big as a department store, but is still highly profitable:
“We’re a different kind of firm,” he said. “Not everybody’s
going to be the same.”

Yet Gorman is dogged by questions about his strategy because
Morgan Stanley is not a highly profitable boutique; its
return-on-equity last year was 5 percent, just half the level
analysts say is necessary to meet its cost of capital. Weak
performance in bond trading is holding back returns.

The business is in the middle of a turnaround plan that
includes unwinding ancient trades that tie up capital and
stepping back from risky areas of trading, like structured
products, in favor of standardized, higher volume areas like
interest rate derivatives, foreign exchange and credit.

Morgan Stanley suffered a setback last year when trading
clients fled out of concern about an impending downgrade.
Moody’s threatened to cut Morgan Stanley to just a couple of
steps above junk, but eventually decided on a Baa1 rating.

Since the downgrade in June, Morgan Stanley has been
building back business, but its performance has been choppy.
Some analysts have suggested it would be better off exiting the
business entirely, as UBS AG is doing.

Gorman defended his strategy on Tuesday, saying his plan to
reduce risky assets and bulk up so-called “flow trading” will
not only make the business more profitable, but free up capital
to return to shareholders through buybacks or dividends.

Morgan Stanley is slashing risk-weighted assets from the
$390 billion it had at September 30, 2011 to less than $200
billion by the end of 2016. With a 10 percent capital weighting,
that will free up $19 billion in capital, some of which Morgan
Stanley plans to return to shareholders, Gorman said.

“The problem is the risk-weighted assets and the long-tail
legacy assets that we’ve been working off, and then once you
take the capital out, the business is quite profitable,” Gorman
said. “It’s dead money; we’re not recreating that money – it’s
just dead. Some of it goes back to the mid-90s.”

Gorman also said management will probably lift profit margin
target for its wealth-management business, which has been
exceeding a “mid-teens” goal the past two quarters.

“We’ll wait til we get to the middle of the year and then
we’ll probably revise it up,” he said.

After Morgan Stanley announced plans buy Smith Barney in
2009, Gorman told shareholders the business could reach a pretax
margin of 20 percent. He cut the target in 2011, as merger
expenses, weak client activity and low rates weighed on profits.

Shareholders should also vote against director James Johnson, Glass Lewis said, because of his position as chair of the compensation committee and prior roles at public companies that suffered financial issues and scandals.

In its criticism of Goldman’s pay packages, Glass Lewis said the company sets short-term compensation on a “purely discretionary basis” that is not in shareholders’ best interest. The Federal Reserve has been pushing Wall Street banks to use more formulaic metrics in determining executive compensation, Reuters reported in March.

“We believe shareholders benefit when incentive awards are determined on the basis of metrics with pre-established goals and are thus demonstrably linked to the performance of the company, aligning the interests of management with those of shareholders,” Glass Lewis said. “In this case, shareholders should be seriously concerned with the Company’s failure to implement a formula-based short-term incentive plan with objective metrics and goals.”

“The CEO (Goldman Chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein) was paid moderately more than the median CEO compensation of these peer companies. Overall, the Company paid more than its peers, but performed moderately worse than its peers,” the advisory firm said.

Glass Lewis advises institutional investors how to cast votes during proxy season. Its report comes about a week before JPMorgan Chase & Co’s (JPM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) closely watched and contentious shareholder vote on whether to split Jamie Dimon’s roles of chairman and CEO. Goldman negotiated a deal with an activist union group to avoid having a similar proposal on its proxy.

Glass Lewis’s analysis of Goldman’s compensation noted a recent increase in director compensation, and what it characterized as a lack of disclosure about Goldman-managed funds that executives invest in alongside clients.

A group of senior Goldman executives received $128 million in distributions from those funds last year, up from $97 million in 2011, according to Goldman’s proxy. In some cases their compensation for performance was much less than those distributions. For instance, Blankfein was awarded $21 million for his work in 2012, compared with $31.2 million he received from the internal funds.

Goldman employees can usually invest in the funds – which range from private-equity investments to real estate – once they are named partners of the firm. Glass Lewis said Goldman should better identify the funds that insiders have significant interests in, so that shareholders can judge whether those interests conflict with overall performance of the company.

In regards to Johnson, Glass Lewis cited several incidents that brought into question his corporate governance credentials, and his leadership of the compensation committee.

Johnson had been CEO and chairman of Fannie Mae in the 1990s, when the company failed to recognize $200 million in expenses. That boosted Fannie’s profits in a way that allowed executives to meet targets for maximum bonus payouts, including $1.9 million that Johnson received, Glass Lewis said.

Johnson also participated in Countrywide Financial’s “VIP” mortgage program that gave favorable loan terms to Washington insiders, and was a director of two companies whose CEOs illegally backdated stock options, Glass Lewis said.

“We believe shareholders would be better served by a director above reproach who will not subject the company to further criticism,” Glass Lewis concluded.

A Goldman Sachs spokesman declined to comment.

Johnson could not be reached for comment.

(Reporting by Lauren Tara LaCapra; Editing by Gary Hill and Phil Berlowitz)

The financial data and news company, whose computer
terminals are widely used on Wall Street, had allowed
journalists to see some information about terminal usage,
including when customers had last logged in, and how often they
used messaging or looked up data on broad categories, such as
equities or bonds.

Bloomberg CEO Daniel Doctoroff said in a statement on Friday
that the firm restricted reporters’ access last month after a
client complained.

The client, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, flagged the
matter to Bloomberg after a news service reporter in Hong Kong
asked the bank about a partner’s employment status, noting the
person had not logged on in some time. Goldman found that
journalists had access to far more information than the bank had
known, and argued the information was sensitive and should not
be seen by reporters.

“Having recognized this mistake, we took immediate action,”
Doctoroff said in the statement posted on Bloomberg’s blog. He
said the company had created a position of client data
compliance officer to ensure its news operations never have
access to confidential customer data. He added that even under
the previous policy, Bloomberg reporters could not see which
particular news stories clients read, or the specific securities
they viewed. Bloomberg has about 2,400 journalists worldwide.

While some said the concerns were overstated, the news
triggered fears about privacy of sensitive data at Wall Street
firms such as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co as
well as at the Fed and some U.S. government departments that use
Bloomberg terminals.

A Fed spokeswoman said on Saturday that “we are looking into
this situation and have been in touch with Bloomberg to learn
more.” A source briefed on the situation said the Treasury
Department was looking into the question as well.

Senior Goldman executives argued that while the information
Bloomberg reporters had was limited, a trader could easily make
money just by knowing what type of securities some high-profile
users were looking at, or what questions a government official
raised with Bloomberg’s help desk, people with direct knowledge
of their views said.

They also began to worry about who else had access to such
information. The issue made people inside the bank uncomfortable
even with Bloomberg’s marketing and sales team’s access to
information, they said.

For instance, if a trader pulls up quotes for a certain type
of security several times, sometimes a message pops up from
Bloomberg customer support staff offering other products and
functions that might be useful. While this was once seen as a
common practice, it has started to make traders uncomfortable
about who has access to their personal information, the sources
said.

Bloomberg pointed to Doctoroff’s statement on Friday and
declined to comment further.

Privately held Bloomberg gets the bulk of its revenue from
terminal sales to financial institutions. The company has more
than 315,000 terminal subscribers globally, with each Bloomberg
terminal costing more than $20,000 a year. Last year, it posted
revenue of $7.9 billion.

A person briefed on the situation at Bloomberg said on
Friday that no Bloomberg clients had so far canceled their
subscriptions because of the issue.

John Brynjolfsson, chief investment officer of hedge fund
Armored Wolf, said the concerns were overblown.

“Everyone, with a single brain cell, personally assesses the
tension between their privacy and their productivity,”
Brynjolfsson said. “Some I know keep their Bloomberg – and life
more generally – locked down, so people can’t even find their
name to message them. They give their ID to those they want.”

Thomson Reuters , the parent of Reuters
News, competes with Bloomberg. In a statement, Thomson Reuters
said its news division operates “completely independently with
reporters having no access to non-public data on its customers,
especially any data relating to its customers’ use of its
products or services.

“Thomson Reuters collects and analyses customer data to
improve product functionality and customer experience. No
Reuters news staff have access to any of this data. There are
strict controls in place that limit the access of this
information amongst other Thomson Reuters staff,” the company
said.

DEEPLY TROUBLED

At Goldman Sachs and other big clients including JPMorgan,
the level of information Bloomberg reporters had access to
deeply troubled executives, who were stunned to learn that what
they considered sensitive financial information could become
public, sources with direct knowledge of discussions inside the
firms said.

After the Bloomberg reporter in Hong Kong approached the
bank in April, Goldman representatives took up the issue with
Bloomberg editors and executives of the company, including
Doctoroff. Goldman staff also called former Bloomberg
journalists to find out whether the practice of using clients’
login information was common, and to find out precisely what
journalists could see, these sources said.

At JPMorgan, the bank’s public relations staffers also fumed
to one another last year that reporters called repeatedly to
inquire whether Bruno Iskil, the “London Whale” trader who was
part of a team that lost more than $6 billion in losses, had
left the bank because he had not logged onto his terminal in
several days, a source with direct knowledge of these
discussions said.

JPMorgan did not formally bring the matter to Bloomberg’s
attention, the source said. Bloomberg said it had no record of a
complaint.

Bloomberg’s terminal has various command codes that with the
click of a few buttons allow users to look up news about
specific companies or topics, and data on specific securities or
broader markets. Subscribers can also see information on fellow
Bloomberg users, such as phone numbers, work titles, email and
Bloomberg messaging addresses. Inside Bloomberg, some employees
have access to much more detailed and current user data, for
sales and marketing purposes.

Journalists had access to some of that information, but not
all of it.

The financial information and news company sought to assure
its customers that Bloomberg News journalists will no longer
have any information about what users of its terminals are
accessing.

Bloomberg, whose financial data terminals are widely used on
Wall Street, had allowed journalists to see some information,
including when customers had last logged in, and how often they
used messaging or looked up data on broad categories – such as
equities or bonds.

Doctoroff said in a statement on Friday that reporters,
however, could not see which particular news stories clients
read, or the specific securities they viewed.

Goldman Sachs flagged the matter to Bloomberg in April after
a Bloomberg reporter in Hong Kong asked Goldman about a
partner’s employment status, noting that the person had not
logged on in some time. Goldman argued that the information was
sensitive and should not be seen by journalists.

“Having recognized this mistake, we took immediate action,”
Doctoroff said in the statement posted on Bloomberg’s blog.
“Last month we changed our policy so that all reporters only
have access to the same customer relationship data available to
our clients.”

The questions about Bloomberg reporters’ access have moved
beyond Wall Street banks. The New York Times, citing people
briefed on the matter, reported that banking regulators at the
U.S. Federal Reserve are examining whether their own employees
were subject to tracking by Bloomberg reporters. A Fed
spokeswoman declined to comment.

Doctoroff said Bloomberg also created a new position of
client data compliance officer to continue to ensure that its
news operations never have access to confidential customer data.

No clients had canceled their subscriptions because of the
issue, a person briefed on the situation said on Friday.

Privately held Bloomberg has about 2,400 journalists
worldwide. The company gets the bulk of its revenue from
terminal sales to financial institutions. It has more than
315,000 terminal subscribers globally. Last year it posted
revenue of $7.9 billion.

Thomson Reuters’ , the parent of Reuters
News, competes with Bloomberg.

In a statement, Thomson Reuters said the news division
operates “completely independently with reporters having no
access to non-public data on its customers, especially any data
relating to its customers use of its products or services.

“Thomson Reuters collects and analyses customer data to
improve product functionality and customer experience. There
are strict controls in place that prevent access of this data in
any form by Reuters or other staff without permitted use,” the
company said.

The Wall Street bank has reduced future commitments to hedge
funds and funds that invest in private equity, credit and real
estate, by $5.8 billion since June 2010, the last period before
the Volcker rule was included in the Dodd-Frank financial reform
act. That represents a reduction of 48 percent, according to
data in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Volcker rule – which has not yet been finalized or
implemented – will prevent banks from investing more than 3
percent of Tier 1 capital in hedge funds or private equity
funds, or from contributing more than 3 percent of capital from
those funds.

Goldman’s existing hedge fund and private-equity fund
holdings represented 14 percent of its Tier 1 capital as of
March 31, according to its most recent filing on Thursday.
Including future private-equity fund commitments, that ratio
goes up to 17 percent.

It is not clear how the Volcker rule will treat credit funds
or real-estate funds, or how much time banks will get to come
into compliance with the law. Regulators are expected to release
a final rule by the end of this year, after reviewing hundreds
of letters from industry groups and the public about a proposal
they released in October 2011.

Goldman has been actively reducing some fund interests with
an eye toward Volcker compliance. For instance, the bank said it
has redeemed $1.32 billion worth of hedge fund interests since
March 2012, including $260 million in the first quarter. It has
also been structuring investments in different ways to avoid
breaching the rule. [ID:nL1N0BWJTO ID:nL1N0AUFOS]

While Goldman can reduce most hedge fund interest by up to
25 percent each quarter, its other funds have longer investment
horizons. Goldman expects all the assets in its existing funds
to be liquidated over the next seven years.

Overall, Goldman had $15.6 billion worth of investments in
hedge funds, and funds that invest in credit, private equity and
real estate as of March 31. The bank had pledged an additional
$6.2 billion in future commitments to those funds.

That compares with $15.4 billion worth of investments and
$12 billion in unfunded commitments as of June 30, 2010.

Goldman’s existing fund assets have risen since the passage
of Dodd-Frank only because of big gains in the value of its
real-estate holdings.

Those funds’ investments have ranged from Seattle office
buildings to Caribbean hotels. Some suffered stinging losses
during the financial crisis as properties bought at the top of
the real estate bubble lost value. But since mid-2010, those
real-estate funds have more than doubled in value, booking $1.1
billion in gains. Goldman has reduced future commitments to
real-estate funds by $1.5 billion over that time.

(Reuters) – American International Group Inc’s (AIG.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) property and casualty business booked its first underwriting profit in two and a half years during the first quarter, as the insurer wrote more premiums at higher prices and reported lower losses.

The long-awaited turnaround in AIG’s property and casualty business helped the company beat analysts’ quarterly profit expectations on Thursday, sending its shares up 3 percent in after-hours trading.

The unit reported a combined ratio of 97.3 percent last quarter, the first time that ratio has dropped below 100 since the third quarter of 2010. A combined ratio below 100 indicates an underwriting profit, meaning an insurer is receiving more in premiums than it is paying out in claims.

“The important thing for this quarter is that the combined ratio improved,” said Josh Stirling, an insurance analyst with Bernstein Research. “That’s the thing people will focus on: they actually made money.”

Insurers have had trouble raising prices in the property and casualty business for some time. AIG has not reported an annual underwriting profit there since 2007, but the first quarter seems to have been a turning point. Travelers Companies Inc (TRV.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Chubb Corp (CB.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and ACE Ltd (ACE.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) also beat earnings expectations last month, citing higher pricing.

AIG’s property and casualty unit reported operating income of $1.6 billion in the first quarter, up from $1 billion a year earlier. Its first-quarter, property-and-casualty underwriting income of $231 million compares with a $180 million underwriting loss in the same period a year ago.

AIG’s life insurance business also reported some improvement, with higher returns on alternative assets and gains on the value of securities held in its investment portfolio. Its operating income rose to $1.4 billion from $1.3 billion a year ago. But like other life insurers, the business is still navigating a low interest-rate environment that hurts interest income from bonds and makes it difficult to sell fixed annuities.

Overall, AIG’s profit fell 35 percent to $1.98 billion, or $1.34 per share, from $3.05 billion, or $1.71 per share a year earlier. On an operating basis, AIG earned $1.34 per share, compared with an average analyst estimate of 87 cents per share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

The profit decline was related to lower premium income because of special items, including foreign currency fluctuations. Excluding those factors, net premiums rose 4 percent compared with the year-ago period. AIG also spent more to upgrade infrastructure, technology and personnel, driving expenses higher.

In a memo to employees obtained by Reuters, Chief Executive Robert Benmosche called it a “strong quarter,” but said further improvement was needed.

“Our priority this year is to improve operating fundamentals and reduce costs,” he said. “Whether this means lowering the cost of capital, re-engineering our systems, or focusing on business lines and geographical locations that make strategic sense for our company, each one of us should be looking for ways to improve efficiencies and eliminate expenses.”

The March quarter was an important benchmark for AIG, because it was the first in which the U.S. government had fully exited all its bailout-related holdings.

The Federal Reserve and Treasury Department together offered $182 billion in combined support for AIG stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. After years of restructuring, selling assets and returning its government-owned stock to the public, AIG eliminated the government’s last financial interest in March when it bought back warrants from the Treasury for about $25 million.

DIVIDEND QUESTION LINGERS

Despite that progress, there are still some questions hanging over AIG, including how it will be treated under its presumed status as a “systemically important financial institution,” or SIFI, which the Federal Reserve has not yet officially designated, and when it will be able to resume dividend payments.

AIG shares have risen 19 percent this year, closing at $42.13 on Thursday. But they remain well below the company’s book value of $59.39, excluding market gains and losses.

Analysts say investors are hesitant to value AIG as richly as other insurers because of its bailout, its volatile earnings since 2007 and its ongoing turnaround plan.

While management is investing in some long-neglected areas of AIG, overall it is trying to reduce costs and staff. Benmosche also wants AIG’s property and casualty business to produce a return-on-equity of at least 10 percent and a coverage ratio of 90 to 95 by 2015.

Some investors are also waiting for the company to reinstate its dividend, which has been suspended since 2008. The company has so far offered cautious guidance on that topic.

While resuming dividend payments is important to management, AIG’s first priority is getting ratings agencies and regulators comfortable with its capital levels, executives have said.

AIG has also been using excess capital to buy back some of its more expensive debt and its stock.

The company called $1.1 billion of junior subordinated notes and spent $1.3 billion buying back debt during the first quarter, which will reduce interest payments by $165 million a year. AIG is also considering calling another $750 million in callable hybrids in the second quarter, which would save it another $50 million in annual interest payments.

“I would love to be able to put a dividend on the stock,” Benmosche said in a conference call in February.

But he also noted that ratings agencies “want more time to see us continue to evolve with the good, solid earnings that you’ve seen so far.”

(Reporting by Lauren Tara LaCapra in New York and Aman Shah and Anil D’Silva in Bangalore; Editing by Sriraj Kalluvila, Maju Samuel and Andre Grenon)

(Reuters) – A Goldman Sachs Group Inc affiliate (GS.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) plans to spend $743 million to buy Ebix Inc (EBIX.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), an insurance software provider that has been a target of allegations from short-sellers about inaccuracies in its financial statements.

An affiliate in Goldman’s merchant bank agreed to pay $20 per share for Ebix, which repeatedly has denied claims by the short sellers – some made as recently as in March – in critical reports posted online.

The on-and-off allegations of shoddy accounting practices have roiled the company’s stock, sending its shares down 37 percent since accusations first surfaced in March 2011 through Tuesday’s close before news of the deal broke.

The signal of confidence from Goldman sent Ebix shares up 11 percent, to close at $20.60 on Wednesday.

Sumit Rajpal, a managing director at the bank, did not address the controversy that has surrounded the company. He said in a statement that Goldman has “great respect” for Ebix and wants to help it grow.

Ebix has repeatedly denied short sellers’ allegations in the past. A spokesman offered no further comment on Wednesday and its investor relations department did not respond to a request for comment.

Goldman’s merchant bank makes private-equity type investments in companies using the bank’s own capital as well as client money. A person familiar with the matter said Goldman performed due diligence on Ebix and felt confident that accusations leveled against the company had no merit.

The price offered by Goldman is a 7.5 percent premium to Ebix’s closing price on Tuesday. The merger agreement includes a “go-shop” provision that allows Ebix to seek a better deal from other potential acquirers over the next 45 days.

Ebix Chief Executive Robin Raina, who owns a big chunk of the company’s stock, said the board had considered “a number of potential alternatives” and unanimously agreed to be taken private by Goldman.

The buyout was unexpected, given Ebix’s recent history and languishing stock price.

Ebix first confronted accusations that its financial statements were inaccurate on March 24, 2011, when an unidentified person posted a report on financial blog Seeking Alpha questioning its accounting, sales and expenses. The blogger, using the name Copperfield Research, said he or she was shorting Ebix shares.

Ebix refuted the claims but its shares, which had previously been trading around $29, fell 24 percent that day.

Accusations did not stop there.

A Bloomberg report on November 5 that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was looking into Ebix’s accounting practices sent its stock down 14 percent.

The company denied that it was being investigated by the SEC and no official investigation has been announced. Correspondence between Ebix and the SEC show the agency’s staff questioning the company about some of its statements and asking it to improve disclosures.

Then on February 21, a firm called Gotham City Research LLC posted a critical report on Seeking Alpha about Ebix and its accounting practices. Ebix’s stock fell 27 percent that day.

Gotham City has ties to short seller Daniel Yu, an investor who earlier gained attention by shorting Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc (GMCR.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Sino-Forest Corp, and frequently shares his investment ideas on Twitter.

At the time, Ebix called Gotham’s report “unsubstantiated” and said its accounting “is appropriate and complies with all SEC reporting requirements.”

If Goldman’s deal goes through, it will also assume roughly $77 million in Ebix debt, bringing the total deal value to $820 million. Goldman and Credit Suisse AG (CSGN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) have made debt financing commitments.

Morgan Stanley (MS.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) advised Ebix’s board, which unanimously voted for the deal. Raina and the Rennes Foundation, which together own 19 percent of the company, also voted in favor of the deal.

(Reporting by Lauren Tara LaCapra in New York; additional reporting by Sayantani Ghosh in Bangalore; Editing by Supriya Kurane, Matthew Goldstein, Paritosh Bansal and Andrew Hay)

Salisbury, a partner and managing director who now heads the group’s European operation, will move from London to New York for the role.

The Global Special Situations Group is known on Wall Street as one of Goldman’s most profitable operations. It invests the bank’s own money and sometimes client money in stocks, bonds and loans to distressed companies in hopes of earning profits through a restructuring or turn-around plan.

Although the group is managed by Goldman’s securities unit, profits from the business flow into the bank’s Investing and Lending earnings segment, which reflects money the bank earns from investing and lending its own capital.

The Global Special Situations Group – often referred to by the acronym SSG – has received more attention in recent years because of the Volcker rule, which prevents banks from trading for their own account and limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private-equity funds.

Although a final Volcker rule has not been released by regulators, Goldman has made some changes to the business to comply with what it expects the rule to say. For instance, it has scaled back short-term bets to make its investments longer-term in nature.

The Global Special Situations Group has been run by a succession of prominent bankers, including co-founder Mark McGoldrick, who left Goldman in 2007 to found Mount Kellett Capital Management with another former executive from the business. McGoldrick left Goldman after receiving a $70 million bonus that he thought was too small, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

Brown, who is also a partner and managing director based in Asia, took over leadership of the operation in 2011 when its previous head, Richard Ruzika, retired. Ruzika had been global head of commodities trading and a close friend of Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein. He died from a stroke a few months after leaving the bank in May 2012.

In one memo, Isabelle Ealet and Pablo Salame, who are co-heads of Goldman’s broader securities business, said Brown had been instrumental in realigning the Global Special Situations Group’s investment approach.

Salisbury has been head of the European Special Situations Group and a member of the SSG Global Investment Committee since 2009. Before that he worked in Moscow, expanding business in Russia and the former Soviet Union. He was a founding member of the European division of SSG in 2003 and before that was a distressed debt trader and an accountant at KPMG.

He was named managing director in 2005 and partner in 2008.

A Goldman spokesman confirmed the content of the memos but declined further comment.

(Reporting By Lauren Tara LaCapra; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and John Wallace)

Salisbury, a partner and managing director who now heads the
group’s European operation, will move from London to New York
for the role.

The Global Special Situations Group is known on Wall Street
as one of Goldman’s most profitable operations. It invests the
bank’s own money and sometimes client money in stocks, bonds and
loans to distressed companies in hopes of earning profits
through a restructuring or turn-around plan.

Although the group is managed by Goldman’s securities unit,
profits from the business flow into the bank’s Investing and
Lending earnings segment, which reflects money the bank earns
from investing and lending its own capital.

The Global Special Situations Group – often referred to by
the acronym SSG – has received more attention in recent years
because of the Volcker rule, which prevents banks from trading
for their own account and limits banks’ investments in hedge
funds and private-equity funds.

Although a final Volcker rule has not been released by
regulators, Goldman has made some changes to the business to
comply with what it expects the rule to say. For instance, it
has scaled back short-term bets to make its investments
longer-term in nature.

The Global Special Situations Group has been run by a
succession of prominent bankers, including co-founder Mark
McGoldrick, who left Goldman in 2007 to found Mount Kellett
Capital Management with another former executive from the
business. McGoldrick left Goldman after receiving a $70 million
bonus that he thought was too small, the Wall Street Journal
reported at the time.

Brown, who is also a partner and managing director based in
Asia, took over leadership of the operation in 2011 when its
previous head, Richard Ruzika, retired. Ruzika had been global
head of commodities trading and a close friend of Goldman Chief
Executive Lloyd Blankfein. He died from a stroke a few months
after leaving the bank in May 2012.

In one memo, Isabelle Ealet and Pablo Salame, who are
co-heads of Goldman’s broader securities business, said Brown
had been instrumental in realigning the Global Special
Situations Group’s investment approach.

Salisbury has been head of the European Special Situations
Group and a member of the SSG Global Investment Committee since
2009. Before that he worked in Moscow, expanding business in
Russia and the former Soviet Union. He was a founding member of
the European division of SSG in 2003 and before that was a
distressed debt trader and an accountant at KPMG.

He was named managing director in 2005 and partner in 2008.

A Goldman spokesman confirmed the content of the memos but
declined further comment.

(Reporting By Lauren Tara LaCapra; Editing by Gerald E.
McCormick and John Wallace)