Turns out Goldman Sachs is a staunch advocate of going organic — when it comes to the money management business.

As Barclays auctioned off its Barclays Global Investors unit this year, Goldman was widely seen as a likely acquirer. That is until Blackrock In under Larry Fink emerged as the buyer with a $13.5 billion deal.

Lots of other money managers are expected to be sold, as the industry consolidates and cash-strapped banks look for valuables to pawn. But Viniar told analysts Goldman’s preference is to grow the business without deals, and appeared to question the very idea of money manager deals.

“If there were an acquisition that made sense financially for us to do, we would certainly consider it,” he said, something he says every three months to calm down excitable analysts. “When we look at the prices of most of the acquisitions, we think that they haven’t made sense in that you’ve had to assume really heroic growth rates that we don’t think are realistic.” 

Jefferies Putnam Lovell recently said it counted 35 management deals in the second quarter, compared with 52 deals a year earlier. Besides the BGI takeover, Aquiline Capital Partners acquired Conning & Co,  JPMorgan Chase bought the remainder of its Highbridge Capital Management hedge fund unit and Woori Finance purchased Credit Suisse’s 30 percent interest in a joint venture.

Yet Viniar notes money management firm deals are tricky, since buyers have to pay a premium for the company and then put up more money to retain star managers. And even as billions of profits come sloshing into Goldman’s coffers, Viniar apparently doesn’t like to part ways with the firm’s cash.

“It has taken a while, but we’ve grown (the asset management business) quite successfully, almost exclusively organically.” he said. “And the high likelihood is that is the way we are going to continue to grow it in the future.”

(Photo: A customer walks past organic products in an organic food chain store in Taipei/Pichi Chuang)

A federal judge has agreed to delay the UBS tax-evasion trial as the U.S. and the Swiss seek a resolution. UBS shares gained strongly on the presumption that a delay was near.

A source familiar with the situation told Reuters the talks, now led by the U.S. and Swiss governments, were aimed at finding a way to allow the bank to transfer client data without breaching Swiss law. No doubt the discussions, and perhaps even the nature of a settlement, will be murky.

That a settlement is being sought may be a short-sighted reason to buy UBS stock. Without its precious secrecy to define it, Swiss banking would lose the standing that has made it the wealth-management center of the world. The fact that the two sides are talking may indicate Washington is willing to accept less than unconditional surrender. But make no mistake: Settlement means less secrecy, not more. While a settlement would help the bank with this particular mess, it could have an added sting in the form of a payment from UBS to the U.S. government.

Longer term, tax lawyers say European governments, which are also trying to recoup unpaid tax money from offshore banks, could also put pressure on Switzerland as a global fight against tax cheats gathers pace.

The mood was not so much one of indignant fury but quiet disappointment in Founders Hall for the Candover AGM yesterday. 

A contrite and clearly uncomfortable chairman Gerry Grimstone took the stand – looking like a schoolboy caught with his hand in the biscuit tin, wishing he could be anywhere else. 

He said he had lain awake at night re-examining the decisions that have devastated the share price and brought the company to the brink of sale. And it was easy to believe him. 

Company founder Roger Brooke spoke from the floor of his personal hurt and sadness at the damage to the company’s reputation.

“I do find it odd that the board was not aware there was a financial crisis,” added his co-founder and past chairman Stephen Curran.  

Other shareholders expressed their polite astonishment at the “lack of foresight” from the board of directors, and questioned how the listed parent could have made a 1 bln euro commitment to the Candover 2008 fund last August without having any say in how of when the money was spent. 

“We were wrong, the board was wrong, they were wrong,” said Grimstone, indicating that too much money was invested by Candover funds in 2008 and too little more was returned to investors. 

Another shareholder asked whether the board had followed the market like sheep in borrowing to fund its commitment. 

“If so you should be rounded up and put in sheep dip,” he said. 

“I have never been sheep-dipped – it doesn’t sound a very pleasant process,” grimaced Grimstone.