Goldman Sachs has not and is not lending Venezuela any money. So, if they buy a bond from someone else at less than face value they have zero room to complain about an agreement that was not made with them. At best they are trying to make a quick buck off the person that sold them the bond and again have no room to talk with the issuer.
That's not really accurate. Goldman bought the bond from the original owner and is now a creditor.
They can and will talk to the issuer about payment and have every right to demand full payment -- the obligation to pay is not diminished by the secondary market value.
In my personal case, I had an opportunity to buy tax exempt New York General Obligation bonds at a discount during the 2008 financial crisis. I did so, although New York isn't Venezuela and the discount wasn't 50%, the interest payments are based on the originally issued amount and if I hold the bond to maturity I will get the full principal.
As an individual with 1 bond I don't have the leverage of an investment bank, but I'm still a creditor and will be get paid in the event of some serious financial crisis.
The idea that debt is transferable like this is a specific rule under a specific system. You can also loan debt so the recipient has right of first refusal on all transfers and then they could have simply bought that debt at that same discount.
I am not saying the second system is universally better, but there is a reasonable argument for and against it.
Suppose, I buy a bond at 5% interest over 1 year and it defaults after making most of the payments. If I effectively only get 1% interest the IRS says I still owe taxes on that 1% as profit.
Just because Goldman Sachs would make an amazing profit if Venezuela actually made good on their debt doesn't mean they don't own Venezuela debt, right? "Goldman Sachs has not and is not lending Venezuela any money" is patently false.
GS is buying debt that someone else had. That other group loaned Venezuela money and is now selling the debt at a discount.
Critically if GS did not buy the debt Venezuela would have exactly the same money and exactly the same obligations so the fact GS 'owns' the debt or bob the accountant owns the debt is only important in so far as GS can apply more pressure.
