The €650 Million Handshake

---

My Sustainable Encounter with Hargovind Sachdev

by Albert Schiller

What happens when one culture's art of relationship-building collides with another's science of the transaction?

In the world of high finance, a deal is never just a deal. It is a complex dance of negotiation, risk assessment, and, most importantly, trust. But how that trust is built and demonstrated can vary dramatically across cultures.

In a recent, wide-ranging conversation with a veteran of the Indian financial system I call The Guardian, one story stood out as a profound lesson in this very divergence. It involved a €650 million loan, a German corporate giant, and a complete recalibration of his understanding of professional respect.

The Expectation of Gratitude

Having spent decades in the Indian banking system, The Guardian knew the rhythm of a significant deal. Sanctioning a loan of that magnitude, he explained, was typically followed by a predictable ceremony of appreciation. “People come and they will, you know, garland you, they will thank you,” he said. “They’ll express a lot of gratitude, and you know they like to oblige you.”

This is not a criticism, but rather a cultural observation rooted in a deep historical context. He noted that for many, such a loan feels like winning a “big lottery,” a transformative event in a nation where capital has not always been accessible. Based on this, when he sanctioned the €650 million loan for Siemens AG during his posting in Frankfurt, he was, in his own words, “anticipating such a treatment.” What he received instead was not a garland, but an email.

The Currency of Clarity

The email from the German Director of Finance was, as he put it, a “cute surprise.” It was a schedule. It contained precise instructions to take a specific train from Frankfurt to Munich, to walk 500 meters to the station, and to book a room at a particular hotel where a corporate discount of €10 would be available to him. He was to pay for his own travel, his own room, and his own breakfast.

The message was unambiguous. The loan was not a personal favour; it was a professional transaction, a duty he had fulfilled as part of his job. The only “perk” he received was access to the company’s negotiated hotel discount. The currency of respect here was not gratitude, but clarity and process.

This philosophy was fully embodied when he finally met the director. After a simple handshake and a self-served coffee, The Guardian presented the exhaustive, 136-page loan document. The director simply smiled, pushed it back with the end of his pen, and stated that as a “Green company,” they deal in soft copies only. More fundamentally, he rejected the need for such voluminous paperwork. The negotiation concluded with Siemens providing a simple, two-page promissory note.

The lesson was profound. The German company’s integrity was so absolute that they felt no need for the exhaustive legal armor of a massive contract. Their word, and their system of honoring it, was sufficient. As The Guardian concluded, “they wanted money, but they wanted money which they wanted to repay with respect with interest.” Trust was not demonstrated through personal gestures, but through the flawless execution of a promise. This early lesson in observing the system behind the transaction would become a cornerstone of the forensic philosophy he would apply throughout his career.

So what can we take from his approach?

Questions for Audience Discussion

1. The Guardian's story highlights a tension between relationship-based and transaction-based business cultures. In today's globalized world, is one approach inherently more effective or "sustainable" than the other, or must successful leaders be fluent in both?

2. The German company's rejection of the 136-page document was a powerful statement of trust in their own word. In a low-trust environment, is such simplification possible, or are complex legal documents a necessary defense against a lack of integrity?