In a Shareholder Vote, Goldman Sachs Won Approval of $80 Million in Executive Bonuses

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. received majority backing from its shareholders for its latest executive compensation plan, despite criticism that the bonuses awarded were overly generous. The vote brings some relief to the firm, which has faced scrutiny over its strategy to retain top leadership amid intense competition from private equity and buyout firms.

‍

The investment bank defended its decision to award retention bonuses totaling $80 million each to Chief Executive Officer David Solomon and President John Waldron. At the company's annual general meeting in Dallas, approximately 66% of shareholders supported the pay plan in a non-binding advisory vote. While the approval doesn’t carry legal weight, it is viewed as an important measure of investor sentiment.

‍

The result helps strengthen Goldman’s position that such substantial payouts are necessary to ensure executive continuity as it battles with powerful private market players for talent.

‍

The proposal stirred significant debate due to the size of the bonuses and the fact that they are not tied to specific performance metrics. The only condition required for Solomon and Waldron to receive the full amount is that they remain with Goldman Sachs through January 2030.

‍

Critics argued that such awards, decoupled from performance outcomes, undermine shareholder interests and dilute the traditional link between pay and results.

‍

However, Goldman maintained that the bonuses are essential to keep leadership in place during a time when private equity firms — with considerable financial firepower — are luring away top Wall Street talent. The firm emphasized the long-term stability such leadership continuity provides, particularly as Goldman continues to transform its business model and expand into new areas.

‍

The “say on pay” vote, introduced after the 2008 financial crisis, allows shareholders to weigh in on executive compensation through an advisory vote. Although the vote is not binding and does not compel the company to make changes, it often acts as a pressure point that boards cannot ignore. Companies typically respond to shareholder discontent by making adjustments or justifying their decisions more clearly.

‍

Goldman has largely maintained shareholder support on compensation matters since it began holding these votes in the aftermath of the financial crisis. In 2023, for example, 86% of shareholders approved the firm’s executive pay plan. This came even though proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis & Co. had recommended voting against it.

‍

This year, Glass Lewis again opposed Goldman’s proposal, saying the bank's rationale for awarding $160 million in retention bonuses lacked sufficient justification. The firm described Goldman’s explanation as “far from robust,” casting doubt on whether shareholders were given adequate information to fully assess the plan.

‍

Executive pay under Solomon has been a particularly delicate issue. While rank-and-file employees and shareholders have generally stayed quiet publicly, some within the firm's partner ranks have quietly expressed frustration. They argue that the compensation awarded to top leadership appears out of sync with Goldman’s overall financial performance and the bonuses received by the rest of the workforce.

‍

Despite these internal tensions, this year’s 66% approval still represented a clear majority. Nonetheless, it was a marked decline from last year’s 86% support — signaling that more investors are questioning the firm’s approach to leadership pay. Before this vote, the highest level of shareholder opposition Goldman had seen came in 2016, when roughly one-third of investors voted against the compensation proposal.

‍

The outcome of the 2024 vote reflects a balancing act between shareholders’ desire for accountability and their recognition of the competitive landscape. While some may have concerns about the absence of performance-based triggers, others appear to accept that Goldman is playing a high-stakes game to retain talent in a market where private equity firms can offer staggering pay packages and greater autonomy.

‍

Looking forward, Goldman may continue to face pushback if it doesn’t better align future compensation plans with performance metrics. The latest vote serves as both an endorsement and a warning: investors are still largely on board, but the margin of support has narrowed. As the pressure to justify large payouts grows, the bank may need to rethink how it structures its retention awards or how it communicates the rationale behind them.

‍

In summary, while Goldman Sachs secured shareholder approval for its high-profile executive bonuses, the controversy surrounding the plan highlights growing sensitivity around pay practices at major financial institutions. The firm may have won this round, but ongoing scrutiny suggests future proposals will need to be handled with even greater care.

‍