Goldman's Special CEO Bonus Is Rebuked by Shareholder Adviser
Glass Lewis, a major voice on annual shareholder votes, is recommending Goldman Sachs investors vote against a pay package that puts CEO David Solomon, pictured, and John Waldron, the bank's president, in line for about $50 million in one-time bonuses.
April 08, 2022 at 02:00 PM
4 minute read
A prominent adviser to shareholders is taking umbrage at the special bonus grants to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s chief executive officer and a top deputy, a rebuke that comes at an awkward time for the bank as its stock turns in the worst showing among peers this year.
Glass Lewis, a major voice on annual shareholder votes, is recommending Goldman investors vote against a pay package that puts CEO David Solomon and John Waldron, the bank's president, in line for about $50 million in one-time bonuses. The adviser questioned whether the board's rationale for the grants — guaranteeing leadership continuity and talent retention — warranted such large payouts.
"We are critical of the awards given their excessive sizes," Glass Lewis said in a report to clients seen by Bloomberg News. "Such awards have the potential to undermine the integrity of a company's regular incentive plans, the link between pay and performance or both."
Across Wall Street, where surging business during the pandemic generated huge windfalls, banks like JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp. have vowed to pay competitively for top talent, with none more willing than Goldman to splash cash on retention. But the rising compensation costs have met little enthusiasm from shareholders, with Goldman the worst performing among the biggest U.S. bank stocks after erasing 18% in value this year. That's closely followed by JPMorgan's 17% decline, another bank where costs have attracted investor scrutiny.
A representative for Goldman Sachs didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. The stock has now slumped about 26% from its November high to $314.15. This is the first time Glass Lewis is asking to vote down the Goldman pay proposal under Solomon's tenure. Last year, it recommended such an action on 1 in 7 companies on the S&P 500 index.
The payouts dinged by Glass Lewis take aim at the award handed out by the board in October for Solomon and Waldron to "enhance retention in response to the rapidly increasing war for talent." That came just months after the same board had docked their pay for the bank's role in a corruption scandal that facilitated the looting of Malaysian investment fund 1MDB.
The pay sweetener is subject to performance and time-based vesting conditions over a five-year period and worked out to roughly $30 million for Solomon and $20 million for Waldron, based on Goldman's share price at the time.
Still, the investment adviser broadly gave Goldman's executive compensation practices in 2021 a "C" grade, an improvement on the "F" it assigned for 2019 when it cited a "significant disconnect" between the bank's pay and performance. At that time, it recommended shareholders sign off.
The adviser also called out the structure of the award that measures stock performance in rolling 30-day measurement periods within a five-year window.
"We believe that long-term incentives should encourage executives to achieve steady and sustainable growth rather than what may amount to relatively brief spikes in performance," Glass Lewis said.
Goldman offered heftier bonus payouts to investment bankers and traders as the bank shattered revenue and earnings records last year. The bank then added millions of dollars to pay packages with one-time stock grants in addition to annual bonuses for its exclusive partnership class.
The largesse escalated further, with members of Goldman's management committee, its top decision making body, offered an even more lucrative perk. But the deepening effort to cajole executives to stick around has come at a cost: Goldman reported record-high annual expenses fueled by soaring compensation and benefits costs last year.
The recommendation to vote down the pay proposal comes ahead of the bank's annual meeting on April 28, where it's seeking shareholder approval of a non-binding vote on executive pay. It also comes ahead of bank first-quarter earnings which begin next week.
Sridhar Natarajan reports for Bloomberg News.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
CFPB Orders Big Banks to Limit Overdraft Fees to $5. But Will Its Edict Stick?
3 minute readUS Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute readGreenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250