Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) Annual Shareholders Meeting Conference Call April 24, 2024 10:30 AM ET

Company Participants

Kathryn Ruemmler – The Goldman Sachs Group
David Solomon – The Goldman Sachs Group

Conference Call Participants

Luke Perlot – National Legal and Policy Center
Dan Chu – Sierra Club Foundation
Amna Khan – New York City Comptroller
Simon Doong – Presbyterian Church (USA) & Portico Benefit Services
Ryan Shadi – National Center Public Policy Research

David Solomon

Good morning, everybody. Welcome. I’m David Solomon, the Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. Thank you for joining us at our Annual Shareholders Meeting here in Salt Lake City, Utah or listening to our audio webcast. I now call the meeting to order.

2023 was a year of execution for our firm. Despite a challenging operating environment, we took decisive action to narrow our strategic focus and play to our core strengths. As you can see in our most recent quarterly results, we’re delivering on this strategy and putting the firm in a stronger position for the FORWARD.

We’ve made a lot of progress, and I’m confident in the strength of our franchise and our ability to deliver for our clients and shareholders. It is clear that our One Goldman Sachs operating ethos and client-centric approach has had a meaningful impact. Over the last 5 years, our stock has doubled. We have more than tripled our dividend, and we have grown our book value per share by 54%, above all U.S. peers.

We will continue to work hard to deliver for our shareholders. We are focused on strategic objectives and execution areas we laid out in January. And over the longer term, we remain focused on 3 outcomes: We continue to be a trusted adviser to our clients; to be an employer of choice for our people; and to generate mid-teens returns through the cycle and strong total shareholder return.

Over the course of the last year, we’ve made some significant investments in our culture. This is something that is and will continue to be incredibly important to the firm and to me personally. Our people are a key differentiator for our firm. Over the past year, we have placed a particular focus on reinvigorating our culture. I personally led our cultural stewardship program, we had the privilege of hosting 19 of the 20 sessions and meeting its small groups with over 400 of our partners to discuss our culture in depth.

These sessions were a great opportunity for me to sit down with my partners, discuss our collective role in upholding the firm’s values and stewarding our culture and communicate candidly with each other about the firm’s strategy and forward priorities. The feedback I got from these sessions was invaluable and underscored for me that our firm’s culture remains very strong. As I interact with the people of Goldman Sachs around the world every day, I am consistently impressed by their talent capabilities and how they work tirelessly to serve our clients. Quality of our people reinforces my conviction and the long-term opportunity set for Goldman Sachs and our ability to deliver for our clients and for our shareholders.

The Board and I are pleased to be here in Salt Lake City with our shareholders as well as our people, clients and other stakeholders. Goldman Sachs first established an office here in 2000. It is an important talent hub for the firm, and we are proud of the strong client relationships and exceptional team we have in this region.

I would like to introduce the members of our Board of Directors and thank them for their service. Would each of you please rise as I say your name; David Viniar, who today assumes the role of Lead Director and Chair of our Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee; Michele Burns; Mark Flaherty; Kimberley Harris, Chair of our Compensation Committee; Kevin Johnson; Lakshmi Mittal; Thomas Montag, who today assumes the role of Chair of our Risk Committee; Peter Oppenheimer, Chair of our Audit Committee; and Vice Admiral Jan Tighe; as well as John Rogers, our Secretary to our Board.

In addition, I want to mention Ellen Kullman, Chair of our Public Responsibility Committee, who unfortunately could not be with us in person as she is under the weather and unable to travel. I also want to acknowledge our outgoing Lead Director, Bayo Ogunlesi, as well as Jessica Uhl, who have just retired from our Board. We are grateful to Bayo and Jessica for their wise counsel and many contributions that each have made to our Board and committees over their respective tenures.

With us here today are John Waldron, our President and Chief Operating Officer; Denis Coleman, our Chief Financial Officer; Kathy Ruemmler, our Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel. Kathy is acting as Secretary of this meeting. In addition, from our independent auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, we have Sam May. And from American Election Services, we are joined by Christopher Woods, our Inspector of Election.

I will now turn to the business of the meeting. We will conduct the meeting in accordance with the meeting agenda and rules of conduct. I’ve been advised by our independent tabulator and our inspector of election that holders of at least 85% of our outstanding shares are present in person or by proxy, and accordingly, a quorum is present.

I hereby acknowledge that the matters to be voted upon as described in our proxy statement and supplemental filing are properly before the meeting. It is Wednesday, April 24, at 8:39 Mountain Time, and I declare the polls on all proposals are open. All voting at this meeting will be conducted by ballot. If you have voted your shares prior to the start of the annual meeting, your vote has already been received and tabulated, and there is no need to vote again unless you wish to revoke or change your vote.

Submitting a ballot today will revoke any earlier proxies you may have submitted. Anyone who needs a ballot, please raise your hand and will be collected after the polls are closed. There will be an opportunity for any shareholder or in a green shareholder badge to ask questions on each of the proposals. After all the proposals have been presented, we will collect any ballots and close the polls. Then we’ll have a general question-and-answer session. If you have a general question or comment, please wait until then to raise it.

Please use the podium located in the aisle to present the shareholder proposals and ask any questions. Before speaking, please identify yourself as a shareholder, state your name and, if applicable, your organization.

We’ll now turn to the proposals. The first matter to be voted on is the election of directors. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote for the election of each of the director nominees for the reasons set forth in the proxy statement. Are there any questions related to this matter?

The second matter to be voted on is an advisory vote to approve the executive compensation of our named executive officers. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote for the say-on-pay vote for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. Are there any questions related to this matter?

The third matter to be voted on is the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers as our independent auditors for 2024. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote for the ratification of PWC for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. Are there any questions related to this matter?

The fourth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the National Legal and Policy Center regarding a policy for an independent chair. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Luke Perlot. Luke, please?

Question-and-Answer Session

Q – Luke Perlot

Good morning. As Mr. Solomon mentioned, my name is Luke Perlot, I’m with the National Legal and Policy Center. Over the last year, the need for Goldman Sachs to separate its CEO and chair positions has become obvious. Mr. Solomon’s current dual role shields him from accountability for his numerous missteps. Our proposal advocates for the Board to separate these roles and appoint an independent Board chair. While we’ve brought this proposal over the last 2 years, media attention has exploded this year by comparison.

And Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis have both incurred shareholders to support our proposal for the first time. The difference is that the controversies surrounding Mr. Solomon’s leadership have become impossible to ignore. Before addressing Mr. Solomon’s management shortcomings, we should note that independent chair positions have become the norm on purely philosophical grounds.

Let’s be clear. The role of CEO is demanding and expansive. Conversely, the Chair’s role is to ensure robust oversight, challenge management’s decisions when necessary and safeguard the interest of shareholders. When combined, these roles create a concentration of power that is fundamentally at odds with the principles of checks and balances. Our proposal aligns with the best practices endorsed by leading governance scholars and financial experts. As the legendary late ITT Corporation CEO, Harold Janine, wrote in his 1984 book, Managing. “The Board of Directors is really there to represent the interest of stockholders. What is the chief executive doing on the Board? Doesn’t he have a conflict of interest. He is the professional manager, cannot represent the shareholders and impartially sit in judgment of himself.”

The CFA Institute, a beacon of investment professionalism, explicitly supports the separation, stating it enhances the Board’s independence and its ability to monitor the executive team. The independent chair has also been endorsed by CalPERS and argued for in the Harvard Business Review. Empirical evidence shows major companies increasingly embracing the advantages of an independent chair. An increasing number of S&P 500 companies implement a governance model where the roles of Chairman and CEO are separate. This shift reflects a broader understanding within the corporate governance community that an independent chair is the best model to achieve effective oversight and strategic guidance.

Now let us consider the specific situation at Goldman Sachs under Mr. Solomon’s combined leadership. Confluence of CEO and Chairman in one individual has not only blurred the lines of accountability, but has also enabled decisions that shareholders, employees and the media have found questionable. The need for an independent chair is further exemplified by the controversies and challenges that have emerged affecting the company’s reputation and potentially long-term stability.

Furthermore, Mr. Solomon’s poor decision-making led to substantial losses in the company’s retail banking division, notably the GreenSky acquisition. This much discussed foray into the new consumer banking markets was a strategic attempt to diversify the company’s revenue streams. However, it has faced numerous setbacks and challenges resulting in financial losses and a tarnished brand reputation. This expansion was marked by an overestimation of Goldman’s capability to penetrate consumer banking illustrating a lack of critical oversight that an independent Chairman might have mitigated.

Unfortunately, Mr. Solomon ignored warnings made by the division’s senior executives to avoid syncing more resources into the floundering initiative. This strong handed leadership costs the company several billion in avoidable losses. Under Mr. Solomons tenure, Goldman Sachs has faced significant challenges related to the workplace culture, including high attrition rates among female leaders and allegations of sexual harassment. Reports indicate a striking departure of female partners since 2018. Furthermore, Mr. Solomon sexual remarks and inappropriate conduct have diminished his and the firm’s credibility and risk normalizing a culture of sexual discrimination. This troubling trend highlights the urgent need for an independent Chairman to assure accountability and uphold the firm’s commitment to a respectful workplace.

Additionally, Mr. Solomon’s involvement in low priority ESG activities has drawn criticism from various stakeholders. The focus of these initiatives has a time seemed misaligned with the company’s core business objectives, potentially deferring attention and resources from more critical areas of operation. This misalignment calls into question the prioritization, decision-making process under the current governance structure. For all these reasons, we urge the Board to adopt a more accountable structure by appointing an independent chair for my fellow shareholders to vote for 4 — item 4. Thank you.

David Solomon

Thank you. Are there any questions related to this proposal? The fifth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by John Chevedden regarding the transparency and lobbying report. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against the shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe this proposal is being presented by .

Unidentified Analyst

Good morning, everyone. Thank you. I am a proxy for John Chevedden at this point. I move Proposal 5 sponsored by John Chevedden and co-filer, Missionary Oblates asking Goldman Sachs to provide a report on its state and federal lobbying expenditures, including indirect funding of lobbying through trade associations and social welfare groups. Shareholders are asking companies to disclose all dark money payments to third-party groups that use that money to influence policy. Goldman Sachs fails to do this.

Goldman does not issue a comprehensive report of its own direct lobbying. That data is scattered among federal and state regulators and it’s difficult to obtain. We know that for its direct lobby, Goldman has spent over $49 million on federal lobbying since 2010, and there is incomplete disclosure about Goldman spending at the state level. Where an expert has called finding this information nearly impossible. Goldman is required to report its lobbying and already has this information so it could be easily provided to shareholders. This proposal also seeks full disclosure of dark money payments to trade associations or social welfare groups, where there are no limits or disclosure requirements.

Goldman shareholders face a huge blind spot here. Trade associations spend hundreds of millions to lobby.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent more than $1.8 billion since 1998. Goldman sales to even disclose its trade association memberships and does not disclose its trade association payments nor the portions of these payments used for lobby. Goldman belongs to the American Bankers Association Bank Policy Institute, Business Roundtable, Financial Services Forum and SIFMA, which together spent over $42 million on federal lobbying for 2023. How large are Goldman’s payments and what amounts are used for lobby? Shareholders don’t know and that’s a problem.

Many of Goldman’s trade association lobbying positions contradict company public policy positions resulting in values, misalignment and reputation risks. For example, Goldman publicly supports addressing climate change. Yet, it’s business round table membership opposes the Inflation Reduction Act with its historic investments in claim induction, lobbying for disclosure is a safety mechanism for Goldman Sachs, its reputation in shareholders as what gets disclosed and gets managed. Further disclosure of Goldman’s lobbying includes all third-party payments, will ensure proper oversight for our company’s lobbying and I urge shareholders to vote for proposition 5.

David Solomon

Thank you very much. Are there any questions regarding this proposal?

The sixth matter we voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by The Nathan Cummings Foundation regarding an outcome report on efforts regarding protected classes of employees. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against the shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Dan Chu.

Dan Chu

Good morning.

David Solomon

Good morning.

Dan Chu

How are you?

David Solomon

Well, thank you. How are you?

Dan Chu

Good. I’m also going to be presenting #7 as well. So I’ll just stay up here.

David Solomon

Okay.

Dan Chu

Thanks. Good morning, everybody. My name is Dan Chu. I’m the Executive Director for the Sierra Club Foundation. On behalf of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, I am here to move Item 6 on the proxy. Item 6 requests that Goldman Sachs provide data to assure investors that its programs to eliminate harassment and discrimination within its workplace are working effectively. Federal legislation struck the use of arbitration for cases of sexual harassment and discrimination. As White House noted, forced arbitration silences survivors of sexual assault and harassment and shields predators instead holding them accountable and gives corporations a powerful tool to hide abusive misconduct. Concerns about the toxicity enabled by arbitration were strong enough to create a bipartisan movement. That’s how serious this issue is.

Unfortunately, federal laws only address sexual harassment, not race, ethnicity or other diversity characteristics. And Goldman has not yet stepped up to proactively remove all harassment and discrimination claims from its arbitration and nondisclosure agreements. In its statement and opposition to this request, the Board states that the use of arbitration or confidentiality agreements to assist in managing our broad and diverse global workforce does not result in nor does it imply the existence of harassment or discrimination at Golden Sachs.

The Nathan Cummings Foundation acknowledges that the use of confidentiality agreements does not necessarily indicate that something problematic is being covered up. However, the continued use of such arbitration and confidentiality agreements means that Goldman Sachs investors need additional disclosure to assess the effectiveness of the company’s policies and practices. We are glad that the Board is committed to another review of its use of arbitration. We hope that the company will decide to mirror other large employers. We no longer use concealment clauses and agree to the requested disclosure. In conclusion, after all, if Goldman zero tolerance approach to harassment and discrimination is working. It would be proud to complete the reporting requested. We urge shareholders to vote yes for this proposal.

David Solomon

Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this proposal? .

The seventh matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the Sierra Club Foundation as lead filer regarding an environmental justice impact assessment. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. Dan, please go ahead.

Dan Chu

Great. Thanks. Thanks for your time this morning. So good morning, members of Goldman Sachs Board, management and fellow shareholders. My name is Dan Chu. I’m the Executive Director of Sierra Club Foundation, a shareholder, and I’m presenting Item 7, which requests that Goldman Sachs conduct a rigorous assessment of the material risks and opportunities related to the environmental justice impacts of its energy and power sector financing, and underwriting and disclose these results.

Goldman Sachs has made numerous commitments to respecting human rights and reducing racial inequities. Yet Goldman Sachs has funded billions of dollars in client activities with well-known environmental justice impacts. The new and expanded liquefied natural gas export facilities under development by Goldman Sachs clients, such as the CP2 project in Louisiana will sacrifice the health and well-being of Gulf Coast communities already burdened by high levels of pollution.

These health risks are not theoretical as existing LNG facilities have been found to exceed pollution limits on a regular basis. Shareholders are unable to determine whether Goldman Sachs incorporates explicit environmental justice considerations into its risk management processes. The company’s existing policies, risk management processes and reporting do not discuss or provide guidance for how the company manages environmental justice risk. Environmental justice risk could be financially material for the bank.

The company’s potential failure to manage environmental justice risk may lead to stranded assets and allegations of human rights violations and green launching. These outcomes could materially affect the company’s financial performance through increased credit, litigation, regulatory and reputational risks, reputational damage from green washing allegations could be financially significant, especially if it harm the company’s relations with its current and future clients, employees and investors. Community opposition led to the recent federal pause on permitting for new LNG facilities. Goldman Sachs could have anticipated this opposition because of past letters written to the CEO by the affected communities. The company was recently warned of similar Environmental Justice concerns on a proposed chemical manufacturing facility by Formosa Plastics in Louisiana, which would double toxic emissions in the predominantly black Parish where the facility would be built.

Therefore, it’s prudent for Goldman Sachs to proactively start assessing and disclosing its environmental justice risk, assessing such risks related to the company’s financing activity could uncover new risks and also help uncover new sources of revenue. This is especially critical for the company’s energy and power sector financing and underwriting activities.

We also want to highlight that Goldman Sachs is becoming a laggard in this issue with its peers. While in initial discussions with us, Goldman Sachs did not seem as interested in addressing these risks and opportunities. Several of the bank’s peers are engaging actively with us on this topic. These peer institutions are reducing their own risks and liabilities by developing explicit language and diligence practices to address these issues. This is in stark contrast to this bank’s opposition to the risk reduction steps we are proposing.

In summary, the proposed environmental justice assessment has benefits beyond better risk management. It will increase the likelihood that Goldman Sachs will meet its own climate targets, it will help the bank better meet current and future expectations of investors, regulators and other stakeholders on environmental justice concerns, and it will reduce the company’s contribution to the systemic risk of inequality and financial and economic crisis.

In closing, we ask shareholders to vote for our proposal to ensure the company is adequately managing environmental justice risks and opportunities. We offer the company an opportunity to enhance its risk management framework, develop new business opportunities, protect its reputation and advance its social commitments. Thank you for your time.

David Solomon

Thank you. Are there any questions related to this proposal?

The eighth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the New York City Comptroller on behalf of certain New York City retirement systems regarding to report disclosure of — regarding a report disclosure of clean energy supply financing ratio. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against the shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Amna Khan.

Amna Khan

Good morning, everyone. My name is Amna Khan. I’m with the New York City Comptroller’s office. The Comptroller of New York City submitted proposal 8 on behalf of the City Pension Funds, which are long-term shareholders with more than $189 million invested in Goldman Sachs long-term success. Proposal leads asks the company to disclose the ratio of its financing of low-carbon energy supply relative to its financing of fossil fuel energy supply at minimum. The bank should include its total financing through equity and debt underwriting and project finance, it should also disclose its methodology, including what it classifies as low carbon or fossil fuel. This ratio integrates both halves of the equation, what the science tells us is needed to avoid the most devastating consequences of climate change, a rapid transition from fossil fuels and a tripling in global annual clean energy investment by 2030.

We commend the company’s commitment to achieve net 0 finance emissions by 2050, aligning its finance activities with a net 2050 pathway and deployed $750 billion across its financing, investment and advisory activities by 2030 to accelerate the climate transition and advance inclusive growth. However, the investors need more information to assess the bank’s financing specifics to low carbon energy supply, particularly relative to the company’s financing of fossil fuels. Disclosure of its clean energy supply financing ratio would complement and supplement the bank’s current disclosure, particularly with respect to its financing of emissions and the environmental transition.

Finance emissions disclosure is essential, but entails data availability and reliability challenges and the $215 billion, Goldman Sach has reportedly achieved towards its climate transition commitment includes clean energy, but lack specificity with respect to low carbon energy supply.

The board argues that disclosing its ratio is unnecessary since Bloomberg has developed methodology to calculate the ratio for global banks and disclose them publicly. However, the ratio that Bloomberg discloses for Goldman Sachs relies on commercial databases and estimates rather than the company reporting. A ratio that is calculated by the bank itself, not third parties, would be more reliable and decision useful for investors. The Board also opposes disclosing its ratio because it expects regulatory standards related to climate risk and the climate transition, will continue to evolve. On that basis, bank would not voluntary report important decision-useful information unless regulatory required to do so that cannot and should not be the standard for disclosure.

The Board further states that it will be disclosing a green asset ratio to comply with new European disclosure requirements. This disclosure is different from the one requested by this proposal, for example, it does not include underwriting, which net 0 banking alliance identify as the most relevant off-sheet balance activity for the banks.

In response to our proposal from the pension funds, JPMorgan, Citi Bank and Royal Bank of Canada committed to disclosing their clean energy financing ratio in their underlying methodology. This demonstrates the feasibility and growing momentum for energy supply financing transparency. We call on the board to reconsider and join those banks that are leaders in energy supply financing transparency disclosing the clean energy financing ratio alongside existing disclosures will provide investors with more complete picture of how Goldman Sachs is progressing towards its climate commitment.

Thank you for the Board’s consideration and shareholder support.

David Solomon

Thank you. Are there any questions related to this proposal?

Ninth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the Presbyterian Church (USA) as lead filer regarding GSAM proxy voting review. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against the shareholder proposal for reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Simon Doong. Simon, please go ahead.

Simon Doong

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and fellow shareholders. My name is Simon Doong, and behalf of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and Portico Benefit Services, I move Item #9, which asks our company to initiate a review of its proxy voting record and proxy voting policies related to diversity and climate change.

We appreciate being a shareholder in Goldman Sachs and applaud the company’s net 0 emissions commitment and the recent announcement of the company’s spin-out, solar and energy and storage producer MN8 Energy, raising $325 million to finance continued growth and expansion of operations.

However, strong and supportive engagement, including proxy voting is needed to reach this net 0 emissions goal and to mitigate the risk of climate change. The company’s existing disclosures and practices on proxy voting fall far short of what this proposal requests for 3 reasons: one, despite the firm’s commitment to making progress toward racial equity, its proxy voting record on this issue lags. In 2023, Goldman’s proxy voting support for shareholder resolutions highlighting DEI issues dramatically declined and lags behind other asset managers.

Goldman Sachs Asset Management only supported 3 of the 50 diversity, equity and inclusion related proposals on proxies in 2023 and cast a split vote on another 3. GSAM did not support any of the 14 proposals on the proxy at S&P 500 companies in 2023 regarding racial equity audits, despite having specific language on this issue in its proxy voting guidelines.

GSAM’s proxy voting record on social issues is also far behind other asset managers. ShareAction’s assessment in 2023 found that only 1 asset manager out of 69 examined supported fewer social resolutions than Goldman. Two, in 2023, the company’s proxy voting support for shareholder resolutions, highlighting climate risk also dramatically declined compared to 2022 and lags behind other asset managers. Morningstar’s report, voting on ESG ever-widening differences found that Goldman Sachs’ reduction in support for key ESG resolutions is among the steepest declines among the 35 managers examined in this study for 2023. Morningstar found that Goldman support for environmental key resolutions nearly halved year-on-year. This trend is corroborated by ShareAction, which reports that Goldman Sachs Asset Management ranked 67th out of 69 asset managers on their proxy voting record in 2023. As the firm supported only 7% of environmental resolutions in 2023 versus 56% supported in 2022.

This dramatic drop in support merits a review. And three, failing to take action that can mitigate climate impacts is not in the best interests of diversified investors. Climate change is a systemic risk with potentially far-reaching economic impacts, a 2021 study by insurer Swiss RE found that the world stands to lose close to 10% of total economic value by mid-century. If climate change stays on the currently anticipated trajectory and the Paris agreement and 2050 net 0 emissions targets are not met. Thus, it is in diversified investors’ interest to take steps to minimize damaging externalities that affect the market and economy as a whole, such as greenhouse gas emissions.

Supporting climate-related shareholder proposals is a low-cost way for Goldman Sachs to make progress towards addressing climate change, meeting our net 0 goal and protecting itself from climate changes impacts on overall market performance. The proposed review would help the firm evaluate risks associated with misalignment and avoid unnecessary and costly scrutiny and reputational damage. We therefore urge you to vote for proposal #9 on Goldman Sachs’ proxy card. Thank you.

David Solomon

Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this proposal?

The 10th matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research regarding a report on financial state assumptions regarding climate change. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against the shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement.

I believe the proposal is being presented by Ryan Shaddix.

Ryan Shaddix

Good morning, and welcome to Utah. I hope you guys enjoy it here. It’s a beautiful place. My name is Ryan Shadi, and I am here for the National Center Public Policy Research. I’m from Utah. I live in a little tiny town about 2.5 hours south of here. I woke up before a.m. this morning to be here. So there you have it. I’m going to read their statement first.

Our proposal asked Goldman Sachs to conduct its climate policy according to its freestanding fiduciary duty to conduct objective analysis, including neutral consideration of all relevant facts and factors in transparent ways. In our position statement, by a submission and diversions indicates that there is not — they have not done this at all. Where its clear considerations of stranded asset risks arising from any move towards net 0 transition risk the truth and the breadth of which the auto industry has so publicly and recently demonstrated, whereas its list of the study’s critiquing and undermining the Bloomberg Task Force, IEA and NZE that Goldman has fully incorporated with demonstration of how.

Where is the explanation of how even full Western World Net 0 could have any climate effect given the non-Western carbon explosion. Without those, we can be confident that Goldman Sachs has not fulfilled its fiduciary duty and conclude that it wishes to avoid doing so with plausible cover. That’s not good enough and not good enough simply will not do. Consider all the harm that not good enough has visited and will increasingly visit on the good people of Utah and whose capital you decide to hold this meeting today.

Here’s my insights. I’m a special education teacher at a high school, I coach football. I passed through church. In Utah, you have to be multiple. You have to be diversified. That is just the baseline reality of survival in Pioneer Country. And speaking to these realities of these good people of Utah, I want to illustrate in some very simple ways how your decisions will impact day-to-day lives and my county, is severe. If my gas bill goes up just $100 a month, which it has, that’s $1,200 a year. And that may seem insignificant to some. However, that is roughly the cost of an emergency room visit for someone with medical insurance.

My wife and I run a small educational nonprofit called the Sevier Valley Youth Refuge in her hometown of Richfield, Utah. Last year, in large part due to the rising energy costs, we had to leave our building, which we hold our rec center and after-school activities. Our gas bills had risen over 30% in 2 years. Your decisions have the power to impact day-to-day life for our citizens in ways that may force them to choose between an emergency medical care or keeping the heat going. Not to mention the literal thousands of people who you put out of work if the coal mines and oil fields simply stop shoveling and stop drilling for safe, reliable carbon energy.

These highly skilled workers, the logistics and support staff and the thousands of others who provide powerfully for their families and communities rely on carbon energy to not just fuel their lives, but their livelihoods. Imagine, if Goldman Sachs focused its capital and ingenuity of investment into the lives of these everyday Americans across our national landscape, they would fuel innovation and they will secure our future, anchor our present and reinforce our national security.

It’s time for Golden Sachs now to do what it’s always had a legal duty to do: Transparently, objectively and neutrally consider all relevant factors to determine whether the net 0 transition is even possible, and if so at what cost, to whom and for what possible climate result. The cost, for those of us who are the least of these, and that’s who Jesus says that we ought to take care of, what we do into the least of these, we have done it unto Him. These things are all too real. Thank you for your time and your opportunity to share my heart and my vision with you today.

David Solomon

Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this proposal?

The 11th matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by as lead filer regarding pay equity reporting. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against the shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement.

I believe the proposal is also being presented by Simon.

Simon Doong

Thank you, and good morning again. My name is Simon Doong, and I stand on behalf of Newground Social Investment in Seattle to move Proposal #11. This proposal seeks transparent disclosure of racial and gender pay gaps. To paint the picture, racial and gender pay gaps are rampant. Research demonstrates that on the current U.S. trend line, white women will not reach pay equity until 2059, 3 decades from now. Black women not until 2133 more than a century from now and Latina women not until 2206, nearly 2 full centuries from now. Simply put, this proposal is about both fair play and fair pay for Goldman employees.

There are visible problems at Goldman, evident in settling a sex discrimination lawsuit last year for $215 million and a recent set of Wall Street Journal articles under the rubric, why women are heading for the exits at Goldman. The pay GAAP metrics, which are admittedly technical sounding are detailed in the proposal itself as well as in a formal submission made April 2 to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In brief, there are 2 generally accepted types of disclosure. Both are needed because they measure different things. Goldman’s approach does not fully embrace either of the 2 generally accepted types, which makes their disclosures difficult to interpret of questionable utility for driving performance and impossible to compare with peer companies. Then because some of the measurement terms are technical, Goldman plays on potential confusion to imply that the proposal’s request has already been implemented. It has not. Technicalities aside, the goal of this proposal is to narrow pay gaps and improve opportunity, diversity and performance. Why is this useful to a company, beneficial to employees and more profitable for shareholders?

Firstly, companies with fair pay and equal opportunity gain competitive advantage in 2 ways: by: one, attracting and retaining top talent; and by two, improving leadership diversity. Fairness and equity are regularly cited as crucial to attracting and retaining key talent. Our recent survey shows 83% of younger employees track a company’s commitment to fairness and fully 70% state that they would switch jobs to work for a more equitable employer.

Secondly, it has been shown that diverse leadership correlates with multiple key performance indicators, including better risk management, higher profit margins, stronger return on equity and better stock performance. MBA has called these top-tier KPIs because each is essential to success. Goldman lags its peers in reporting. Microsoft, Adobe and 35 more of the nation’s largest corporations disclose meaningful pay gap metrics. Goldman can and should also.

Several countries, including the U.K., Ireland and soon the entire European Union require companies to publicly disclose median pay gaps. Why? Because these disclosures move companies in the right direction. In closing, pay equity, what the lay person calls fairness, benefit stockholders, employees and the company. For these reasons and more, please vote for Proposal #11, the fair pay and equity proposal. Thank you.

David Solomon

Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this proposal?

As previously disclosed, the New York City Carpenters pension fund proposal that was originally included in our proxy statement as the 12th matter to be voted on was withdrawn and any votes previously cast on the proposal have been disregarded. It is now 9:17 a.m., and I declare the polls closed on all proposals. We will provide you with the preliminary voting results on each of the proposals as soon as they are tabulated.

At this time, we invite any shareholder wearing a green shareholder badge who has questions about Goldman Sachs to approach the podium and ask the question. To ensure that any shareholder has an opportunity to participate, I ask that each speaker limit their questions to 3 minutes. When asking your question, please identify yourself as a shareholder and state your name if applicable in your organization.

Are there any questions? Okay. We’ve been informed by the Inspector of Election that the preliminary voting results are now available. Kathy, could you please announce them?

Kathryn Ruemmler

Good morning, everybody. These results are based on preliminary estimates, final voting results will be provided in a Form 8-K that we will file within 4 business days. First, I’m pleased to announce that each of our 11 director nominees received the support of a majority of our shareholders and consequently each has been elected.

Second, the advisory vote to approve the executive compensation of our named executive officers received the support of votes representing approximately 86% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is approved.

Third, the proposed ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers as our independent auditors received the support of votes representing approximately 95% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is approved.

Fourth, the proposal regarding a policy for an independent chair received the support of approximately 33% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved.

Fifth, the proposal regarding a transparency and lobbying report received the support of approximately 39% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved.

Sixth the proposal regarding an outcome report on efforts regarding protected classes of employees received the support of approximately 15% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved.

Seventh, the proposal regarding an environmental justice impact assessment received the support of approximately 10% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved.

Eighth, the proposal regarding disclosure of clean energy supply financing ratio received the support of approximately 29% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently, is not approved.

Ninth, the proposal regarding a GSAM proxy voting review received the support of approximately 8% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved.

Tenth, the proposal regarding a report on financial statement assumptions regarding climate change, received the support of approximately 1% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved.

And lastly, 11th, the proposal regarding pay equity. Reporting received the support of approximately 30% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved.

David Solomon

Thank you, Kathy. On behalf of the Board of Directors and the management team, I’d like to thank you all for being here or listening in, we strongly value our engagement with shareholders and other stakeholders. This concludes our meeting. I hereby declare the meeting adjourned.