The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning. I'm David Solomon, the Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. Thank you for joining us at our Annual Shareholders' Meeting here in Dallas, Texas or listening in on our audio webcast. I now call the meeting to order. I think we can agree. It's been an interesting few years. We held our first Investor Day in January 2020, you could have imagined the disruption of the pandemic would cause in the global economy. But as we said at our second Investor Day in February 2023, we are proud of what we've accomplished in the years since then, and we continue to be focused on the forward. The first quarter of 2023 was certainly volatile and the road ahead may be bumpy. Through it all, we remain focused on outperforming for our clients. We have a proven track record of navigating a wide range of operating environments supported by our long-standing and deeply rooted risk management culture, and we will continue to execute on our strategy through the cycle. I remain optimistic about the future of Goldman Sachs, and I'm confident that we will continue to deliver for our shareholders. Before we begin the business of the meeting, I also want to say that the Board and I are excited to be here in Dallas, Texas. This is a great city, has a huge pool of talent and we've been growing our presence since we established our first office here in 1968. We are proud of the strong client relationships we have in the community and the exceptional team that we have in this region. And we couldn't be happier to have this opportunity to engage with them on all of you. I would like to introduce the members of our Board of Directors and to thank them for their service. Would each of you please rise as I say your name. Bayo Ogunlesi, our Board's Lead Director and Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee; Michele Burns; Mark Flaherty, Kimberly Harris, who today assumes the role of Chair of our Compensation Committee; Kevin Johnson; Ellen Kullman, Chair of our Public Responsibilities Committee; Lakshmi Mittal; Peter Oppenheimer, Chair of our Audit Committee; Jan Tighe, Jessica Uhl; and David Viniar, Chair of our Risk Committee; as well as John Rogers, Secretary to our Board. I also want to acknowledge Drew Faust and Mark Winkelman, who have just retired from our Board. We are grateful to Drew and Mark wise counsel informed judgment and many contributions that each have made to our Board and committees over their respective tenures. Also here with us today are John Waldron, our President and Chief Operating Officer; Denis Coleman, our Chief Financial Officer; and 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 Paul Griggs. 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'll 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 all matters to be voted upon as described in our proxy statement are properly before the meeting. It is Wednesday, April 26, at 8:34 a.m. Central Time, and I declare the polls on all proposals open. All voting at this meeting will be conducted by Bayo. 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. Committing a ballot today will revoke any earlier proxies you have submitted. Anyone who needs a ballot, please raise your hand and will be collected after the polls are closed. Moving opportunity for any shareholder in a green shareholder badge to ask questions on each of the proposals. After all the proposals have been presented, we'll 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 to state your name and, if applicable, to 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 on the election of each director, 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 an advisory vote on the frequency of say-on-pay votes. The Board has unanimously recommended the shareholders vote that advisory votes on executive compensation continue to be held each year for the reasons set forth in the proxy statement. Are there any questions related to this proposal? The fourth matter to be voted on is the ramification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers as our independent auditor for 2023. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote for the ratification of PwC for the reasons set forth in the proxy statement. Are there any questions related to this matter? The fifth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by John Chevedden regarding a report on lobby. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote again for the shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy. I believe the proposal is being presented by Frank Washer. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And congratulations to all of you on the Board, especially those of you who have been nominated and are being elected in there. This is a great company, and I've always been an admirer you all are dependent upon you to provide continued leadership. So thank you very much for all that you have done. The -- the I would also tell you thank you for taking me into the meeting. I wasn't sure if you've got on my hand, I think there might be a water poster for me. I mean, as a you had a meeting, which is not lost I found out that there was a bet, I'll be over and under of the length of the meeting. Unfortunately, your predecessors have lost the bet as ready down the elevator with [indiscernible] way on the meeting. And it turned out, I was the problem because I asked too many questions. So I apologize on myself with regard to that. Really, the votes are already in, you probably know what the but the result is of this proposal and the comments I have with regard to a primary issue with regard to the lobby a role that you all can play with regard to it. We all know that you have to do a certain amount of positioning that both sides left hand and the right hand because you're at a multi-disciplinary environment, and you have countless constituencies to try and deal with. We understand that. But we really want to make sure of is that the Board itself is really kind of a good firm handle on exactly what your positions are and that they're solid. And let me just give you an example of how that happens I don't know if Peter Oppenheimer remembers me from about 10 years ago to a clean as I approach him because I've been working with Apple with regard to the fact that there is no diversity at all on their board. We probably got a female on the board who's both the female and Asian and then -- but their management had no females on the top management. He was aware of that actually he was able to tell me at the time they've actually recruited their first person in and now that company has solved that problem. And I look around here, and I'm going -- I don't know if you've been the influence here, Peter or who was, but this is a wonderful data [indiscernible] Board. You're great. I'm not so with you. So you are listing people are listening to shareholders, and I'm hoping that you listened to me. The thing I'm talking about is integrity to make sure that you understand that's what of your 4 values, and that you understand that the lobby is very, very important and make sure that you get the full message with regard to the mediums that you're in as to what the positioning is. So I have 1 simple request. And that actually as this call. It has to do with the fact that on the public policy of sustainability, I believe you share of that. And one of the things that you can do is to ask this question Goldman Sachs has ESG and Wealth Management various aspects of it. You have investors that want it and you have the ESG types of funds and so forth. My question is, is the proxy voting for those shareholders done in accordance with what that would really be the best interest for them. And that would mean that you would have a vote of 70%, 80%, 90% or the other proposals that are on this agenda today. So I actually request is would you just double check what your proxy voting guidelines are and what the results were for the ESG shares because they are the ones that I would think what all be voted heavily in favor of this. I understand that this -- the general shareholders might not be voted it that way. But -- that's all the questions I have. And I would ask you directors then at your meeting to ask her, what was your results? Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate the opportunity you are a great company. Thank you for doing what you do.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. We appreciate them. Are there any questions related to this proposal? The sixth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal is submitted by the National Legal and Policy Center regarding a policy for an independent share. 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 Paul Chester. Good morning. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I'm Paul Chester, Director of the Corporate Integrity Project for National Legal and Policy Center. We have proposed that the Board adopted an independent share proposal or policy, which is proposal #6. I would like to declare more Corium on the word robust. Goldman Sachs argues in evaluating its leadership every year that they have a robust process. The company also says it has a robust lead independent director role. In response to Mr. Chevedden's proposal, Goldman Shacks claims to have robust oversight mechanisms. I'm sorry, but Goldman Sachs processes look anything but robust to many of us outside observers and shareholders, they look pretty weak. I'll now highlight a few examples of why I think the company's procedures are not robust, especially under the leadership of the current Chairman and CEO. They've been -- number one, there have been reports about multimillion dollar settlements over a sexist culture at the company. And as we all know, leadership needs to be accountable for the culture that it is allowed to propagate. This demonstrates anything but robust accountability. Number two. The Chairman and CEO signed Goldman Sachs onto a statement to oppose the Georgia Election Integrity Act, which is now law. The statement opposed to quote "any discriminatory legislation that makes it harder for people to vote." This is a blatant lie about what the law would do, and that was proven in the 2022 Georgia election turnout results, which reached near-record levels. This is just 1 example of many of virtue signaling and weighing into politics unnecessarily, which discredits Goldman Sachs. Again, this displays less than robust accountability. Number three. After my presentation, you'll hear a proposal from another shareholder that addresses Goldman Shacks business entablement with state-owned Chinese companies in light of the communist Nation's Gasly human rights record, which according to the U.S. department, includes oppression, sensorship, slavery, organ harvesting, torture and genocide. So I asked Goldman Sachs robust accountability leaders. Does it look good to demo [indiscernible] Georgia election integrity law in your business with Chinese communist. Number four, speaking of bad looks, there have been numerous reports about the use of company jets for the Chairman and CEO's personal travel, some of which allegedly transport him to a side hustle gigs as a music DJ sometimes as add-ons to business trips for the company. And he reportedly utilized bank employees to help manage its music schedule and he solicited Goldman Sachs clients to help advance his side career. Now I know the terms allegedly and reportedly don't necessarily make things true, but where there's smoke, there's often fire. And even though the company claims it is reimbursed for personal use of planes, how does this look when you eventually have to lay off thousands of employees as they did earlier this year. It also comes across poorly when your junior bankers feel pressured to work almost 100 hours per week. Needless to say, it does not keep them very robust. Number five, shortly, you will hear from 3 different shareholder proponents about Goldman Sachs failure to track with so-called net 0 goals, and you will hear criticism of its continued financing of fossil fuel projects. The heat the company receives from climate pressure groups always cites politicized sources, which they claim represents the science, which is always boiled down into a summary report that harps on worst-case hypothetical scenarios. They're all based on computer models that are garbage in garbage out. There's no scientific consensus folks, much less 1 that seeks to destroy our affordable and efficient energy industry. The renewable solutions, these activists demand are unrealistic regarding the amount of power they generate regarding the amount of land, water, metals and mineral resources they demand. And regarding how much so-called renewables like wind, solar and electric vehicles actually themselves pollute. But the company instead of examining a legitimate science in checking the dubious sources of these pressure group site instead capitulate and creates green sounding policies and ESG funds to try to pacify them. And then Goldman Sachs gets accused of green watching anyway. You can't win with the environmental left. So don't even try. A robust leadership structure, bold enough to stand up to these propagandas could make a real difference for Goldman Sachs. As you can see from these examples, whatever accountability there's been for the Chairman and CEO has been anything bought robust. It's about as robust as Bud Light. So can we find another adjective to describe it, please vote for Proposal #6. This concludes my remarks.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any questions on this proposal? The seventh matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research regarding Chinese congruency of certain ETFs. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Scott Shepherd. Scott, please go ahead.

Yes. This is Scott Shepherd with the free enterprise project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. Goldman Sachs invest assets entrusted to it in a subsidiary of one of China's Chief Nuclear munitions companies does not disclose this parent subrelationship in the relevant fund, the Goldman Sachs Active Beta Emerging Markets Equity ETF or GeMETF. The company has an obligation to disclose any information that is likely to be material to investors. If you invest in GEM, would you think it's material to your investment that is going to a subsidiary of a company that develops and makes Chinese nukes. If you were an investor in GEM, would you want to know that the China National Nuclear Power Company, a GEM component is a subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation, which plays a key role in developing the Chinese nuclear arsenal. Would you want to know whether Goldman had done what would seem like it's very minimum necessary due diligence to establish beyond question, whether any of its assets invested in a subsidiary transferred to the parent or could be used in any way to support China's nuclear ammunitions industry. Would you want to know that a January 2021 fact sheet addendum to a federal executive order listed the subsidiary and one of concern and a possible means by which U.S. investors, including banks, pension funds, foundations, insurance companies and university endowments have for years unknowingly funded communist Chinese military companies. As a result of their big network of at least 1,100 subsidiaries, many dozens of which are tracked in thousands of financial firms products, including GEM. Would you want to know that another GEM component builds tactical vehicles for the People's Liberation Army. The arm forces specifically and literally of the Chinese communist party. I certainly would, and I'm certain that many of you would because investors surely want to know these matters of vital significance to their investments. Goldman has a firm legal responsibility to disclose this information. It does not. This disclosure failure creates significant legal and reputational risk to the company. GEM investors would be fully justified in seeking enforcement actions against the company and to sue for Goldman's failure to disclose these vital facts. And while any cost or damages arising from these actions, rightly should come out of the pockets of Goldman's Board of directors and executives. We know that the cost for their blatant failures will be passed on to our shareholders and the reputational risk is enormous. Goldman may well be by its mismanagement and on concern, causing American investors to fund weapons that are now aimed at our soil and could well come into play in a new cold war with China as that loans, especially given the base heighten tensions in the China strait. A company that happily arms a very real potential enemy will not come out with its reputation intact. Goldman is a poly bloods a opposition to our proposal very much heightens both of these risks. The company ensures us that it doesn't file sanctions directly. But, congratulations on not committing trees. You've seen confused though Goldman executives, not expressly violating sanctions. You may keep you out of jail, but it's only the very beginning of your duties not the end of them. Your disclosure requirements remain, as does the simple patriotic duty not to lend investors leave investors to unknowingly fund the armament of a threatening authoritarian regime. We would have thought that you would have jumped at the chance offered by our proposal discretely to begin making the disclosures that you've been legally required to make all along and to do so in clear incredible ways. Instead, you revealed that you're doing far, far less than the minimum required, and you think that, that's enough. This calls your general judgment into question. If you can't see that you're failing of your duty, even a matter so vital is arming a potential substantial [indiscernible], how badly are you failing of some of your basic duties throughout the rest of your operations? Enthusiasts and flippant in this matter is a polling. As shareholders, we almost have to hope that some GEM investors will set the company at a shock it into raising its standards and recognizing its studies. And maybe into getting rid of some of the executives who have allowed this laxness and unconcerned to develop. What else should Goldman Sachs be telling investors, but isn't I urge shareholders to vote for this proposal so that we can begin to find out, and I urge Goldman's executives to take their duty seriously and to find out for themselves. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any questions? Yes?

Frank Roser. I don't know this gentleman I not associated with its proposal, but he raises an interesting point and that's the question that in your response, I think on this proposal, you indicated that you are involved in [indiscernible] companies. And I've been in this business for 30 years. I've been -- I created the first mutual fund SRI years back in the '90s as before called SRI funds and not a KG funds. But I don't ever see Goldman Sachs out engaging companies in any place anywhere. You have been power, you have the ability to be heavily influential. I don't know if you had any executives within your company, that is assigned to any kind of shareholder engagement process, you might belong to the UNPRI or some of these other major organizations and let me think that they're doing something great. But you all could be a role you can play a role. You could join other organizations. And you can actually have an active employee somewhere, they be great training for them express for them. For you all to exercise your shareholder proxy power just an observation.

Thank you. I appreciate that comment. I appreciate that feedback. Are there any other questions regarding this proposal? The each matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the Service Employees International Union Master Trust regarding our racial equity audit. The Board has unanimously recommended that the shareholders vote against the shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Edgar Hernandez. Please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Edgar Hernadez. I'm here on behalf of the Service Employees International Union Pension Plan Master Trust to present proposal #8 in the proxy statement. The proposal calls for Goldman Sachs to move beyond diversity initiatives in philanthropy, channelized a full range of adverse ratio impacts caused by the company's business and operations. Doing so would allow Goldman to address racial and equities at a harming my communities and stakeholders curbing economic growth and potentially depressing investor returns. Its statement of opposition to the proposal, Goldman argues that the audits call for the proposal is unnecessary because it hired the law from a Wilmer, Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, also known as WilmerHale. Last year to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of nonwhitestakeholders and communities of 3 Goldman programs, but the review is not a substitute for the racial equity audit start on the proposal. The WilmerHale review first did not seek to identify or analyze adverse racial impacts of Goldman managements businesses precluding any efforts to balance the identified benefits of the programs against the impact of larger businesses; two, encompass only 3 program whose total outlets from Goldman's are minuscule compared to Goldman's revenues of $47 billion and profits over $11 billion in 2022 alone. Three, we analyze the program, 10,000 small businesses that is not expressively diversity-focused initiative. Indeed, under 40% of participants in the 10,000 of small business education component have been nonwhite. And because of the access to capital component is conducted through outside partners at WilmerHale was unable to determine whether the recent criteria adjustments have boosted lending to businesses owned by members of minority groups. And four, Goldman's proxying record is consistent and inconsistent with the commitment to racial justice, racial justice majority action and the Service Employees International Union analyzed voting records of the 20 large asset managers on Goldman supported no ratio equity audit proposals in the 2022 proxy season type for the worst record on that issue with Vanguard. For the reasons previously mentioned, we are shareholders of Goldman Sachs to support, the proposal #8. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. Are there any questions related to this proposal? The ninth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the Sierra Club Foundation regarding a policy to phase out the fossil fuel-related lending and underwriting activities. 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. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, members of the Goldman Sachs Board and management and fellow shareholders. My name is Dan Chu. I am the Executive Director of Sierra club Foundation. I'm presenting Resolution #9, which requests that Goldman Sachs Board of Directors adopt a policy for a time-bound phaseout of Goldman Sachs lending and underwriting to projects and companies engaging new fossil fuel exploration and development. Scientific consensus on new fossil fuel exploration and development is clear. To get to net 0 by 2050, the world cannot continue to develop new oil and gas fields, liquefied natural gas facilities or coal mines beyond those that have already been approved for investment. Goldman Sachs is not net 0 aligned if it continues to finance such fossil fuel expansions. Goldman Sachs has committed to Net Zero by 2050 and your CEO, David Solomon, committed the company to a science-based 1.5-degree celsius pathway when the company joined the Net Zero banking alliance in 2021, Goldman Sachs TCFD report includes a commitment to reduce oil and gas emissions intensity by up to 22% by 2030 on lending and capital markets facilitation activities. Clearly, these commitments signal your bank's commitment to reduce and eventually eliminate its financing of oil, gas and coal. Our resolution simply asked at Goldman Sachs be transparent and intentional by adopting a policy to phase out financing of new fossil fuel projects. The policy we are asking for provides greater accountability and transparency on Goldman Sachs financing activities while allowing for the financing of credible transition plans by its clients. Financing new oil and gas fields, LNG facilities or coal mines makes hitting that 2030 target and the 2050 net zero commitment you all made much harder and will result in more draconian measures in other sectors. Goldman Sachs is exposing shareholders to material risks from failing to align its financing of fossil fuel expansion with its net 0 commitments. Regulators are already investigating and sanctioning banks that are making misleading environmental and climate claims. In fact, Goldman Sachs recently paid a $4 million penalty involving ESG investments and was told by the SEC to avoid providing investors with information that differs from its practices. Litigation and decisions challenging greenwashing are on the rise. Another risk high-profile activist campaigns demanding the banks stop financing fossil fuel projects and companies are elevating reputational risks. Reputational damage from missing climate commitments could be material as acknowledged by Goldman Sachs in your latest annual report. Goldman Sachs is a climate laggard among its peers and we'll lose billions in revenue as customers and clients leave to join more climate line banks. The latest banking crises are a reminder of the value of responsible risk management. Climate change already poses a massive risk to the financial system. Fossil fuel expansion will only make that risk worse, Goldman Sachs should be decreasing its exposure to climate risk, not increasing it. In closing, we urge the shareholders of Goldman Sachs to build a more resilient Goldman Sachs in the face of accelerating risk from climate change. Goldman Sachs most quickly moved to stop financing fossil fuel expansion, new oil and gas fields and coal mines will not help meet current energy demands. Locking us into decades of new fossil fuel emissions makes no sense when banks such as Goldman Sachs, should be financing the transition away from carbon-emitting fossil fuel activities. By supporting our proposal, you are addressing material reputational risks by aligning the policies of the bank with its public commitments to the 2030 target and net 0 by 2050. Misalignment between your actions and policies put this bank and its shareholders at risk of being seen as greenwashing. All shareholders concerned with Goldman Sachs not meeting its climate commitments and anyone who wants to create a world that is not disrupted by severe climate change impacts should support our proposal. We urge all fellow shareholders to vote for Proposal #9. Thanks for your time. And then I think there's a question on this particular proposal from a local resident, if you would give us some time.

Sure. I'm happy to take questions on the proposal.

Hello. Hello. My name is [indiscernible]. And I thought East Texas had a lot of conspiracy theorists, but some of these fellows today that spoke took the cake on that. But anyway, my friends called me [indiscernible]. I'm a representative of Trillium Asset Management as well as the Sierra Club member from Southeast Texas, where I was born and raised and currently lived. For some background, Southeast Texas, the area around Beaumont and [indiscernible] is home to numerous refineries, chemical plants and is currently the side of several planned expansions for LNG, which is liquid natural gas facilities, ethane crackers and various other petrochemical buildup. My own neighborhood was recently destroyed for new pipelines. The air is constantly smoky and small strange. We had 2 explosions recently, and I'm worried that the people in my neighborhood, including my own relatives who have gotten cancer and died have been affected by the chemicals in the air. On top of this, I am afraid of the climate destruction happening around us, which I believe also led to increased damage. We have recently endured from hurricanes and ice storms. Knowing all of this, I ask how can you still in good conscience with your own families and got above you from these expansions? And also, have you considered changing company's protocol to better vet [indiscernible] site investments? I would also like to invite the Board members and everyone involved with ESG at your organization to come visit my neighborhood to see the reality of their investment. Thank you.

Thank you. We appreciate those comments.

Are there question? It's Frank Rusher again. You have a great board member that's been on, I think, only for about a year. Michele, is she here today? Yes. She had a fabulous background in this topic field. I don't see that she's on your sustainability efforts, but I don't know if you already using her and giving her an opportunity to provide our expertise. This is a war. You have a great resource there. I just ask you -- have you -- is that a deliberate concession? Or is it just you can't give a job every position? Or what is the reason that you're not at least the formal organization chart looking like you're utilizing her.

I appreciate the comment. I'm less -- we're blessed with a really fantastic board that has a very, very diverse set of experiences. -- including Jessica's experience, and we talk heavily, consult heavily utilize that, but we'll take under advisement the comment about her direct involvement. Are there any other questions on this proposal? The tenth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the New York City Controller on behalf of certain New York City Retirement Systems regarding the disclosure of 2030 absolute greenhouse gas reduction goals. The Board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against the shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy. I believe the proposal is being presented by Michele [Indiscernible] Taylor. Michele, please go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Board and fellow shareholders. My name is Michele [indiscernible] Taylor, and I'm here on behalf to present Proposal 10 on behalf of New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is on behalf of the several New York City pension funds that are long-term shareholders of Goldman Sachs. The proposal requests that Goldman Sachs disclosed Instrument 2030 absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets for lending and underwriting in the high emittance sectors of oil and gas and power generation. These targets should align with science-based net 0 pathway and be in addition to the emission intensity targets already set by the bank. As a signature to the banking alliance, Goldman Sachs has committed to achieving net 0 greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and reporting progress towards this goal against absolute emissions and/or emissions intensity targets. Proposal 10 an absolute target is important for several reasons. First, Goldman Sachs has set only intensity targets, which provide an incomplete picture of the bank's progress towards its climate commitment. Absolute targets are more transparent and easy to understand than intensity targets, which can be complicated to calculate and difficult for investors to interpret. Absent disclosure of absolute targets requested in Proposal 10 against wish [indiscernible]. Neither shareholders nor the Board of Directors will be able to assess whether any reduction in absolute finance emissions reported by Goldman Sachs on a science-based pathway towards its commitment to achieve net 0 finance and mission in 2050. CitiGroup, which committed to a 29% absolute reduction target for the energy sector by 2030 as stated that. For the energy sector, absolute reduction is required to meet net 0 goal and is most transparent target selection. Second, reliant solely on intensity targets could allow Goldman Sachs clients to invest in expanded fossil fuel production, lowering their overall carbon intensity while increasing absolute emissions. Given the long-lived nature of fossil fuel production assets, financing in action will expose Goldman Sachs a significant transition risk and lock in GHG emissions for decades to come. Third, set in actual target is in line with industry best practice and Goldman Sachs [indiscernible] is by not doing so. In addition to Citigroup, Bank of Montreal, Wells Fargo and HSBC are among the other major banks that disclosed 2030 [ APPU ] targets for their oil and gas lending portfolios. As long-term shareholders, we expect Goldman Sachs to work with its clients to reduce actual greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, not just the intensity of those admissions. Setting actual targets would demonstrate Goldman Sach's commitment to reducing real-world emissions and reaching its net 0 goal. Thank you to the Board and please consider our shareholder support. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any questions related to this proposal? The 11th matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by Max Street 2016 Trust as lead filer regarding the climate transition report. 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 [ Kelen ] [indiscernible].[ Kelen ], please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is [ kelen ] [indiscernible], speaking on behalf of [indiscernible]. Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal. The banking sector has a critical role to play in achieving global Net 0 goals. Shareholders appreciate the work Goldman has done over the past 2 years and setting a net 0 by 2050 goal and 2030 emission reduction targets for 3 sectors of its portfolio. Having set 2030 goals, investors now seek more information about Goldman's plan to achieve those goals. While we appreciate that it has identified broad categories of action, we seek a plan for how those actions add up to sufficient progress. For instance, assisting clients in transition is inefficient to reach the firm's goals, what internal banking policies and practices will be put in place to make up the difference. Will Goldman develop internal financing criteria, client incentives, additional prohibitions on financing. Shareholders seek a road map that sets realistic expectations and that drives action. For several large banks, including Goldman, financing to Fossil Fuel companies sell in 2022. This is a welcome change. But this year's decline in financing may have had more to do with the lack of demand from companies than with Goldman's policies. Without a transition plan in place, we are concerned that 2022 may remain an outlier year. Investors seek a transition plan for assurance that Goldman has a strategy to reduce its finance emissions on track with its 2030 goals regardless of short-term fossil fuel profitability. Goldman has been a leader in setting net 0 goals. We look to the Board and management to continue this leadership by developing and publishing a road map for achieving the bank's 2030 targets. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions related to this proposal. 12th matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by James McRitchie regarding reporting on pay equity. 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 Frank Rauscher. Frank, please go ahead.

I think basically, you all are aware of all the situations that have come up in all the PR that has been in the press for the last several years about equity. I know that you all have unfortunately suffered the lawsuit that took place with regard to pay and so forth disparities and so forth over the years. And I just wanted to just say -- I used to ask you all if you would just take again a close look at what's going on, making sure that you really feel and it's happening is obviously, it's at the board levels everything looks pretty good, but it's all the way when you start going down I realize the challenges that you don't have -- you have an institution that's all really high people you require your recruiting pools are high performance. So I realize the limitations that you have with regard to some of those standards. But I would just ask that you just take a close look with regard to an understanding and the fact that you may have some employees at the lower levels that there's opportunities to take a look at and see what's going on.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any questions related to this proposal? It is 9:12 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 to ask their question. To ensure that every shareholder has an opportunity to participate, I ask that each speaker limit their questions 3 minutes. When asking your question, please identify yourself as a shareholder state your name and, if applicable, your organization.

Last time, I'll be here, Frank Brasher. This happened. I think Goldman Sachs is in Dallas, what are your major employees strongholds outside of the New York area. I think you have a lot of employees here as I recall, and last [indiscernible] and my question has to do with the fact that you all have a bank. And I think the Peter is going to become Chairman of that banking operation. And it has to do with affordable housing. You all are doing a big project, I think, back in New York or at some place. But balance of a portable housing also. I asked Jim Dawe the same thing in his meeting when he had out here, he's located out of Plano, has a huge campus out there. I think a lot of employees that they can't live within 20 miles of [ that pace ]. I realize in New York, you can commute, that's not the way it's on Texas, you got to get the car, burn a lot of energy to get there. So I was just asked what you consider the Dallas-Fort Worth area as a place where you're looking at an affordable housing project that at least you'll give it some consideration. That's my request.

We appreciate that.

Scott Sheppard. You had a lot of proposals today about pushing you even further toward net 0. But of course, if climate risk and carbon risk is a financial risk. So are the risks that append to going too far too fast in the direction of decarbonization and a lot of the organizations you belong to the world economic forum, the PRI, I think, [indiscernible] all the alphabet soup have certain assumptions about decarbonization, including that we hear this a lot, 95% of the world's governments have signed up for it. Well, that's not in any useful way true. Lots of governments have made noises about it, but China put online more coal plants last year than the whole rest of the world and the United States still has left. And Bloomberg talks about, "Oh, China might be creating some stranded assets for itself. No, it's not. China has no interest in the world. India has said flat out. It's not going to decarbonize. It gets to get rich the way we did. And if these emerging nations do not decarbonize according to fantasy schedules, and we've even seen that Germany this year faced with a hungry and dark winter to now, let's reopen some coal plants. So can you tell me specifically what Goldman is doing only to look into the dangers and risks associated with carbon emissions. But the dangers and risks associated with decarbonizing under fanciful premises and presumptions and what you're doing to make realistic assumptions and models based on the likelihood that the rest of the world is not going to come along, which means that American decreases aren't going to make any difference that what we're really doing is giving away our profitability and value from reliable energy creation to other parts of the world and you're costing your investors, shareholders and everybody else for no realistic benefit.

I appreciate the question. I appreciate your comments. The macro environment over the last year has certainly shown that the challenges of navigated a climate transition are very, very complex, and we have a responsibility to balance short-term energy needs, short-term energy security with long-term transition. The firm is committed to working with our clients to find ways that we can play a role in successfully helping the transition, but we're also very realistic about the fact that fossil fuels is still going to be a part of energy needs on a global basis, and this is a long journey. And so we continue to be focused on that path in that journey.

Dan Chu Sierra Club Foundation. So just to be clear, we agree the transition plan needs to be thoughtful and also needs to be real. And so this is the second year we've come forward with the shareholder proposal through engagement with leadership at all of the banks. We heard their feedback. We also heard feedback from other asset managers and fund advisers as well. And so we've made this less prescriptive. We're not saying ended tomorrow, all we're saying is, can we see an actual transition plan with targets that show that you're serious about your net 0 commitment. The second thing I'd say is, yes, certainly, we need fossil fuels today by investing in new fossil fuel projects, you're locking the world into 30, 50 or more years worth of lifespan for those projects. So financing those new projects today does not mean that fossil fuel ends up being consumed today. It takes years for that to happen. We're just asking you to plan ahead not continue to invest in fossil fuels and projects that will be there 30, 50 years down the road, but recognize that in the short term, you do need to work on a transition plan, and we're just asking that we see a credible plan to phase away from those new projects.

Appreciate your comments. Are there any other questions? I'm sorry, go ahead. please.

My name is [indiscernible]. Just wanted to ask a general question. How is Goldman Sachs been able to maintain and build upon its reputation and overcome obstacles?

Well, thanks for that question. The leadership team and the Board is steward an organization that's been around for 154 years. We spend a lot of time spending a lot of time currently investing in our culture. We stand upon 4 foundational values of client service, partnership, excellence and integrity. We think about the things that we try to do each day to serve our clients. And so as we look at our franchise today and the way the business is positioned, we think it's very well positioned. But every day, there are challenges, and we work in a very collaborative open culture to try to make sure we can do the best for our clients and move the organization forward and ultimately perform for our shareholders. So thank you. Are there any other questions? We've been informed by the Inspector of Election that we have available preliminary voting results. Kathy will you announce them?

Results will be provided in the Form 8-K that we will file within 4 business days. First, I'm pleased to announce that each of our 12 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 94% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently, is approved. Third, the annual option regarding the advisory vote on frequency of say-on-pay votes received the support of approximately 98% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is approved. Fourth, the proposed ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers as our independent auditors received the support of votes representing approximately 96% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is approved. Fifth, the proposal regarding a report on lobbying received the support of approximately 35% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently, is not approved. Six, the proposal regarding a policy for an independent chair received the support of approximately 16% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Seventh, the proposal regarding Chinese congruency of certain ETFs received the support of approximately 2% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Eighth, the proposal regarding a racial equity audit received the support of approximately 11% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Ninth, the proposal regarding a policy to phase out fossil fuel-related lending and underwriting activities received the support of approximately 7% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Tenth, the proposal regarding disclosure of 2030 absolute greenhouse gas reduction goals received the support of approximately 12% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Eleventh, the proposal regarding a climate transition report received the support of approximately 30% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently, is not approved. And lastly, the proposal regarding reporting on pay equity received the support of approximately 30% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently, is not approved.

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