Today The Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) announced that it was paying its CEO Lloyd Blankfein $54 million. I think he should get $68 million. Goldman's net income rose 70% in the last year but Blankfein's compensation is only 46% higher than that of his predecessor who oversaw 23% net income growth. When his predecessor increased Goldman's 2005 net income 23% over the 2004 level, he got a 29% boost (6% above net income growth) in compensation over 2004. So I figure Blankfein should have gotten 76% more -- $68 million. In other words, Goldman stiffed Blankfein by 21%.
How so? In 2005 Goldman's CEO (and current Treasury Secretary) Hank Paulson got $38.8 million which was up 29% from the $30 million he received in 2004. As I posted earlier, Paulson's 2005 compensation was based on many factors -- such as the improvement in Goldman's revenues (+46%), net income (+23%), earnings per share (+26%), return on equity (+ 2 percentage points), and the revenues of its business units -- Investment Banking (+9%), Trading and Principal Investments (+23%) and Asset Management and Securities Services (+23%).
Under Blankfein, Goldman's operations improved far more than under Paulson. Revenues grew 60% to $69.4 billion; net income rose 70%; earnings per share climbed 78%. Revenues of most of its business units increased much more under Blankfein as well -- Investment Banking (+42%), Trading (+105%), Principal Investments (+64%). Only Asset Management and Securities Services (+16%) was up less under Blankfein than under Paulson.
If that's not enough, under Blankfein, Goldman stock rose 58% while under Paulson, it rose a measly 20% in 2005. If Goldman's board underpays its CEO, how can shareholders be sure he'll stick around to boost the value of their investment in the future?
Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management consulting and venture capital firm, and a Professor of Management at Babson College. He has no financial interest in Goldman Sachs.
PC Upgrades on Byte-Size Budgets -- Savings Experiment
Stay-At-Home Mom Fights New Credit Card Rule


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-20-2006 @ 11:14AM
Bill Stanners` said...
It is high time for the administration and congress require that stockholders determine bonuses for the top officers of Corporations. Of course they may not get some of the millions given to campaigns by the top companies and officers. Anything over $5 Million a year is rediculous. Noone is that essential to any corporation.They even make more than T.O. and company!
12-21-2006 @ 7:28AM
Alva Goldbook said...
Why should ANYONE be paid $54 million, let alone $68 million? Maybe Blankfein would deserve that $54 million if he ended the spread of AIDS in Africa, but otherwise it is just another sign of our broken economic system. While Blankfein is up to his ears in cash 1 in 5 Americans go to bed hungry, the majority of them children. Infant mortality in the US is now higher than it is in Cuba. And someone in the United States commits suicide every 28 seconds. This is all part of the cost of poverty in America, a bill the American people are paying so that people like Blankfein can wallow in his cash. Oil isn't the only finite resource in this country, WEALTH is finite as well. And when anyone accumulates Blankfein's kind of cash it is one in the same with robbing a bank and stealing the savings of everyone who has an account there. The only difference is that Blankfein's bonus is just high-tech LEGALIZED theft.
12-20-2006 @ 9:18PM
renny bowers said...
compensation committees (members of whom are co-conspirators in setting totally unrealistic and obscene compensation packages for their execs in the hope... not unrealistic.... that such execs sitting on their compensation committees will reciprocate)need to get a comeupence from shareholders (unfortunately also unrealistic in that individual shareholders no longer have any real say in corporate governance or compensation). exec comp today becomes a fixation (ego trip) by those benefited which results in poor decision making (focused on the next quarter's results and the impact of same on options)for the company owners (shareholders). european corp. exs make a fraction of what their counterparts in the USA make. what has become of the director's fiduciary responsibility to shareholders? while we don't need more lawsuits, i think we need to unravel this conspiracy (and eliminate the kozlowskis, ebbers, lays, scruchis etc from the scene)!
12-20-2006 @ 10:09PM
John Napier said...
Wheh will the stock owners wake up and see that it isn't the CEOs that raise productivity it is the everyday worker.That is who should get any reconition and some of the great profits these companys are passing out to people who sit on their asses and give orders.
12-21-2006 @ 11:37AM
Todd said...
Lloyd Blankfein is a brilliant man and tough manager. Goldman Sachs is lucky to have him steering the ship. To argue that his compensation is too high is ludicrous and goes against what made this country what it is today. He is in a business with high risks and high rewards---he is in a league unto his own.
1-03-2007 @ 7:47PM
Inquisitive Employee said...
I agree with John Napier - CEOs don't make this happen on their own. There are thousands of rank and file workers who toil day in and day out to keep things running and they aren't being rewarded nearly as handsomely. I work for a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs - we have a different payroll structure and benefits. Know what our bonuses were? Over 1,000 employees SHARED $600,000 - that's less than the average set aside per Goldman employee. It's just not right.