Other surprise measures include pulling unvested compensation from long-time loyalists such as former division chiefs Gregg Lemkau and Eric Lane – who left for firms that would be considered clients. It’s part of a pattern of expanding the list of what counts as a competitor to enforce more restrictive exit agreements.
Like other Wall Street leaders, Mr Solomon has been frustrated by the escalating turnover through the pandemic that has forced firms to sweeten rewards for rainmakers to levels not seen since the financial crisis. But there are also more punitive ways to send a message to senior executives weighing their options. Goldman is willing to make it very costly for those wanting to jump ship.
This look at Goldman’s handling of recent departures is based on conversations with eight people familiar with the bank’s decisions. They asked not to be identified.
Broad powers
“Equity awards are governed by the agreement signed by the recipient,” said Patrick Scanlan, a spokesman for Goldman. “In each case mentioned by Bloomberg, there were explicit terms which were upheld.”
Representatives for Mr Lemkau, Mr Lane, Mr Ismail and Mr Stark declined to comment.
Wall Street firms’ employment agreements give them broad power if someone even sneezes to their displeasure. But banks seldom exercise those rights to the strictest interpretation unless someone defects to a direct rival. Clients of a bank are rarely dubbed rivals in that context, even if they do compete in some areas.
One infamous incident was Andrea Orcel’s 2018 move from investment banking head at UBS to become chief executive of Banco Santander. That blew up in part over an assumption that the Swiss firm would not view the Spanish retail lender as a direct competitor and thus Santander would not have to replace forfeited awards. UBS chairman Axel Weber refuted that with a simple mantra: You leave, you lose.
Goldman went one step further with Mr Ismail and Mr Stark. In January, the firm blocked the duo from cashing out stock bonuses that had vested and been taxed going back five years. Those were shares they should have been able to sell after standard restrictions had just started to lapse.
The punishment mimics the clawbacks that came into vogue after the financial crisis to make sure executives could not profit from malfeasance. Equity awards to bankers at Goldman typically vest over three years in equal increments. But recipients are not allowed to cash out the stock until five years after the first award, even as they pay taxes on it. The idea is to ensure employees’ interests are aligned with the company’s long-term health.
With Mr Ismail and Mr Stark, the bank refused to release transfer restrictions on stock going back to the 2016 pay cycle. Those shares, granted in 2017, would have just become eligible for cashing out in January. Executives at the bank have argued they have the right to confiscate that stock.
Advertisem*nt
In other cases, the bank has done away with niceties even with veterans who have spent decades there.
Inside Goldman, a tradition known as the Rule of 60 lets executives keep their deferred stock if the sum of their age and tenure at the firm exceeds 60. It is a way to reward long-time employees who decide to take a run at another career.
Through the pandemic, the bank has surprised a number of long-timers by pulling their unvested compensation after concluding the buy-side firms they were joining now count as rivals.
Mr Lemkau and Mr Lane both easily qualified for the Rule of 60. They had arrived at Goldman before Mr Solomon, who started in 1999. Yet, they were stripped of millions of dollars in stock awards that had not vested, a rebuff that surprised and rubbed raw with many senior Goldman executives.
Mr Lemkau went to run MSD Partners, the Michael Dell-affiliated investment firm, while Mr Lane joined Chase Coleman’s Tiger Global Management, which focuses on technology investments.
Bloomberg Wealth
As a seasoned expert in the field, I can assure you that I possess extensive knowledge and insight into the intricate dynamics of the financial industry, particularly concerning executive compensation, departure strategies, and restrictive exit agreements. My expertise is grounded in a comprehensive understanding of Wall Street practices, corporate governance, and the nuanced ways in which financial institutions navigate employee transitions.
Now, delving into the content you provided about Goldman Sachs and its handling of recent departures, it's evident that the firm is adopting a stringent approach to retain its senior executives. The article outlines surprise measures taken by Goldman Sachs, including the retrieval of unvested compensation from long-time loyalists who departed for firms considered as clients.
One key aspect highlighted in the article is the use of equity awards and the enforcement of explicit terms in agreements. Patrick Scanlan, a spokesman for Goldman, emphasizes that equity awards are governed by the agreements signed by the recipients, and in each case mentioned, these explicit terms were upheld. This underscores the legal and contractual basis for the actions taken by the bank.
The article also sheds light on the broader powers that Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs, possess in their employment agreements. These agreements grant significant authority to the firms, allowing them to take strict measures in response to employee actions that displease them. The narrative suggests that such powers are typically exercised rigorously when an executive defects to a direct rival, showcasing the competitive nature of the financial industry.
Goldman Sachs appears to be willing to make the departure of senior executives very costly, not only by pulling unvested compensation but also by blocking individuals from cashing out stock bonuses that had vested over several years. This move is described as punitive and is likened to clawbacks implemented after the financial crisis to prevent executives from benefiting from misconduct.
A noteworthy example in the article involves Goldman going beyond traditional measures with executives Ismail and Stark, blocking them from cashing out stock bonuses that had vested and been taxed going back five years. The bank refused to release transfer restrictions on stock from the 2016 pay cycle, even though standard restrictions had just started to lapse. This exemplifies Goldman's commitment to enforcing its interpretation of contractual terms, even if it involves unconventional and aggressive measures.
Furthermore, the article touches upon the Rule of 60 within Goldman Sachs, a tradition allowing executives to keep their deferred stock if the sum of their age and tenure at the firm exceeds 60. Despite this tradition, the bank has surprised long-time executives by pulling unvested compensation after determining that the buy-side firms they were joining are now considered rivals.
In conclusion, the actions taken by Goldman Sachs, as outlined in the article, reflect the firm's determination to retain key talent and enforce contractual agreements even at the cost of resorting to unconventional and punitive measures. This approach is driven by the competitive landscape of the financial industry and the challenges posed by increased turnover, especially during the pandemic.
