OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Goldman Sachs Top Bosses Set for $500 Million Bonus

4 sources · updated 2026-10-09
Left 50% Center 0% Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right

What happened

In October 2021, Goldman Sachs created performance-based Shareholder Value Creation Awards for senior executives; the program was later expanded from CEO David Solomon and President John Waldron to about 20 leaders after internal and investor pushback. The awards, expected to be finalized later in October around the bank's third-quarter earnings, are projected to total up to $500 million in Goldman stock, with Solomon due roughly $100 million or more and Waldron just over $66 million; other named recipients include global banking and markets co-heads Ashok Varadhan and Dan Dees and Marc Nachmann. Vesting depended on a five-year period: half on Goldman share-price targets and half on beating six rival banks. Over that span Goldman shares rose about 146 percent, and they have roughly quadrupled since Solomon became CEO in October 2018; the firm outperformed most of the selected peers. A bank spokesperson said the board designed the awards to align pay with performance thresholds, ensure leadership continuity, and retain talent; they are separate from an $80 million retention grant Solomon and Waldron received in January 2025 that does not vest until 2030.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 2 articles

1 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Most articles credit Bloomberg rather than reporting it themselves.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 1 of 2
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Goldman Sachs spokesperson
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 1 of 2
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Bloomberg
Unnamed sources 0 of 2
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 8, 18:09 UTC by The Guardian, naming its source.
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

The special bonus began as an exclusive grant for the chief executive and president, not as a broad leadership pool. Right-leaning coverage in the New York Post reports the board later expanded it after internal anger and investor questions about why the wealth was limited to two men. Left-leaning coverage in the Guardian frames the payout as a long-term plan for 20 bankers, with no word of the original pairing or the pushback. Right-leaning coverage in the Daily Caller leads with adults who cannot cover a $400 emergency, not with the award's terms. Left-leaning coverage never mentions household savings and instead lines the Goldman grants up against other chief executives' pay, including Jane Fraser and Jamie Dimon. What did the rest of Goldman's workforce receive while these awards were vesting?
Bottom line

The Guardian never says Goldman's $500 million bonus started as a Solomon-and-Waldron grant that grew after internal anger, a fact the New York Post reports.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The special stock awards were first granted only to David Solomon and John Waldron, then expanded to more executives after shareholder questions. contextin New York Post, Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The original two-person grant sparked internal anger inside Goldman. contextin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Taxes could take roughly $250 million of the pool because the awards are treated as ordinary income, not capital gains. numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • President John Waldron is set to receive just north of $66 million. numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • In January 2025 Solomon and Waldron received a separate $80 million retention package that does not pay out until 2030. numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
The Guardian frames the episode as an "eye-watering" payout and "one of the biggest" in the bank's history, underscoring that Solomon's portion is more than double the record $47 million annual package he was granted the prior year. It places the awards in "a string of large payouts" for U.S. executives, citing Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser's record $42 million for 2025 and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon's $43 million pay package plus a long-term incentive worth about $270 million. Coverage reports the bank's competitive-retention rationale, but the emphasis is on how far Wall Street executive compensation has climbed relative even to other recent records.
The Right View
The New York Post treats the awards as a performance-driven windfall amid Wall Street profits on track for a record $90 billion, up nearly 40 percent, and notes that rival retention packages in 2021 (including Dimon's long-term award) helped spur Goldman's program. It stresses that the bonuses are taxed as ordinary income, so combined federal, state, and New York City rates topping 54 percent could erase more than $50 million of Solomon's payout, about $35 million of Waldron's, and roughly $250 million of the full pool, and it compares the sums with Lloyd Blankfein's inflation-adjusted 2007 bonus of about $110 million. The Daily Caller instead juxtaposes the windfall with household strain, citing Federal Reserve data that 37 percent of adults cannot cover a $400 emergency without borrowing, climbing credit-card balances, and Goldman's own finding that nearly 70 percent of working respondents delayed a major financial goal.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is scale and pattern: Solomon more than doubling an already-record package, in a season of similarly outsized Wall Street grants the Guardian catalogs, is presented as evidence of runaway concentrated pay. The right's strongest argument, especially in the Post, is that disclosed five-year absolute and relative stock tests were met as shares soared, so the grants did what they were designed to do—and that ordinary-income taxation would claim about half the headline total. The central unresolved tension is whether those shareholder-linked, heavily taxed awards count as earned alignment with investors, or as a vivid split between a handful of bankers' gains and the household financial precarity the Daily Caller highlights.

4 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.