Goldman Sachs Plans John Waldron as Next CEO
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
The Wall Street Journal reported that Goldman Sachs’s board of directors has discussed a succession plan under which president and chief operating officer John Waldron, 57, would replace CEO David Solomon, 64, who has led the firm since October 2018. The reported blueprint would have Waldron take over as early as next year or in late 2027 or 2028, with Solomon moving to executive chairman for one to two years, and directors could formally approve a transition in coming months. A Goldman Sachs spokesman said the board regularly discusses succession as disclosed in filings but there is “no definitive timeline for succession” and that “any assertions about timing are just speculation.” Waldron, in the No. 2 role since 2018, had discussed leadership jobs at Apollo and Carlyle in recent years; Goldman awarded him an $80 million retention package running through 2030 and, according to one account, gave both men $80 million retention bonuses in January 2025 and added Waldron to the board.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 2 articles
1 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with a The Wall Street Journal report citing unnamed sources; a named source appeared 21 hours later. Most articles credit The Wall Street Journal 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: The Wall Street Journal, Mike Mayo, Charles Elson, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Tony Fratto
- 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 2 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: The Wall Street Journal
- Unnamed sources 2 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. Here: e.g. “people familiar with the matter”
- 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 Sep 29, 00:09 UTC by New York Post, crediting The Wall Street Journal, with no named source. First named source 21 hours later, from CNBC.
- 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
Left-leaning coverage casts the handover as a standoff Solomon may refuse, without reporting that the board already paid both men large retention bonuses and seated Waldron as a director. Right-leaning coverage reports those lock-in moves and a possible 2027 start for Waldron, but never says Solomon chairs Goldman's board or that a Yale governance scholar warned against pushing out a winning chief. One side's reader sees a CEO who may not leave; the other's sees a transition already paid for.
Left-leaning coverage leads with Goldman's records and how striking it is to replace a winning CEO. Right-leaning coverage leads with the board "quietly finalizing" a plan, then walks through partner defections and a DJ side gig before the stock rebound.
None of the coverage answers whether Solomon has agreed to leave on any timetable.
Bottom line
CNBC never reports that Solomon got an $80 million retention bonus of his own; the New York Post never reports that he already chairs the board that would replace him. Neither side quotes Solomon saying he will leave.
The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
- The board awarded both John Waldron and David Solomon $80 million retention bonuses in January 2025
- Waldron's retention package lasts through 2030
- Finance chief Denis Coleman has begun absorbing Waldron's operational duties
- Top contenders to fill the presidency include Marc Nachmann, Ashok Varadhan, and Dan Dees
The Left View
CNBC frames the talks as striking given Goldman’s current standing—more than $1 trillion in merger advice and more than $12 billion in first-half equities revenue—and treats the story as a bind, not a completed handover. Its core claim is a “key risk”: Solomon “may not be ready to give up his seat, and Waldron may not be willing to wait for it indefinitely.” Retired University of Delaware professor Charles Elson said it is “just very hard for a person like that to decide they are really going to retire,” that Solomon as chairman holds “outsized influence,” and that “there will always be tension in a set up like that,” likening it to “Prince Charles waiting for his mother to die.” Yale’s Jeffrey Sonnenfeld said it would be “bad governance” if the board were trying to “drive out a high performing CEO like David Solomon,” a record CNBC tied to shares up more than 300% under him—second only to JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon versus the KBW Bank Index. Elson added that confirming a near-term exit would make Solomon a “lame duck,” while staying through an AI boom he sees as early could still cost Goldman Waldron. Wells Fargo’s Mike Mayo, by contrast, called the prospective handover one of the “smoother and more deliberate” leadership transitions on Wall Street.
The Right View
The New York Post presents the board as “quietly finalizing” a plan that would “cap a defining decade for Solomon,” emphasizing a redemption arc rather than a governance crisis: a “turbulent stretch” of partner defections, grumbling over his “side gig as a DJ,” and a consumer-lending experiment that “cost the firm roughly $7 billion,” followed by a “massive rebound” after Goldman ditched retail banking and refocused on dealmaking, trading, and wealth management, with shares having “quadrupled” since he took command. It casts Waldron as the longtime “heir apparent” and a “master dealmaker” with a global corporate and government network whom the firm “moved aggressively to retain.” The Post dwells on the internal “high-stakes leadership shuffle” that would follow: finance chief Denis Coleman absorbing operational duties and overseeing an AI productivity initiative called “OneGS 3.0,” and a contest for the presidency among Marc Nachmann and global banking-and-markets co-heads Ashok Varadhan and Dan Dees, the last of whom “boosted his internal profile” by winning the lead role on the SpaceX IPO. It also foregrounds the bank’s line that timing claims are “just speculation.”
Our Take (balanced)
CNBC’s strongest argument is performance versus timing: with Goldman at record deal and equities levels and shares up more than 300% under Solomon, Sonnenfeld’s warning that driving out a “high performing CEO” would be “bad governance,” and Elson’s point that a chairman-CEO is hard to force out, the reported plan looks like a succession bind in which naming a date creates a lame duck and delaying it risks losing Waldron. The Post’s strongest argument is that after a consumer-banking loss of roughly $7 billion and internal unrest, a handover to a long-designated No. 2—already locked in with retention pay and a board seat—is the ordinary close of a “defining decade,” with the live fight being who gets the presidency. The central unresolved tension is whether directors are executing a “smoother and more deliberate” transition or floating a timetable the firm itself says does not exist, while a still-successful CEO may not be ready to leave.
2 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.