Bay Point, CA. 94565
July 31, 2015
Secretary to the Board of
Directors
Vice President and Associate
General Counsel
The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc.
200 West Street, New York
NY 10282
Via Email:
Re: Shareholder
Proposal on compensation
Committee
Dear Mr. Rogers and Ms.
Greenberg:
Thank you for your
email letter dated July 30, 2015.
I do not agree to your
saying “that the Submission contains more than one shareholder proposal”
because I submitted only one proposal to reform the compensation committee.
However, for the purpose to constructively include my proposal to the 2016
proxy statement, I simplified my proposal. Attached is the revised shareholder
proposal.
After I sent my proposal on July 24, 2015 through
certified mail and email, I noticed two typos:
1)
The cover letter
subject should be “Re: Shareholder Proposal on compensation Committee”, not on Independent
Chairman;
2)
My ownership is
“at least 20 shares”, not “at least 30 shares”. Attached is the revised shares
ownership letter.
Should you have any questions, please contact me via
email zhao.cpri@gmail.com.
Yours
truly,
Jing
Zhao
Enclosure: revised shareholder
proposal
revised shares ownership letter
Cc:
Shareholder Proposal on Compensation Committee
Resolved:
shareholders recommend that The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. (the firm) reform
the Compensation Committee to include outside experts from the general public,
besides members of the Board of Directors. This is not intended to
unnecessarily limit our Board’s judgment in crafting the recommended reform (such
as the qualification, number, function and term of outside experts) in
accordance with applicable laws.
Supporting Statement
According
to the firm’s 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders Proxy Statement, in 2014 the
Chairman and CEO’s total compensation was $22,162,912; the President and COO’s
total compensation was $20,200,084; the CFO’s total compensation was
$20,177,797; the Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asia Pacific’s total compensation was
$24,225,462; the Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs International’s total compensation was
$21,061,873 (page 57); and the Compensation Committee “again retained Semler
Brossy as its independent compensation consultant in 2014” (page 46). However, one single consulting firm cannot represent
the general public, such as unions, the academic society, independent think
tanks and publicly elected officers, to advise a reasonable, fair, just and
ethical compensation policy responsive to America’s general economy, such as unemployment,
working hour and wage inequality.
As Thomas Piketty stated, “there is
absolutely no doubt that the increase of inequality in the United States
contributed to the nation’s financial instability.” (Capital in the
Twenty-First Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer.Cambridge:
The Belknap Press ofHarvardUniversityPress, 2014.
p.297) “Let me return now to the cause
of rising inequality in theUnited
States. The increase was largely the result
of an unprecedented increase in wage inequality and in particular the emergence
of extremely high remunerations at the summit of the wage hierarchy,
particularly among top managers of large firms.”(p.298) And, “the financial
professions are about twice as common in the very high income groups as in the
economy overall.” (p.303) “Because it is
objectively difficult to measure individual contributions to a firm’s output,
top managers found it relatively easy to persuade boards and stockholders that
they were worth the money, especially since the members of compensation
committees were often chosen in a rather incestuous manner.” (p.510)
This
proposal should also be evaluated in the context of the firm’s unconscionable compensation
principles for executive officers.
|