Good morning, everybody. Welcome. I'm David Solomon, the Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. Thank you for joining us at our annual Shareholders' Meeting here in Salt Lake City, Utah, or listening to our audio webcast. I now call the meeting to order. 2023 was a year of execution for our firm. Despite a challenging operating environment, we took decisive action to narrow our strategic focus and play to our core strengths. As you can see in our most recent quarterly results, we're delivering on this strategy and putting the firm in a stronger position for the forward. We've made a lot of progress, and I'm confident in the strength of our franchise and our ability to deliver for our clients and shareholders. It is clear that our One Goldman Sachs operating ethos and client-centric approach has had a meaningful impact. Over the last five years, our stock has doubled. We have more than tripled our dividend, and we have grown our book value per share by 54% above all U.S. peers. We will continue to work hard to deliver for our shareholders. We are focused on strategic objectives and execution areas we laid out in January. Over the longer term, we remain focused on three outcomes: to continue to be a trusted advisor to our clients, to be an employer of choice for our people, and to generate mid-teens returns through the cycle and strong total shareholder return. Over the course of the last year, we've made some significant investments in our culture. This is something that is and will continue to be incredibly important to the firm and to me personally. Our people are a key differentiator for our firm. Over the past year, we have placed a particular focus on reinvigorating our culture. I personally led our Cultural Stewardship Program. We had the privilege of hosting 19 of the 20 sessions and meeting in small groups with over 400 of our partners to discuss our culture in depth. These sessions were a great opportunity for me to sit down with my partners, discuss our collective role in upholding the firm's values and stewarding our culture, and communicate candidly with each other about the firm's strategy and forward priorities. The feedback I got from these sessions was invaluable and underscored for me that our firm's culture remains very strong. As I interact with the people of Goldman Sachs around the world every day, I am consistently impressed by their talent, capabilities, and how they work tirelessly to serve our clients. The quality of our people reinforces my conviction in the long-term opportunity set for Goldman Sachs and our ability to deliver for our clients and for our shareholders. The board and I are pleased to be here in Salt Lake City with our shareholders as well as our people, clients, and other stakeholders. Goldman Sachs first established an office here in 2000. It is an important talent hub for the firm, and we are proud of the strong client relationships and exceptional team we have in this region. I would like to introduce the members of our Board of Directors and thank them for their service. Would each of you please rise, as I say your name? David Viniar, who today assumes the role of Lead Director and Chair of our Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee. Michelle Burns. Mark Flaherty. Kim Harris, Chair of our Compensation Committee. Kevin Johnson. Lakshmi Mittal. Thomas Montag, who today assumes the role of Chair of our Risk Committee. Peter Oppenheimer, Chair of our Audit Committee. Vice Admiral Jan Tighe, as well as John Rogers, our Secretary to our Board. In addition, I want to mention Ellen Kullman, Chair of our Public Responsibility Committee, who unfortunately could not be with us in person as she is under the weather and unable to travel. I also want to acknowledge our outgoing Lead Director, Adebayo Ogunlesi, as well as Jessica Uhl, who have just retired from our Board. We are grateful to Bayo and Jessica for their wise counsel and many contributions that each have made to our Board and committees over their respective tenures. With us here today are John Waldron, our President and Chief Operating Officer. Dennis Coleman, our Chief Financial Officer. Kathy Ruemmler, our Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel. Kathy is acting as Secretary of this meeting. In addition, from our independent auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, we have Sam May. And from American Election Services, we are joined by Christopher Woods, our Inspector of Election. I will now turn to the business of the meeting. We will conduct the meeting in accordance with the meeting agenda and rules of conduct. I have been advised by our independent tabulator and our Inspector of Election that holders of at least 85% of our outstanding shares are present in person or by proxy, and accordingly, a quorum is present. I hereby acknowledge that the matters to be voted upon, as described in our proxy statement and supplemental filing, are properly before the meeting. It is Wednesday, April 24th, at 8:39 A.M. Mountain Time, and I declare the polls on all proposals are open. All voting at this meeting will be conducted by ballot. If you have voted your shares prior to the start of the annual meeting, your vote has already been received and tabulated, and there is no need to vote again unless you wish to revoke or change your vote. Submitting a ballot today will revoke any earlier proxies you may have submitted. Anyone who needs a ballot, please raise your hand, and they'll be collected after the polls are closed. There will be an opportunity for any shareholder wearing a green shareholder badge to ask questions on each of the proposals. After all the proposals have been presented, we will collect any ballots and close the polls. Then we will have a general question and answer session. If you have a general question or comment, please wait till then to raise it. Please use the podium located in the aisle to present the shareholder proposals and ask any questions. Before speaking, please identify yourself as a shareholder, state your name, and if applicable, your organization. We'll now turn to the proposals. The first matter to be voted on is the election of directors. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote for the election of each of the director nominees for the reasons set forth in the proxy statement. Are there any questions related to this matter? The second matter to be voted on is an advisory vote to approve the executive compensation of our named executive officers. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote for this say-on-pay vote for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. Are there any questions related to this matter? The third matter to be voted on is the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers as our independent auditors for 2024. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote for the ratification of PwC for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. Are there any questions related to this matter? The fourth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the National Legal and Policy Center regarding a policy for an independent chair. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Luke Perlot. Luke? Please. Good morning. As Mr. Solomon had mentioned, my name is Luke Perlot. I'm with the National Legal and Policy Center. Over the last year, the need for Goldman Sachs to separate its CEO and chair positions has become obvious. Mr. Solomon's current dual role shields him from accountability for his numerous missteps. Our proposal advocates for the board to separate these roles and appoint an independent board chair. While we've brought this proposal the last two years, media attention has exploded this year by comparison. Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis have both encouraged shareholders to support our proposal for the first time. The difference is that the controversies surrounding Mr. Solomon's leadership have become impossible to ignore. Before addressing Mr. Solomon's management shortcomings, we should note that independent chair positions have become the norm on purely philosophical grounds. Let's be clear: the role of CEO is demanding and expansive. Conversely, the chair's role is to ensure robust oversight, challenge management's decisions when necessary, and safeguard the interests of shareholders. When combined, these roles create a concentration of power that is fundamentally at odds with the principles of checks and balances. Our proposal aligns with the best practices endorsed by leading governance scholars and financial experts. As the legendary late ITT Corporation CEO Harold Geneen wrote in his 1984 book, Managing, quote, "The board of directors is really there to represent the interests of stockholders. What is the chief executive doing on the board? Doesn't he have a conflict of interest? He's the professional manager. He cannot represent the shareholders and impartially sit in judgment of himself." End quote. The CFA Institute, a beacon of investment professionalism, explicitly supports the separation, stating it "enhances the board's independence and its ability to monitor the executive team." The independent chair has also been endorsed by CalPERS and argued for in the Harvard Business Review. Empirical evidence shows major companies increasingly embracing the advantages of an independent chair. An increasing number of S&P 500 companies implement a governance model where the roles of chairman and CEO are separate. This shift reflects a broader understanding within the corporate governance community that an independent chair is the best model to achieve effective oversight and strategic guidance. Now, let us consider the specific situation at Goldman Sachs under Mr. Solomon's combined leadership. The confluence of CEO and chairman in one individual has not only blurred the lines of accountability but has also enabled decisions that shareholders, employees, and the media have found questionable. The need for an independent chair is further exemplified by the controversies and challenges that have emerged, affecting the company's reputation and potentially long-term stability. Furthermore, Mr. Solomon's poor decision-making led to substantial losses in the company's retail banking division, notably the GreenSky acquisition. This much-discussed foray into the new consumer banking markets was a strategic attempt to diversify the company's revenue streams. However, it has faced numerous setbacks and challenges, resulting in financial losses and a tarnished brand reputation. This expansion was marked by an overestimation of Goldman's capability to penetrate consumer banking, illustrating a lack of critical oversight that an independent chairman might have mitigated. Unfortunately, Mr. Solomon ignored warnings made by the division's senior executives to avoid sinking more resources into the floundering initiative. His strong-handed leadership cost the company $several billion in avoidable losses. Under Mr. Solomon's tenure, Goldman Sachs has faced significant challenges related to the workplace culture, including high attrition rates among female leaders and allegations of sexual harassment. Reports indicate a striking departure of female partners since 2018. Furthermore, Mr. Solomon's sexual remarks and inappropriate conduct have diminished his and the firm's credibility and risks normalizing a culture of sexual discrimination. This troubling trend highlights the urgent need for an independent chairman to assure accountability and uphold the firm's commitment to a respectful workplace. Additionally, Mr. Solomon's involvement in low-priority ESG activities has drawn criticism from various stakeholders. The focus of these initiatives has at times seemed misaligned with the company's core business objectives, potentially diverting attention and resources from more critical areas of operation. This misalignment calls into question the prioritization and decision-making process under the current governance structure. For all these reasons, we urge the board to adopt a more accountable structure by appointing an independent chair. For my fellow shareholders to vote for item four. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions related to this proposal? The fifth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by John Chevedden regarding a transparency and lobbying report. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe this proposal is being presented by Lori Aiken. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Thank you. I am a proxy for John Chevedden at this point. I move Proposal Five, sponsored by John Chevedden and co-filer Missionary Oblate, asking Goldman Sachs to provide a report on its state and federal lobbying expenditures, including indirect funding of lobbying through trade associations and social welfare groups. Shareholders are asking companies to disclose all dark money payments to third-party groups that use that money to influence policy. Goldman Sachs fails to do this. Goldman does not issue a comprehensive report of its own direct lobbying. That data is scattered among federal and state regulators, and it's difficult to obtain. We know that, for its direct lobbying, Goldman has spent over $49 million on federal lobbying since 2010, and there is incomplete disclosure about Goldman's spending at the state level, where an expert has called finding this information nearly impossible. Goldman is required to report its lobbying and already has this information so it could be easily provided to shareholders. This proposal also seeks full disclosure of dark money payments to trade associations or social welfare groups where there are no limits or disclosure requirements. Goldman shareholders face a huge blind spot here. Trade associations spend hundreds of millions to lobby. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent more than $1.8 billion since 1998. Goldman fails to even disclose its trade association memberships and does not disclose its trade association payments, nor the portions of these payments used for lobbying. Goldman belongs to the American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, Business Roundtable, Financial Services Forum, and SIFMA, which together spend over $42 million on federal lobbying for 2023. How large are Goldman's payments and what amounts are used for lobbying? Shareholders don't know, and that's a problem. Many of Goldman's trade association lobbying positions contradict company public policy positions, resulting in values misalignment and reputation risk. For example, Goldman publicly supports addressing climate change. Yes, its Business Roundtable membership opposes the Inflation Reduction Act with its historic investments in climate action. Lobbying for disclosure is a safety mechanism for Goldman Sachs, its reputation and shareholders as what gets disclosed and gets managed. Further disclosure of Goldman's lobbying, including all third-party payments, will ensure proper oversight for our company's lobbying, and I urge shareholders to vote for Proposition Five. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this proposal? The sixth matter to be voted on is the shareholder proposal submitted by the Nathan Cummings Foundation regarding an outcome report on efforts regarding protected classes of employees. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Dan Chu. Good morning. Good morning. How are you? Well, thank you. How are you? Good. I'm also going to be presenting number seven as well, so I'll just stay up here. Oh, okay. Thanks. Good morning, everybody. My name is Dan Chu. I'm the executive director for the Sierra Club Foundation. On behalf of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, I am here to move item six on the proxy. Item six requests that Goldman Sachs provide data to assure investors that its programs to eliminate harassment and discrimination within its workplace are working effectively. Federal legislation struck the use of arbitration for cases of sexual harassment and discrimination. As the White House noted, forced arbitration silences survivors of sexual assault and harassment and shields predators instead of holding them accountable and gives corporations a powerful tool to hide abusive misconduct. Concerns about the toxicity enabled by arbitration were strong enough to create a bipartisan movement. That's how serious this issue is. Unfortunately, federal laws only address sexual harassment, not race, ethnicity, or other diversity characteristics, and Goldman has not yet stepped up to proactively remove all harassment and discrimination claims from its arbitration and nondisclosure agreements. In its statement in opposition to this request, the board states that the use of arbitration or confidentiality agreements to assist in managing our broad and diverse global workforce does not result in, nor does it imply the existence of harassment or discrimination at Goldman Sachs. The Nathan Cummings Foundation acknowledges that the use of confidentiality agreements does not necessarily indicate that something problematic is being covered up. However, the continued use of such arbitration and confidentiality agreements means that Goldman Sachs investors need additional disclosure to assess the effectiveness of the company's policies and practices. We are glad that the board is committed to another review of its use of arbitration. We hope that the company will decide to mirror other large employers who no longer use concealment clauses and agree to the requested disclosure. In conclusion, after all, if Goldman's zero-tolerance approach to harassment and discrimination is working, it would be proud to complete the reporting requested. We urge shareholders to vote yes for this proposal. Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this proposal? The seventh matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the Sierra Club Foundation as lead filer regarding an environmental justice impact assessment. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. Dan, please go ahead. Great. Thanks. Thanks for your time this morning. Good morning, members of the Goldman Sachs board, management, and fellow shareholders. My name is Dan Chu. I'm the executive director of Sierra Club Foundation, a shareholder, and I'm presenting item seven, which requests that Goldman Sachs conduct a rigorous assessment of the material risks and opportunities related to the environmental justice impacts of its energy and power sector financing and underwriting, and disclose these results. Goldman Sachs has made numerous commitments to respecting human rights and reducing racial inequities. Yet Goldman Sachs has funded $ billions in client activities with well-known environmental justice impacts. The new and expanded liquefied natural gas export facilities under development by Goldman Sachs clients, such as the CP2 project in Louisiana, will sacrifice the health and well-being of Gulf Coast communities already burdened by high levels of pollution. These health risks are not theoretical, as existing LNG facilities have been found to exceed pollution limits on a regular basis. Shareholders are unable to determine whether Goldman Sachs incorporates explicit environmental justice considerations into its risk management processes. The company's existing policies, risk management processes, and reporting do not discuss or provide guidance for how the company manages environmental justice risks. Environmental justice risks could be financially material for the bank. The company's potential failure to manage environmental justice risks may lead to stranded assets and allegations of human rights violations and greenwashing. These outcomes could materially affect the company's financial performance through increased credit, litigation, regulatory, and reputational risks. Reputational damage from greenwashing allegations could be financially significant, especially if it harmed the company's relations with its current and future clients, employees, and investors. Community opposition led to the recent federal pause on permitting for new LNG facilities. Goldman Sachs could have anticipated this opposition because of past letters written to the CEO by the affected communities. The company was recently warned of similar environmental justice concerns on a proposed chemical manufacturing facility by Formosa Plastics in Louisiana, which would double toxic emissions in the predominantly Black Parish where the facility would be built. Therefore, it's prudent for Goldman Sachs to proactively start assessing and disclosing its environmental justice risks. Assessing such risks related to the company's financing activity could uncover new risks and also help uncover new sources of revenue. This is especially critical for the company's energy and power sector financing and underwriting activities. We also want to highlight that Goldman Sachs is becoming a laggard in this issue with its peers. While in initial discussions with us, Goldman Sachs did not seem as interested in addressing these risks and opportunities. Several of the bank's peers are engaging actively with us on this topic. These peer institutions are reducing their own risks and liabilities by developing explicit language and diligence practices to address these issues. This is in stark contrast to this bank's opposition to the risk reduction steps we are proposing. In summary, the proposed environmental justice assessment has benefits beyond better risk management. It will increase the likelihood that Goldman Sachs will meet its own climate targets. It will help the bank better meet current and future expectations of investors, regulators, and other stakeholders on environmental justice concerns, and it will reduce the company's contribution to the systemic risk of inequality and financial and economic crises. In closing, we ask shareholders to vote for our proposal to ensure the company is adequately managing environmental justice risks and opportunities. We offer the company an opportunity to enhance its risk management framework, develop new business opportunities, protect its reputation, and advance its social commitments. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Are there any questions related to this proposal? The eighth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the New York City Comptroller on behalf of Certain New York City Retirement Systems regarding a report disclosure of clean energy financing ratio. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Amna Khan. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. My name is Amna Khan. I'm with the New York City Comptroller's office. The Comptroller of New York City submitted Proposal Eight on behalf of the City Pension Funds, which are long-term shareholders with more than $189 million invested in Goldman Sachs' long-term success. Proposal Eight asks the company to disclose the ratio of its financing of low-carbon energy supply relative to its financing of fossil fuel energy supply at minimum. The bank should include its total financing through equity and debt underwriting and project finance. It should also disclose its methodology, including what it classifies as low-carbon or fossil fuel. This ratio integrates both halves of the equation. What the science tells us is needed to avoid the most devastating consequences of climate change, a rapid transition from fossil fuels, and a tipping in global annual clean energy investment by 2030. We commend the company's commitment to achieve net-zero finance emissions by 2050, aligning its finance activities with a net-zero 2050 pathway, and deployed $750 billion across its financing, investment, and advisory activities by 2030 to accelerate the climate transition and advance inclusive growth. However, the investors need more information to assess the bank's financing specifics to low-carbon energy supply, particularly relative to the company's financing of fossil fuels. Disclosure of its clean energy supply financing ratio would complement and supplement the bank's current disclosure, particularly with respect to its financing of emissions and the environmental transition. Financed emissions disclosure is essential but entails data availability and reliability challenges. The $215 billion Goldman Sachs has reportedly achieved towards its climate transition commitment includes clean energy but lacks specificity with respect to low-carbon energy supply. The board argues that disclosing its ratio is unnecessary since Bloomberg has developed methodology to calculate the ratio for global banks and discloses them publicly. However, the ratio that Bloomberg discloses for Goldman Sachs relies on commercial databases and estimates rather than the company reporting. A ratio calculated by the bank itself, not third parties, would be more reliable and decisionally useful for investors. The board also opposes disclosing its ratio because it expects regulatory standards related to climate risk and the climate transition will continue to evolve. On that basis, the bank would not voluntarily report important decision-useful information unless regulation is required to do so. That cannot and should not be the standard for disclosure. The board further states that it will be disclosing a Green Asset Ratio to comply with new European disclosure requirements. This disclosure is different from the one requested by this proposal. For example, it does not include underwriting, which Net Zero Banking Alliance identifies as the most relevant off-balance-sheet activity for the banks. In response to our proposal from the pension funds, JP Morgan, Citibank, and Royal Bank of Canada committed to disclosing their clean energy financing ratio and their underlying methodology. This demonstrates the feasibility and growing momentum for energy supply financing transparency. We call on the board to reconsider and join those banks that are leaders in energy supply financing transparency. Disclosing the clean energy financing ratio alongside existing disclosure will provide investors with a more complete picture of how Goldman Sachs is progressing towards its climate commitments. Thank you for the board's consideration and shareholders' support. Thank you. Are there any questions related to this proposal? The ninth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the Presbyterian Church, USA, as lead filer regarding GSAM proxy voting review. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this shareholder proposal for reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Simon Doong. Simon, please go ahead. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and fellow shareholders. My name is Simon Doong. On behalf of the Presbyterian Church, USA, and Portico Benefit Services, I move item number nine, which asks our company to initiate a review of its proxy voting record and proxy voting policies related to diversity and climate change. We appreciate being a shareholder in Goldman Sachs and applaud the company's net-zero emissions commitment and the recent announcement of the company's spin-out solar and energy and storage producer MN8 Energy raising $325 million to finance continued growth and expansion of operations. However, strong and supportive engagement, including proxy voting, is needed to reach this net-zero emissions goal and to mitigate the risk of climate change. The company's existing disclosures and practices on proxy voting fall far short of what this proposal requests for three reasons. One, despite the firm's commitment to making progress toward racial equity, its proxy voting record on this issue lags. In 2023, Goldman's proxy voting support for shareholder resolutions highlighting DEI issues dramatically declined and lags behind other asset managers. Goldman Sachs' asset management only supported three of the 50 diversity, equity, and inclusion-related proposals on proxies in 2023 and cast a split vote on another three. GSAM did not support any of the 14 proposals on the proxy at S&P 500 companies in 2023 regarding racial equity audits, despite having specific language on this issue in its proxy voting guidelines. GSAM's proxy voting record on social issues is also far behind other asset managers. ShareAction's assessment in 2023 found that only one asset manager out of 69 examined supported fewer social resolutions than Goldman. Two, in 2023, the company's proxy voting support for shareholder resolutions highlighting climate risk also dramatically declined compared to 2022 and lags behind other asset managers. Morningstar's report, "Voting on ESG: Ever-Widening Differences," found that Goldman Sachs's reduction in support for key ESG resolutions is among the steepest declines among the 35 managers examined in this study for 2023. Morningstar found that Goldman's support for environmental key resolutions nearly halved year-over-year. This trend is corroborated by Share Action, which reports that Goldman Sachs' asset management ranked 67th out of 69 asset managers on their proxy voting record in 2023, as the firm supported only 7% of environmental resolutions in 2023 versus 56% supported in 2022. This dramatic drop in support merits a review. Three, failing to take action that could mitigate climate impacts is not in the best interests of diversified investors. Climate change is a systemic risk with potentially far-reaching economic impacts. A 2021 study by insurer Swiss Re found that the world stands to lose close to 10% of total economic value by mid-century if climate change stays on the currently anticipated trajectory and the Paris Agreement and 2050 net-zero emissions targets are not met. Thus, it is in diversified investors' interest to take steps to minimize damaging externalities that affect the market and economy as a whole, such as greenhouse gas emissions. Supporting climate-related shareholder proposals is a low-cost way for Goldman Sachs to make progress towards addressing climate change, meeting our net-zero goal, and protecting itself from climate change's impacts on overall market performance. The proposed review would help the firm evaluate risks associated with misalignment and avoid unnecessary and costly scrutiny and reputational damage. We therefore urge you to vote for Proposal Number nine on Goldman Sachs' proxy card. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this proposal? The tenth matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research regarding a report on financial statement assumptions regarding climate change. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is being presented by Ryan Shattuck. Good morning. Good morning and welcome to Utah. Hope you guys enjoy it here. It's a beautiful place. My name is Ryan Shattuck, and I am here for the National Center for Public Policy Research. I'm from Utah. I live in a little tiny town about two and a half hours south of here. I woke up at 4:00 A.M. this morning to be here, so there you have it. I'm going to read their statement first. Our proposal asks Goldman Sachs to conduct its climate policy according to its free-standing fiduciary duty, to conduct objective analysis including neutral consideration of all relevant facts and factors in transparent ways. An opposition statement by its omission and diversions indicates that they have not done this at all. Where are its clear considerations of stranded asset risks arising from any move towards net-zero transition? Risk the truth and the breadth of which the auto industry has so publicly and recently demonstrated. Where is its list of the studies critiquing and undermining the Bloomberg Task Force, IEA, and NZE that Goldman has fully incorporated with demonstration of how? Where is the explanation of how even full Western world net-zero could have any climate effect given the non-Western carbon explosion? Without those, we can be confident that Goldman Sachs has not fulfilled its fiduciary duty and conclude that it wishes to avoid doing so with plausible cover. That's not good enough, and not good enough simply will not do. Consider all the harm that not good enough has visited and will increasingly visit on the good people of Utah and whose capital you decide to hold this meeting today. Here's my insights. I'm a special education teacher at a high school. I coach football. I pastor a church. In Utah, you have to be multiple. You have to be diversified. That is just the baseline reality of survival in pioneer country. And speaking to these realities of these good people of Utah, I want to illustrate in some very simple ways how your decisions will impact day-to-day lives in my county of Sevier. If my gas bill goes up just $100 a month, which it has, that's $1,200 a year. And that may seem insignificant to some. However, that is roughly the cost of an emergency room visit for someone with medical insurance. My wife and I run a small educational nonprofit called the Sevier Valley Youth Refuge in her hometown of Richfield, Utah. Last year, in large part due to the rising energy costs, we had to leave our building, which we hold our rec center and after-school activities. Our gas bills had risen over 30% in two years. Your decisions have the power to impact day-to-day life for our citizens in ways that may force them to choose between an emergency medical care or keeping the heat going, not to mention the literal thousands of people who we put out of work if the coal mines and oil fields simply stop shoveling and stop drilling for safe, reliable carbon energy. These highly skilled workers, the logistics and support staff, and the thousands of others who provide powerfully for their families and communities rely on carbon energy to not just fuel their lives but their livelihoods. Imagine if Goldman Sachs focused its capital and ingenuity of investment into the lives of these everyday Americans across our national landscape. They would fuel innovation, and they will secure our future, anchor our present, and reinforce our national security. It's time for Goldman Sachs now to do what it's always had a legal duty to do: transparently, objectively, and neutrally consider all relevant factors to determine whether the net-zero transition is even possible, and if so, at what cost, to whom, and for what possible climate result. The cost for those of us who are the least of these, and that's who Jesus says that we ought to take care of, what we do unto the least of these, we have done it unto Him. These things are all too real. Thank you for your time and your opportunity to share my heart and my vision with you today. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this proposal? The eleventh matter to be voted on is a shareholder proposal submitted by Mercy Rome as lead filer regarding pay equity reporting. The board has unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this shareholder proposal for the reasons set forth in our proxy statement. I believe the proposal is also being presented by Simon. Thank you and good morning again. My name is Simon Dung, and I stand on behalf of New Ground Social Investment in Seattle to move Proposal Number 11. This proposal seeks transparent disclosure of racial and gender pay gaps. To paint the picture, racial and gender pay gaps are rampant. Research demonstrates that on the current U.S. trendline, white women will not reach pay equity until 2059, three decades from now. Black women, not until 2133, more than a century from now. And Latina women, not until 2206, nearly two full centuries from now. Simply put, this proposal is about both fair play and fair pay for Goldman employees. There are visible problems at Goldman, evident in settling a sex discrimination lawsuit last year for $215 million and a recent set of Wall Street Journal articles under the rubric "Why Women Are Heading for the Exits at Goldman." The pay gap metrics, which are admittedly technical sounding, are detailed in the proposal itself as well as in a formal submission made April 2nd to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In brief, there are two generally accepted types of disclosure. Both are needed because they measure different things. Goldman's approach does not fully embrace either of the two generally accepted types, which makes their disclosures difficult to interpret, of questionable utility for driving performance, and impossible to compare with peer companies. Then, because some of the measurement terms are technical, Goldman plays on potential confusion to imply that the proposal's request has already been implemented. It has not. Technicalities aside, the goal of this proposal is to narrow pay gaps and improve opportunity, diversity, and performance. Why is this useful to a company, beneficial to employees, and more profitable for shareholders? Firstly, companies with fair pay and equal opportunity gain competitive advantage in two ways: by, one, attracting and retaining top talent, and by, two, improving leadership diversity. Fairness and equity are regularly cited as crucial to attracting and retaining key talent. A recent survey shows 83% of younger employees track a company's commitment to fairness, and fully 70% state that they would switch jobs to work for a more equitable employer. Secondly, it has been shown that diverse leadership correlates with multiple key performance indicators, including better risk management, higher profit margins, stronger return on equity, and better stock performance. MBAs call these "top-tier KPIs" because each is essential to success. Goldman lags its peers in reporting. Microsoft, Adobe, and 35 more of the nation's largest corporations disclose meaningful pay gap metrics. Goldman can and should also. Several countries, including the U.K., Ireland, and soon the entire European Union, require companies to publicly disclose median pay gaps. Why? Because these disclosures move companies in the right direction. In closing, pay equity, what the layperson calls "fairness," benefits stockholders, employees, and the company. For these reasons and more, please vote for Proposal Number 11, the Fair Pay and Equity Proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this proposal? As previously disclosed, the New York City Carpenters Pension Fund proposal that was originally included in our proxy statement as the twelfth matter to be voted on was withdrawn, and any votes previously cast on the proposal have been disregarded. It is now 9:17 A.M., and I declare the polls closed on all proposals. We will provide you with the preliminary voting results on each of the proposals as soon as they are tabulated. At this time, we invite any shareholder wearing a green shareholder badge who has questions about Goldman Sachs to approach the podium and ask their question. To ensure that any shareholder has an opportunity to participate, I ask that each speaker limit their question to three minutes. When asking your question, please identify yourself as a shareholder and state your name, if applicable, and your organization. Are there any questions? Okay. We've been informed by the inspector of election that the preliminary voting results are now available. Kathy, could you please announce them? David, good morning, everybody. These results are based on preliminary estimates. Final voting results will be provided in a Form 8-K that we will file within four business days. First, I'm pleased to announce that each of our 11 director nominees received the support of a majority of our shareholders and consequently each has been elected. Second, the advisory vote to approve the executive compensation of our named executive officers received the support of votes representing approximately 86% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is approved. Third, the proposed ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers as our independent auditors received the support of votes representing approximately 95% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is approved. Fourth, the proposal regarding a policy for an independent chair received the support of approximately 33% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Fifth, the proposal regarding a transparency and lobbying report received the support of approximately 39% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Sixth, the proposal regarding an outcome report on efforts regarding protected classes of employees received the support of approximately 15% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Seventh, the proposal regarding an environmental justice impact assessment received the support of approximately 10% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Eighth, the proposal regarding disclosure of clean energy financing ratio received the support of approximately 29% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Ninth, the proposal regarding a GSAM proxy voting review received the support of approximately 8% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Tenth, the proposal regarding a report on financial statement assumptions regarding climate change received the support of approximately 1% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. And lastly, eleventh, the proposal regarding pay equity reporting received the support of approximately 30% of the shares present in person or represented by proxy and consequently is not approved. Thank you, Kathy. On behalf of the board of directors and the management team, I'd like to thank you all for being here or listening in. We strongly value our engagement with shareholders and other stakeholders. This concludes our meeting. I hereby declare the meeting adjourned.