Goldman Sachs President John Waldron’s pay and perks have long made him an outlier among bank deputies.
Last year, he became the rare second-in-command to join his boss on his bank’s board of directors. Beyond that, he’s become the gold standard in well-paid No. 2s. He received $38 million in compensation in 2024 – out-earning all U.S. big-bank CEOs except Goldman’s David Solomon and JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon.
Now Waldron has surpassed Dimon, according to proxy materials Goldman published Friday.
The Goldman president received an 18.4% increase in compensation for 2025 – bringing his pay to $45 million, the bank disclosed. That’s more than the $43 million JPMorgan paid Dimon – arguably the poster-exec of U.S. banking. In fact, the only big-bank CEO who made more than Waldron in 2025 was Solomon, at $47 million. (Morgan Stanley paid its CEO, Ted Pick, $45 million, drawing him even with Waldron.)
Waldron’s $1.85 million salary remained steady in 2025 from the year before. In 2025, however, he received $25.9 million in performance share units – up from $21.7 million. He received a $13.8 million cash bonus, up from $11.6 million in 2024. And he received $3.45 million from the carried interest program the bank debuted a year earlier. (He received $2.9 million in carried interest in 2024, according to Goldman.)
Goldman’s proxy materials disclosed compensation for select other executives, including outgoing legal chief Kathryn Ruemmler.
Ruemmler is leaving the bank June 30, amid the revelation that her name appears in more than 9,300 documents related to the Justice Department’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender.
Documents released by the DOJ in January show a close relationship between Ruemmler and Epstein, whom she referred to as “Uncle Jeffrey,” “wonderful” and “thoughtful.” The two met often for meals, and Epstein had gifts such as handbags and an Apple Watch delivered to her, and treated her to hair, massage and facial appointments.
“Well, I adore him. It’s like having another older brother!” Ruemmler wrote of Epstein in a 2015 email to someone who worked for him.
Ruemmler, at the time, worked as a litigation partner at the law firm Latham & Watkins, according to her LinkedIn profile. She joined Goldman in 2020 and became the bank’s chief legal officer and general counsel the next year.
Ruemmler received $25 million in compensation for 2025. That’s an 11.1% increase from a year earlier. Her $1.5 million salary remained the same. However, she received $14.1 million in performance share units – up from $12.6 million in 2024. She also received an $8.5 million cash bonus in 2025, up from $7.6 million a year earlier. And she received $940,000 in carried interest, up from $840,000.
Ruemmler “provid[ed] exceptional judgment and advice across a broad range of legal, risk management, regulatory and people matters,” Goldman’s proxy statement reads. “In doing so, she continued her excellent track record of experienced and nuanced counsel and a keen ability to navigate complex and evolving challenges while supporting the firm’s long-term objectives.”
The statement backs up Solomon’s defense of her work at Goldman.
“Throughout her tenure, Kathy has been an extraordinary general counsel, and we are grateful for her contributions and sound advice on a wide range of consequential legal matters for the firm,” Solomon said in February, when Ruemmler resigned. “As one of the most accomplished professionals in her field, Kathy has also been a mentor and friend to many of our people, and she will be missed.”
At the time, Ruemmler “made the determination that the media attention on me, relating to my prior work as a defense attorney, was becoming a distraction,” she told the Financial Times.
Goldman’s proxy statement also disclosed compensation for CFO Denis Coleman. The bank paid Coleman $31 million for 2025, up 14.8% from $27 million. He received $17.5 million in performance share units for 2025, up from $15.1 million in 2024. Coleman also received a $9.3 million cash bonus and $2.3 million in carried interest, up from $8.1 million in cash and $2.1 in carried interest in 2024.
In addition to $45 million in compensation, Goldman approved a one-time $80 million retention bonus for Waldron in 2025.
Each of the CEOs of the U.S.’s six largest global systemically important banks received $40 million or more for 2025, including $40 million for Wells Fargo’s Charlie Scharf, $41 million for Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan and $42 million for Citi’s Jane Fraser.
Facts Only
John Waldron, President of Goldman Sachs, received $45 million in compensation for 2025, an 18.4% increase from 2024.
His compensation included a $1.85 million salary, $25.9 million in performance share units, a $13.8 million cash bonus, and $3.45 million from a carried interest program.
Waldron also received an $80 million retention bonus in 2025.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon earned $43 million in 2025, less than Waldron.
Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon earned $47 million in 2025, the highest among major U.S. bank CEOs.
Kathryn Ruemmler, Goldman’s outgoing legal chief, received $25 million in 2025, an 11.1% increase from 2024.
Ruemmler’s compensation included a $1.5 million salary, $14.1 million in performance shares, an $8.5 million cash bonus, and $940,000 in carried interest.
Ruemmler is leaving Goldman Sachs on June 30, 2025, amid revelations about her past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Justice Department documents show Ruemmler referred to Epstein as “Uncle Jeffrey” and received gifts from him.
Denis Coleman, Goldman’s CFO, earned $31 million in 2025, a 14.8% increase from 2024.
All six major U.S. bank CEOs earned at least $40 million in 2025.
Executive Summary
Goldman Sachs President John Waldron received $45 million in compensation for 2025, surpassing JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s $43 million and making him the second-highest-paid executive among major U.S. banks, behind only Goldman CEO David Solomon. Waldron’s pay included a $1.85 million salary, $25.9 million in performance share units, a $13.8 million cash bonus, and $3.45 million from a carried interest program. Additionally, he was granted an $80 million retention bonus. The bank also disclosed compensation for other executives, including outgoing legal chief Kathryn Ruemmler, who earned $25 million despite her departure amid controversy over her past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Ruemmler’s compensation included a $1.5 million salary, $14.1 million in performance shares, and an $8.5 million cash bonus. CFO Denis Coleman received $31 million, up 14.8% from the previous year. The disclosures highlight Goldman’s aggressive compensation practices, with all six major U.S. bank CEOs earning at least $40 million in 2025.
The article also details Ruemmler’s ties to Epstein, revealed in Justice Department documents, which included frequent interactions and gifts. Despite this, Goldman’s proxy statement praised her legal counsel and leadership. The bank’s compensation structure, including performance-based incentives and carried interest, reflects its focus on retaining top talent amid industry competition. However, the juxtaposition of high pay with ethical controversies raises questions about corporate governance and accountability in financial institutions.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative highlights Goldman Sachs’ aggressive compensation practices, positioning John Waldron as an exceptional executive whose pay now exceeds that of JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, a figure often seen as the gold standard in U.S. banking leadership. The article provides detailed breakdowns of executive pay, emphasizing performance-based incentives and retention bonuses as tools to secure top talent. It also acknowledges the controversy surrounding Kathryn Ruemmler’s departure, framing her compensation as a reward for her legal expertise despite her ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The narrative leans into the tension between financial performance and ethical scrutiny, presenting Goldman’s actions as both strategically sound and morally complex.
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity (the article juxtaposes high compensation with ethical controversies without resolving the tension), ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (Goldman’s defense of Ruemmler’s work while downplaying the Epstein controversy).
The root cause of this narrative is the broader paradigm of financial capitalism, where compensation is tied to performance metrics and retention, often overshadowing ethical considerations. The unstated assumption is that high pay is justified by results, even when those results are accompanied by reputational risks. This echoes historical patterns of corporate governance where financial success is prioritized over moral accountability.
The implications for human agency and dignity are significant. While executives like Waldron benefit from lucrative compensation, the costs are borne by shareholders and the public, who may question the alignment of pay with ethical leadership. The second-order consequences include potential erosion of trust in financial institutions and increased scrutiny of corporate governance practices.
Bridge questions: How should financial institutions balance performance-based compensation with ethical accountability? What metrics should be used to evaluate executive pay beyond financial results? Would your perspective change if Goldman Sachs implemented stricter ethical guidelines for executive behavior?
Counterstrike scan: If this narrative were part of a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve emphasizing executive pay as a marker of success while downplaying ethical concerns to normalize high compensation in finance. The actual content aligns with this pattern by focusing on pay structures and only briefly addressing controversies, suggesting a potential effort to sanitize reputational risks. However, the inclusion of Ruemmler’s Epstein ties complicates this, as it introduces a counter-narrative that disrupts the purely celebratory tone of executive compensation.
Sentinel — Human
The article exhibits strong markers of human authorship, including stylistic idiosyncrasies, uneven emphasis, and specific sourcing, with no significant signals of synthetic generation.