Goldman to sack employees in annual review

Bank reinstates performance-related job cuts in 2022 after halting it for two years due to COVID-19 pandemic

Goldman Sachs is planning to cut a few hundred jobs as part of an annual review process aimed at low performers, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters on Friday.

The investment bank reinstated performance-related job cuts in 2022 after halting it for two years due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

"Our annual talent reviews are normal, standard and customary, but otherwise unremarkable," a Goldman spokesperson said in a statement to Reuters. "We expect to have more people working at Goldman Sachs in 2024 than 2023."

Last year, the exercise reportedly resulted in 1% to 5% of Goldman employees losing their jobs. Over the years, the cuts done under Goldman's strategic resource assessment has fluctuated based on market conditions and its financial outlook.

The bank's global workforce stood at 44,300, as of quarter ended June 30. It took on multiple rounds of workforce reductions in 2023 as dealmaking suffered and higher-for-longer interest rates weighed on the macroeconomic outlook.

The operating environment for banks has since improved with Goldman reporting second-quarter profit that more than doubled in July on strong debt underwriting and fixed-income trading.

The resilience of the US economy has given corporate executives the confidence to pursue deals, debt sales and stock offerings. But despite an industry-wide recovery, dealmaking activity has remained below historical averages.

Goldman shares turned positive in afternoon trading and closed 0.6% higher. The stock has surged 32% this year and has outperformed the broader markets, as well as an index tracking rival large-cap banks.

Earlier in the day, a Wall Street Journal report said, the layoffs that have already begun will continue through the fall and may impact more than 1300 employees, or 3% to 4% of its workforce.

Goldman, however, said in its statement to Reuters that the numbers reported by the Journal were not accurate.