UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant þ                Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨

Check the appropriate box:

¨ Preliminary Proxy Statement

¨ Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

þ Definitive Proxy Statement

¨ Definitive Additional Materials

¨ Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a-12

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

þ No fee required.

¨ Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

(1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

(2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

(3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

(4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

(5) Total fee paid:

¨ Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

¨ Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the form or schedule and the date of its filing.

(1) Amount Previously Paid:

(2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

(3) Filing Party:

(4) Date Filed:

2016

ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

PROXY STATEMENT

THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Notice of 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Time and Date	8:30 a.m., local time, on Friday, May 20, 2016
Place	Goldman Sachs offices located at: 30 Hudson Street, Jersey City, New Jersey 07302
Items of Business	¡Election to our Board of Directors of the 13 director nominees named in the attached Proxy Statement for a one-year term
	¡An advisory vote to approve executive compensation (Say on Pay)
	¡Ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016
	¡Consideration of shareholder proposals, if properly presented by the relevant shareholder proponents
	¡Transaction of such other business as may properly come before our 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders
Record Date	The record date for the determination of the shareholders entitled to vote at our 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, or any adjournments or postponements thereof, was the close of business on March 21, 2016.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for our Annual Meeting to be held on May 20, 2016. Our Proxy Statement, 2015 Annual Report to Shareholders and other materials are available on our website at www.gs.com/proxymaterials.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

Beverly L. O’Toole

Assistant Secretary

April 8, 2016

Your vote is important to us. Please exercise your shareholder right to vote.  By April 8, 2016, we will have sent to certain of our shareholders a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (Notice). The Notice includes instructions on how to access our Proxy Statement and 2015 Annual Report to Shareholders and vote online. Shareholders who do not receive the Notice will continue to receive either a paper or an electronic copy of our proxy materials, which will be sent on or about April  12, 2016. For more information, see Frequently Asked Questions.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Letter from our Chairman and CEO ii

  Letter from our Lead Director iii

  Executive Summary 1

  2016 Annual Meeting Information 1

  Matters to be Voted on at our 2016 Annual
Meeting 1

  Performance Highlights 2

  Compensation Highlights 5

  Corporate Governance Highlights 7

  Corporate Governance 11

  Item 1. Election of Directors 11

  Our Directors 11

  Independence of Directors 20

  Structure of our Board and Governance Practices 21

  Our Board Committees 21

  Board Leadership Structure 23

  Year-Round Review of Board Composition 26

  Director Orientation 27

  Board and Committee Evaluations 27

  Board Oversight of our Firm 28

  Key Areas of Board Oversight 28

  Commitment of our Board – 2015 Meetings 30

  Shareholder Engagement 32

  Our Commitment to Active Engagement with our Shareholders 32

  Compensation Matters 33

  Compensation Discussion and Analysis 33

  2015 Annual Compensation Determinations 33

  Importance of Discretion 38

  Key Pay Practices 39

  Framework for Compensation Decisions 39

  Overview of Compensation Elements   42

Other Compensation Policies and Practices   46

GS Gives 48

Executive Compensation 49

  2015 Summary Compensation Table 49

  2015 Grants of Plan-Based Awards 52

  2015 Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End 53

  2015 Option Exercises and Stock Vested 53

  2015 Pension Benefits 54

  2015 Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation 55

  Potential Payments Upon Termination or
Change-in-Control 56

  Report of our Compensation Committee 60

  Item 2. An Advisory Vote to Approve
Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) 60

  Non-Employee Director Compensation Program 61

  Audit Matters 64

  Report of our Audit Committee 64

  Item 3. Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 64

  Items 4-6: Shareholder Proposals 66

  Certain Relationships and Related Transactions 72

  Beneficial Ownership 75

Additional Information	78
Frequently Asked Questions	80

  Annex A: Calculation of Non-GAAP Figures A-1

  Annex B: Additional Details on Director Independence B-1

  Directions to our 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders C-1

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        i

Letter from our Chairman and CEO

Letter from our Chairman and CEO

April 8, 2016

Fellow Shareholders:

You are cordially invited to attend the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. We will hold the meeting on Friday, May 20, 2016 at 8:30 a.m., local time, at our offices in Jersey City, New Jersey. Enclosed you will find a notice setting forth the items we expect to address during the meeting, a letter from our Lead Director, our proxy statement, a form of proxy and a copy of our 2015 annual report to our shareholders.

Gary Cohn, our President and COO, and I discuss our performance, strategy and outlook in our 2015 letter to our shareholders, which is included in our annual report. We hope you will read the letter in full, and we provide below a few key points that may be of interest.

The first half of 2015 featured a strong macroeconomic environment, but headwinds emerged, particularly during the second half of the year, and these headwinds persisted into early 2016. Although the current cycle has felt prolonged, cycles do turn, even if the timing of such inflections is difficult to predict. As such, we continue to adapt our business to structural and cyclical factors affecting the operating environment, while remaining flexible enough to capture future growth opportunities.

Our efforts in this regard have yielded relatively stable results for our shareholders over the past four years. We have diversified our franchise while holding our revenues steady, and we have increased our capital and liquidity and decreased our risk. We have stayed focused on prudently managing our resources, while meeting the needs of our clients.

What’s more, we remain committed to enabling economic prosperity through the work we do not only in our core businesses, but also through targeted programs like 10,000 Women. This means, among other things, helping new enterprises grow by investing in entrepreneurs, as well as by financing projects across the globe, such as those that improve living standards in traditionally underserved communities. It also means being mindful of the importance of a healthy environment, and driving that core belief through our work with our clients, as well as through our own operations.

Lastly, we recognize that our people are critical to our long-term success. We work diligently to remain a place where top talent across a variety of disciplines and from a diverse set of backgrounds aspires to work. We believe our time-tested and deeply seeded culture of client centricity, teamwork and excellence sets us apart in this regard. So too does the core work we do at Goldman Sachs, such as providing our clients with, among other things, strategic advice and the capital they need to grow and invest.

As we look ahead, we know we cannot forecast every outcome, and we expect the near-term environment to prove challenging. As managers of risk, we consistently try to “see around corners” to anticipate problems, but we also find ourselves generally optimistic about the longer-term. By staying true to our strategic focus, while adapting quickly to changes in the operating environment, and maintaining our focus on meeting the needs of our clients, we strive to continue to deliver on our long history of providing our shareholders with best-in-class returns.

We would like to thank you for your confidence in Goldman Sachs, and we look forward to welcoming many of you to our annual meeting. Your vote is important to us: even if you do not plan to attend the meeting in person, we hope your votes will be represented.

Lloyd C. Blankfein

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

ii        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Letter from our Lead Director

Letter from our Lead Director

April 8, 2016

To my fellow shareholders,

2015 was an active year for the Goldman Sachs Board. Among the matters we addressed was the lymphoma diagnosis of our Chairman and CEO, Lloyd Blankfein. From his initial diagnosis to dialogue with the Board and the public announcement of his illness, the firm acted swiftly and candidly. Lloyd continued to provide our Board with full transparency as he underwent treatment, all while continuing to work and, when necessary, delegating some of his responsibilities to other leaders within the firm. We are incredibly pleased that Lloyd is now in remission and has resumed his full schedule.

Throughout 2015, our Board remained focused on the oversight of our firm and the protection of our shareholders’ interests. We believe a key factor in our Board’s ability to undertake these tasks effectively has been the willingness of our directors to regularly reflect on our Board’s practices. Our independent directors in particular have been focused on our Board’s composition and our governance. To this end, our Board has put in place a variety of enhancements in recent years. Most of the changes followed engagement with shareholders, large and small.

Notably, over 60% of our directors have joined our Board in the past five years, bringing with them fresh perspectives and a diversity of experiences. In particular, independent directors Mark Flaherty and Mark Winkelman, each of whom are members of our Audit, Risk and Governance Committees, experienced their first full year as Goldman Sachs Board members this past year. Each of Messrs. Flaherty and Winkelman bring to our Board decades of experience in the financial services industry, providing additional risk management expertise, and with respect to Mr. Flaherty, the perspective of a long-term institutional investor. Our Board has benefitted from their contributions.

As conveyed to you last year, we changed our committee structure effective in 2015, which change resulted from a review initiated after discussions I had with fellow independent directors and shareholders about our Board’s effectiveness. The changes that were made reduced the size of our Audit, Compensation and Risk Committees with a focus on the skills necessary to carry out the duties of each such committee, and converted the Public Responsibilities Subcommittee to a standing committee.

We believe that the new structure has enhanced the quality of our discussions and allowed us to focus more deeply on various matters at the committee level. One of many examples of this is the now standing Public Responsibilities Committee, chaired by Bill George, which during 2015 was able to more closely engage on and oversee matters relating to the firm’s reputation and its relationships with major external constituents – critical considerations for our firm.

Additionally, I participated in numerous discussions with our shareholders and a productive dialogue among our Board on the topic of proxy access. As a result, we proactively adopted proxy access, which we believe further bolsters our corporate governance practices.

In addition to these developments, we continued to maintain our focus on key governance practices that we understand are important to our shareholders. Board leadership structure is one of these areas, which we review annually. As a result of our 2015 review, we determined that a combined Chairman-CEO role continues to be the structure that best serves the interests of our firm and our shareholders. One of the key inputs to this decision is our unhindered ability as independent directors to fulfill our responsibilities, including providing strategic guidance, challenging management’s perspectives and meeting with relevant external constituents. Significantly, in my role as the independent Lead Director, I am fully empowered to provide independent leadership for our Board, including by setting the agenda for Board meetings.

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        iii

Letter from our Lead Director

To execute on this level of engagement, we held 14 Board meetings and 42 standing committee meetings in 2015. Our independent and non-employee directors also met in 14 sessions without management present, including six executive sessions of independent directors, which I chaired. In addition, in my role as Lead Director, I had over 65 meetings in 2015 with fellow directors, management and other constituents, including our shareholders. These meetings also included a series of discussions with the firm’s primary regulators, including the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and I plan to continue this dialogue.

Importantly, the time we have invested and all of these actions have helped to ensure that our Board is appropriately situated to actively and effectively oversee the management of our firm and protect the long-term interests of our shareholders.

This is vital in the context of the current challenging operating environment. Our Board has been and will continue to be vigilant in the oversight of our firm’s long-term strategy. By focusing on our long-term outlook, we are best able to support our common goal of creating enduring value in our firm and for our shareholders.

We believe our management team has shown strong commitment and acted nimbly in the face of these pressures, emphasizing adaptability and operating efficiency across the firm. Over the course of the past year, management has reviewed with us firmwide, regional and divisional strategies for growth across our firm’s businesses — for example, utilizing technology as a commercial opportunity. We have taken these opportunities to view the firm’s business and outlook through a long-term lens, and we have had further discussions regarding these strategies during our executive sessions of independent directors.

As we look ahead to the second half of 2016 and beyond, we will continue to remain focused on these and other critical matters, such as continuing our discussions about further harnessing the talent and development of our people, including with respect to diversity, as well as continued engagement on regulatory matters.

I would like to thank each of you for your support of our Board and the firm. We hope that you find this Proxy Statement informative and look forward to continuing our dialogue with you in the year to come.

Adebayo O. Ogunlesi

Lead Director

iv        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Executive Summary | 2016 Annual Meeting Information

Executive Summary

This summary highlights certain information from our Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting. You should read the entire Proxy Statement carefully before voting.

2016 Annual Meeting Information

Date	Friday, May 20, 2016
Time	8:30 a.m., local time
Place	Goldman Sachs offices located at: 30 Hudson Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, 07302
Record Date	March 21, 2016

For additional information about our Annual Meeting, see Frequently Asked Questions.

Matters to be Voted on at our 2016 Annual Meeting

	Board     Recommendation	Page
Item 1.  Election of Directors	FOR each director	11
Other Management Proposals
Item 2.  Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation (Say on Pay)	FOR	60
Item 3.  Ratification of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for 2016	FOR	64
Shareholder Proposals
Item 4.  Shareholder Proposal to Prohibit Vesting of Equity Awards Upon Entering Government Service	AGAINST	66
Requests that the Board adopt a policy prohibiting senior executives from receiving vesting of equity awards upon entering government service
Item 5.  Shareholder Proposal to Change the Vote Counting Standard for Shareholder Proposals	AGAINST	67
Requests that nonbinding matters presented by shareholders be decided by a majority of votes cast not including abstentions
Item 6.  Shareholder Proposal to Require an Independent Board Chairman	AGAINST	70
Requests that the Board amend its governing documents to require that an independent director serve as chairman of the Board

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        1

Executive Summary | Performance Highlights

Performance Highlights

We encourage you to read the following Performance Highlights as a background to this Proxy Statement. Please refer to our glossary in Frequently Asked Questions on page 80 for definitions of certain capitalized terms.

Solid Performance in Challenging Environment

¢ Since 2012, we have produced stronger returns on common equity than our US Peer average in a challenging operating environment. We have benefitted from our focus on serving our clients, with leading market positions across a diversified set of businesses. We have also remained disciplined around our cost structure and capital management. Finally, we have relied on our culture of adaptability to respond to both new regulations and persistent macroeconomic uncertainty.

» Since 2012, we have improved revenues in Investment Banking and Investment Management by $3.1 billion in aggregate, offsetting the loss in revenues from the sale of certain non-core businesses and investments and a declining opportunity set in FICC.

» Additionally, we managed to reduce compensation and benefits expense by approximately $270 million since 2012, while simultaneously increasing headcount by 3,500 (11%), largely to meet regulatory compliance needs.

» We have enhanced our safety and soundness and improved our regulatory capital ratios. This improvement is driven in part by higher levels of common equity, which has increased by $8.2 billion since the beginning of 2012, but has had a corresponding negative impact on ROE.

¢ In 2015, our ROE was reduced by 3.8 percentage points due to provisions for the agreement in principle with the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) Working Group (RMBS Working Group Settlement) relating to legacy mortgage activity from 2005-2007. Nevertheless, our average reported ROE was more than 4.0 percentage points higher than the US Peer average over the 2012-2015 period.

1 For a reconciliation of this non-GAAP figure with the corresponding GAAP figure, please see Annex A.

Note: As used in these Performance Highlights, Balance Sheet and Headcount amounts calculated from the beginning of 2012 to the end of 2015; Income Statement amounts calculated from FY2012 to FY2015. As used in this proxy statement, “Headcount” refers to our total staff (employees, consultants and temporary staff) and “US Peers” refers to Bank of America Corp., Citigroup, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley.

2        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

ROE
10.7% 2012
11.0% 2013
11.2% 2014
11.2%1 Ex. RMBS 7.4% 2015

Executive Summary | Performance Highlights

¢ Other performance highlights include:

¢ Our EPS growth (Ex. RMBS)¹ was driven by both earnings growth and share count reduction.

¢ Our BVPS cumulative growth of 31% is almost double that of the US Peer average.

¢ We have returned approximately $25 billion in capital to our shareholders over the last four years, while increasing common equity by $8.2 billion over the same time period.

» We believe that a strong capital position allows us to be front-footed in capturing opportunities, while also providing protection in more difficult operating environments.

» Ultimately, we aim to size our capital base to the available business opportunities. If we are unable to earn a risk-adjusted return that we believe is acceptable by deploying our capital, we may either return the excess capital to shareholders (where permitted by our regulators) or hold it in reserve for future opportunities.

» From a risk management perspective, we believe our disciplined approach to capital is critical, as stretching to deploy excess capital can lead to negative outcomes for our shareholders.

Additional Business Highlights

¢ Investment Banking: #1 ranked merger advisor and equity underwriting franchise in 2015.

¢ Institutional Client Services: Among the few global players with leading FICC and Equities franchises, with approximately 7,000 active clients.

¢ Investment Management: Record assets under supervision of $1.25 trillion with $53 billion of organic long-term net inflows in 2015.

¢ Investing and Lending: Strong contributor to both returns and book value growth over the last five years.

¹  2015 EPS excludes the RMBS Working Group Settlement of $3.37bn ($2.99bn after-tax), which reduced diluted earnings per common share by $6.53 in 2015 (our reported EPS for 2015 was $12.14). For a reconciliation of this non-GAAP figure with the corresponding GAAP figure, please see Annex A.

²  2015YE Basel III Common Equity Tier 1 Ratio computed on a fully phased-in basis under the advanced approach compared with an estimate computed under Basel International Standards at the beginning of 2012.

³  Includes Common Stock and RSUs for which no future service is required as a condition to the delivery of the underlying Common Stock.

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        3

2015 vs 2012
EPS Growth (Ex. RMBS)1 32%
BVPS Growth 31%
Common Equity Ratio2 ~400bps
Basic Common Shares Outstanding3 14%

Executive Summary | Performance Highlights

Compensation Expense Management

¢ Given the firm is a human capital-intensive business, compensation and benefits represents our largest expense item. We have been committed to managing this expense diligently over time to protect returns for our shareholders, while still focusing on the recruiting and retention of our people, our greatest asset.

¢ Key expense management initiatives include growing our offices in high value and strategic locations, investing in technology and increasing the relative proportion of our junior staff. At the same time, we continue to appropriately invest in our employees so that we can serve our clients, generate long-term value for our shareholders and contribute to the broader public.

2015 vs 2012
>900 basis points
Decline in Average Compensation Ratio 2009-2015 vs 2000-2007
11% Total Headcount
-2% Compensation & Benefits Expense

4        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Executive Summary | Compensation Highlights

Compensation Highlights (seeCompensation Mattersbeginning on page 33)

We provide highlights of our compensation program below. It is important that you review our CD&A and compensation-related tables for a complete understanding of our compensation program.

2015 Annual NEO Compensation Decisions

The following table summarizes our Compensation Committee’s 2015 annual compensation decisions for our NEOs. The LTIP awards granted to our NEOs (discussed on pages 44-45) are not part of annual compensation and are not included in this table because no amounts are earned until the end of the relevant performance period.

Name and Principal Position	Salary/Fixed           Allowance	Annual Variable Compensation			Total
		Cash	RSUs	PSUs
Lloyd C. Blankfein	$2.0	$6.3	$7.35	$7.35	$23.0
Chairman and CEO
Gary D. Cohn	$1.85	$5.75	$6.7	$6.7	$21.0
President and COO
Harvey M. Schwartz	$1.85	$5.75	$6.7	$6.7	$21.0
Executive Vice President and CFO
Michael S. Sherwood	$1.85/$11.15*	—	$8.0	—	$21.0
Vice Chairman
Mark Schwartz	$1.85	$4.85	$11.31	—	$18.0
Vice Chairman

Note: Dollar amounts shown in millions.

* For 2015, Mr. Sherwood, who is based in the U.K., received a cash salary of $1.85 million and a fixed allowance of $11.15 million, payable partially in cash and partially in equity-based awards. This fixed allowance was provided as a result of applicable U.K. regulatory guidance. See page 42 for more details.

Compensation Committee Rationale for 2015 NEO Compensation Amounts    

Our Committee determined that each NEO’s total annual 2015 compensation should be reduced by approximately 4-5% compared to 2014.

¢  The Committee made its determinations in the context of our Compensation Principles, which encompass a pay for performance philosophy (see page 39 for more detail).

¢  In making its determination, key factors considered by the Committee included our:

»  Financial results, which, while solid (both on an absolute and relative basis), reflected the challenges of a mixed operating environment resulting from macroeconomic uncertainty, market volatility and increased costs related to expanded regulatory requirements;

»  Leading position in both equity and M&A league tables and improved positioning in debt underwriting league tables;

»  Achievements in our investment management business, including record annual net revenues and record assets under supervision;

»  Strong year-over-year improvement in our Equities business, which largely offset the year-over-year decline in FICC;

»  Emphasis on key operating parameters and management of our balance sheet, operating and capital efficiency, liquidity and overall risk profile; and

»  Leading global brand and continued commitment to high quality client service.

¢  Each NEO’s individual performance, including his focus on risk management and the firm’s safety and soundness, was also taken into account.

¢  The Committee also discussed the RMBS Working Group Settlement and related historical considerations as part of this process.

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        5

Executive Summary | Compensation Highlights

Key Elements of 2015 Executive Compensation Program

¢  Continued Emphasis on Shareholder Engagement with 97% Say on Pay Support at 2015 Annual Meeting. Our Compensation Committee believes this vote indicates support for our program, including the enhancements made in the prior year (see box at right).

¢   Policies and Practices that Require Significant and Long-Term Ownership of our Common Stock and a Continual Focus on our Long-Term Performance.

»  70% or more of 2015 annual variable compensation was awarded to each of our NEOs in equity-based awards.

»  Shares underlying RSUs are “Shares at Risk”:

–  Shares generally are delivered over a three-year period following the RSU grant.

–  Five-year transfer restrictions (from RSU grant date) apply to all or substantially all Shares at Risk that are delivered to NEOs after applicable tax withholding.

Prior Year Enhancements
ü	Introduced PSUs for CEO, COO and CFO
ü	Formalized clawback policy
ü	Expanded Sarbanes-Oxley Clawback to all Senior Executives (our CEO, COO, CFO and Vice Chairmen)
ü	Adopted Stock Ownership Guidelines
ü	Reduced Compensation Committee discretion in LTIP awards
ü	Established expectation of eight-year performance period for LTIP awards

»  Shares at Risk remain subject to our Stock Ownership Guidelines, as well as contractual retention requirements, even after transfer restrictions no longer apply.

»  Clawback provisions can result in forfeiture or recapture of equity-based awards and underlying Shares at Risk.

»  Executive officers are prohibited from hedging any shares, and are further prohibited from pledging equity-based awards and any shares of Common Stock subject to transfer restrictions.

–  None of our executive officers has shares of Common Stock subject to a pledge.

¢  PSUs Tied to Specific Pre-Established Performance Metrics Awarded to CEO, COO and CFO. These PSUs represent one-half of annual equity-based variable compensation for these executives and will be earned and settled in cash based on the firm’s average “ROE” over 2016-2018 (see page 43 for additional information).

»  Our Compensation Committee determined to award PSUs specifically to our CEO, COO and CFO because they have ultimate responsibility for firmwide performance and are uniquely positioned to drive our strategic plan.

¢  Longer-Term Alignment through LTIP Awards.

»  LTIP awards have an expected eight-year performance period (except in limited circumstances). Payout thresholds are therefore more aspirational than those used for our PSU awards.

»  Payout is based on average “ROE” and average change in BVPS over the performance period (see pages 44-45 for additional information). These metrics continue to be important risk-based indicators of our operating performance and our ability to generate shareholder value.

»  In January 2016, we granted LTIP awards to each of our NEOs with initial notional values as follows: $7.0 million (Mr. Blankfein); $6.7 million (Messrs. Cohn, Harvey Schwartz and Sherwood); and $4.0 million (Mr. Mark Schwartz). The structure, terms and metrics of these LTIP awards are consistent with prior LTIP awards.

¢ Priority on Risk Management and Sound Compensation Practices. Our Compensation Committee considers our firm’s safety and soundness in making all executive compensation determinations. Together with our Risk Committee, the Compensation Committee meets annually with our CRO to discuss his risk-related assessment of our compensation program. In order to help ensure that our compensation practices are sound, we have no guaranteed incentive payments or other severance or “golden parachute” payments for executive officers.

6        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Executive Summary | Corporate Governance Highlights

Corporate Governance Highlights (see Corporate Governance beginning on page 11)

Key Facts About our Board

We strive to maintain a well-rounded and diverse Board that balances both financial industry expertise and independence and the institutional knowledge of longer-tenured directors with the fresh perspectives brought by newer directors.

62% of Directors Joined in the Last 5 Years 61 Average Age of Directors
>100 Meetings of Lead Director and Chairs Outside of Board Meetings 14 Board Meetings in 2015
42 Standing Committee Meetings in 2015 6 Executive Sessions of Independent Directors Chaired by our Lead Director in 2015
8 Additional Executive Sessions of Non-Employee Directors Led by Committee Chairs in 2015
Diversity of Independent Directors Enhances Board Performance
40% Diverse by race, gender or sexual orientation 40% Non-U.S. or dual citizens

	Director Nominees	Independence of Nominees
Board	13	10 of 13
Audit	4	All
Compensation	5	All
Governance	10	All
Risk	6	5 of 6
Public Responsibilities	4	All

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        7

Executive Summary | Corporate Governance Highlights

  Director Nominees

Name/Age		Independent	DirectorSince	Occupation/Career Highlights	Committee Membership	Other U.S.-Listed PublicCompanyBoards
	Lloyd Blankfein, 61 Chairman	No	April 2003	Chairman & CEO, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.	None	0
	Adebayo Ogunlesi, 62 Lead Director	Yes	October 2012	Chairman & Managing Partner, Global Infrastructure Partners	Governance (Chair) Ex-Officio Member all other Committees	2
	Michele Burns, 58	Yes	October 2011	Retired, Chairman & CEO, Mercer LLC; Retired, CFO of each of: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Mirant Corp. and Delta Air Lines, Inc.	Compensation Governance Risk (Chair)	4
	Gary Cohn, 55	No	June 2006	President & COO, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.	None	0
	Mark Flaherty, 56	Yes	December 2014	Retired, Vice Chairman, Wellington Management Company	Audit Governance Risk	0
	William George, 73	Yes	December 2002	Senior Fellow, Harvard Business School	Compensation Governance Public Responsibilities (Chair)	0
	James Johnson, 72	Yes	May 1999	Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners	Compensation (Chair) Governance Public Responsibilities	0
	Lakshmi Mittal, 65	Yes	June 2008	Chairman & CEO, ArcelorMittal S.A.	Compensation Governance Public Responsibilities	1
	Peter Oppenheimer, 53	Yes	March 2014	Retired, Senior Vice President and CFO, Apple, Inc.	Audit (Chair) Governance Risk	0
	Debora Spar, 52	Yes	June 2011	President, Barnard College	Compensation Governance Public Responsibilities	0
	Mark Tucker, 58	Yes	November 2012	Executive Director, Group Chief Executive & President, AIA Group Limited	Audit Governance Risk	0
	David Viniar, 60	No	January 2013	Retired, CFO, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.	Risk	1
	Mark Winkelman, 69	Yes	December 2014	Private investor	Audit Governance Risk	0

8        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Executive Summary | Corporate Governance Highlights

Foundation in Sound Governance Practices and Shareholder Engagement

¢New in 2015: After engagement with shareholders, proactive adoption of a proxy access right for shareholders. In addition, shareholders are welcome to continue to recommend director candidates for consideration by our Governance Committee   ¢Previously Enhanced: Comprehensive process for Board refreshment, including a focus on diversity, as well as focus on succession for Board leadership positions   ¢Previously Enhanced: Annual Board and Committee evaluations, which incorporate feedback on individual director performance   ¢ Candid, one-on-one discussions between the Lead Director and each non-employee director supplementing formal evaluations   ¢Focus of our independent directors on executive succession planning   ¢Independent Lead Director with expansive duties   ¢Frequent executive sessions of independent directors   ¢CEO evaluation process conducted by our Lead Director with our Governance Committee ¢ Active, year-round shareholder engagement process, whereby we, including our Lead Director, meet and speak with our shareholders and other key constituents   ¢Board committee oversight of environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, including online ESG Report and 2015 Environmental Policy Framework   ¢ Directors may contact any employee of our firm directly, and the Board and its committees may engage independent advisors at their sole discretion   ¢Annual elections of directors (i.e., no staggered board)   ¢Majority voting with resignation policy for directors in uncontested elections   ¢Shareholders holding at least 25% of our outstanding shares of Common Stock can call a special meeting   ¢No supermajority vote requirements in our charter or by-laws   ¢Director share ownership requirement of 5,000 shares or RSUs, with a transition period for new directors   »  Directors may not hedge shares of Common Stock; none of our directors has shares of Common Stock subject to a pledge   »  All RSUs granted as director compensation must be held for the director’s entire tenure on our Board. Directors are not permitted to hedge, pledge or transfer these RSUs  

   Spotlight on Environmental Stewardship

In 2015 we announced updates to our Environmental Policy Framework, which highlights our commitment to addressing critical environmental issues. Since establishing the framework in 2005, we have continued to build upon our commitment to leverage our people, capital and ideas to deploy innovative approaches that facilitate environmental progress. The updated framework includes expanded targets and key initiatives, including raising our clean energy target to $150 billion in financings and investments by 2025, building on the existing target of $40 billion that we are close to achieving. We will also seek to source 100% renewable power for our global electricity needs by 2020. For more information please visit www.gs.com/environmental-stewardship.

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        9

Executive Summary | Corporate Governance Highlights

Commitment to Active Engagement with Our Shareholders

Across our shareholder base there is a wide variety of viewpoints about matters affecting our firm. We, including our Lead Director, meet and speak frequently with our shareholders and other constituents throughout the year.

10        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Lead Director Engagement
Met with 33 shareholders since assuming the role of Lead Director
» Represents ~37% of Common Stock outstanding
» Diversified across size, investment style and geography
Firm Engagement
Frequent, year-round engagement with shareholders on a broad range of topics
Over 100 meetings in 2015 focused on corporate governance
Annual Meeting outreach to Top 150 shareholders representing more than 55% of Common Stock outstanding
Shareholders communicate views on key governance topics – in 2015 these included:
Board composition, skills and Lead Director responsibilities
Board oversight of firm strategy
Our compensation program
Impact of regulation on our firm and our industry
Proxy access
Approach to ESG matters broadly
Board of Directors

Corporate Governance | Item 1.  Election of Directors

Corporate Governance

Item 1.  Election of Directors

Proposal Snapshot — Item 1.  Election of Directors  

What is being voted on. Election to our Board of 13 director nominees.

Board recommendation. After a review of the individual qualifications and experience of each of our director nominees and his or her contributions to our Board, our Board determined unanimously to recommend that shareholders vote FOR all of our director nominees.

Our Directors

Board of Directors’ Qualifications and Experience

Our 13 director nominees have a great diversity of experience and bring to our Board a wide variety of skills, qualifications and viewpoints that strengthen their ability to carry out their oversight role on behalf of shareholders.

Core Qualifications and Experiences

Diversity of Skills and Experiences

ü Integrity, business judgment and commitment   ü Demonstrated management ability   ü Extensive experience in the public, private or       not- for-profit sectors   ü Leadership and expertise in their respective       fields   ü Financial literacy   ü Involvement in educational, charitable and       community organizations   ü Strategic thinking   ü Reputational focus

+  Financial services, including investment management +  Complex & regulated industries +  Risk management +  Corporate governance +  Global experience +  Technology +  Accounting & preparation of financial statements +  Compliance +  Operations +  Established & growth markets +  Credit evaluation +  Environmental, social & governance +  Human capital management +  Academia +  Business ethics +  Government, public policy & regulatory affairs

Given the nature of our business, our Governance Committee continues to believe that directors with current and prior financial industry experience, among other skills, are critical to our Board’s effectiveness. We take very seriously, however, any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise, and have taken various steps to address this.

For example, in addition to our policies on director independence and related person transactions, we maintain a policy with respect to outside director involvement with financial firms, such as private equity firms or hedge funds. Under this policy, in determining whether to approve any current or proposed affiliation of a non-employee director with a financial firm, our Board will consider, among other things, the legal, reputational, operational and business issues presented, and the nature, feasibility and scope of any restrictions, procedures or other steps that would be necessary or appropriate to ameliorate any perceived or potential future conflicts or other issues.

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        11

Corporate Governance | Item 1.  Election of Directors

Diversity is an important factor in our consideration  of potential and incumbent directors  

Our Governance Committee considers a number of demographics including race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, culture and nationality, seeking to develop a board that, as a whole, reflects diverse viewpoints, backgrounds, skills, experiences and expertise.

¢  Among the factors the Governance Committee considers in identifying and evaluating a potential director candidate is the extent to which the candidate would add to the diversity of our Board. The Committee considers the same factors in determining whether to re-nominate an incumbent director.

¢  Diversity is also considered as part of the annual Board evaluation.

Director Tenure

Our directors have an average tenure of approximately 6.5 years and a median tenure of approximately 4.5 years. This balances the institutional knowledge of our longer-tenured directors with the fresh perspectives brought by our newer directors.

10+ years 3 directors
0-3 years 3 directors
6-10 years 2 directors
3-5 years 5 directors
8 New directors since 2011

Comprehensive Re-Nomination Process  

We appreciate the importance of critically evaluating individual directors and their contributions to our Board in connection with re-nomination decisions.

In considering whether to recommend re-nomination of a director for election at our Annual Meeting, the Governance Committee conducts a detailed review, considering factors such as:

¢  The extent to which the director’s skills, qualifications and experience continue to contribute to the success of our Board;

¢   Feedback from the annual board evaluation and individual discussions between each non-employee director and our Lead Director;

¢   Attendance and participation at, and preparation for, Board and Committee meetings;

¢   Independence;

¢  Shareholder feedback, including the strong support received by director nominees elected at our 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders;

¢  Outside board and other affiliations, including any actual or perceived conflicts of interest; and

¢  The extent to which the director continues to contribute to the diversity of our Board.

12        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Corporate Governance | Item 1.  Election of Directors

Each of our director nominees has been recommended for election by our Governance Committee and approved and re-nominated for election by our Board.

If elected by our shareholders, our director nominees, all of whom are currently members of our Board, will serve for a one-year term expiring at our 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. Each director will hold office until his or her successor has been elected and qualified or until the director’s earlier resignation or removal.

All of our directors must be elected by majority vote of our shareholders.

¢ A director who fails to receive a majority of FOR votes will be required to tender his or her resignation to our Board.

¢ Our Governance Committee will then assess whether there is a significant reason for the director to remain on our Board, and will make a recommendation to our Board regarding the resignation.

For detailed information on the vote required for the election of directors and the choices available for casting your vote, please see Frequently Asked Questions.

Biographical information about our director nominees follows. This information is current as of April 1, 2016 and has been confirmed by each of our director nominees for inclusion in our Proxy Statement. There are no family relationships between any of our directors or executive officers.

Lloyd C. Blankfein, 61 Chairman and CEO Director Since: April 2003 Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢ Current: None ¢ Past 5 Years: None	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Committed and deeply engaged leader with strong communication skills: Over 30 years of experience in various positions across our firm. Mr. Blankfein utilizes this firm-specific knowledge and experience in his role as Chairman and CEO to, among other things, lead the firm and its people, help protect and enhance our culture and articulate a vision of the firm’s strategy. Mr. Blankfein also uses strong communication skills to guide Board discussions and keeps our Board apprised of significant developments in our business and industry ¢   Extensive market and industry knowledge: Leverages extensive familiarity with all aspects of the firm’s industry and business, including our risk management practices and strategy ¢ Face of our firm: Drawing from extensive interaction with our clients, investors and other constituents, provides additional perspective to the Board
	Career Highlights ¢Goldman Sachs »Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (June 2006 – Present) »President and Chief Operating Officer (January 2004 – June 2006) »Vice Chairman with management responsibility for FICC and Equities Divisions (April 2002 – January 2004) »Co-head of FICC (1997 – April 2002) »Head and/or Co-head of the Currency and Commodities Division (1994 – 1997) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢Member, Dean’s Advisory Board, Harvard Law School ¢Member, Board of Dean’s Advisors, Harvard Business School ¢Member, Dean’s Council, Harvard University ¢Member, Advisory Board, Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management ¢Member, Board of Overseers, Weill Cornell Medical College ¢Member, Board of Directors, Partnership for New York City

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        13

Corporate Governance | Item 1.  Election of Directors

Adebayo O. Ogunlesi, 62 Lead Director Director Since: October 2012 GS Committees ¢ Governance (Chair) ¢ Ex-officio member: »Audit »Compensation »Public Responsibilities »Risk Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢Current: Callaway Golf Company; Kosmos Energy Ltd. ¢Past 5 Years: None	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Strong leader, including leadership experience in the financial services industry: Founder, Chairman and Managing Partner of Global Infrastructure Partners and a former executive of Credit Suisse with over 20 years of experience in the financial services industry, including investment banking and private equity ¢International business and global capital markets experience, including emerging markets: Advised and executed transactions and provided capital markets strategy advice globally ¢ Knowledge gained as former Chair of our Risk Committee: Provides additional perspective on key risks facing our firm ¢Expertise regarding governance and compensation: Service on the boards of directors and board committees of other public companies and not-for-profit entities, and in particular as Chair of the nominating and corporate governance committees at each of Callaway Golf and Kosmos Energy, provides additional governance perspective
	Career Highlights ¢Chairman and Managing Partner, Global Infrastructure Partners, a private equity firm that invests worldwide in infrastructure assets in the energy, transport, water and waste industry sectors (July 2006 – Present) ¢ Credit Suisse, a financial services company »Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Client Officer (2004 – 2006) »Member of Executive Board and Management Committee (2002 – 2006) »Head of Global Investment Banking Department (2002 – 2004) »Head of Global Energy Group (1997 – 2002) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢Member, Board of Trustees, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital ¢Member, National Board of Directors, The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. ¢Member, Board of Directors, Partnership for New York City Fund ¢Member, Harvard University Global Advisory Council and Harvard Law School Leadership Council of New York ¢Member, Board of Dean’s Advisors, Harvard Business School ¢Law Clerk to the Honorable Thurgood Marshall, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1980 – 1981)

M. Michele Burns, 58 Director Since: October 2011 GS Committees ¢ Risk (Chair) ¢ Compensation ¢ Governance Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢Current: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Anheuser-Busch InBev; Cisco Systems, Inc.; Etsy, Inc. ¢Past 5 Years: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Leadership, governance and risk expertise: Leverages service on the boards of directors and board committees of other public companies and not-for-profit entities ¢ Accounting and the review and preparation of financial statements: Garnered expertise as former CFO of several global public companies ¢Human capital management and strategic consulting: Background gained as former CEO of Mercer LLC ¢Knowledge gained as the former Chair of our Audit Committee: Provides additional perspective on our Board’s audit oversight responsibilities
	Career Highlights ¢Chief Executive Officer, Retirement Policy Center, sponsored by Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC); Retirement Policy Center focuses on retirement public policy issues (October 2011 – February 2014) ¢ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mercer LLC, a subsidiary of MMC and a global leader in human resource consulting, outsourcing and investment services (September 2006 – early October 2011) ¢Chief Financial Officer, MMC, a global professional services and consulting firm (March 2006 – September 2006) ¢Chief Financial Officer, Chief Restructuring Officer and Executive Vice President, Mirant Corporation, an energy company (May 2004 – January 2006) ¢ Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Delta Air Lines, Inc., an air carrier (including various other positions, 1999 – April 2004) ¢Senior Partner and Leader, Southern Regional Federal Tax Practice, Arthur Andersen LLP, an accounting firm (including various other positions, 1981 – 1999) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢ Center Fellow and Strategic Advisor, Stanford University Center on Longevity ¢ Board member and Treasurer, Elton John AIDS Foundation

14        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Corporate Governance | Item 1.  Election of Directors

Gary D. Cohn, 55 President and COO Director Since: June 2006 Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢ Current: None ¢ Past 5 Years: None	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Broad experience across our firm: More than a 20-year career at Goldman Sachs in New York and London with extensive experience across different markets. Mr. Cohn utilizes this experience to, among other things, enhance the Board’s oversight of our firm’s strategy and business priorities ¢Insight into the firm’s various business lines and day-to-day operations: Serves as our President and Chief Operating Officer helping to execute our firm’s strategy and client engagement ¢ Chair of our Firmwide Client and Business Standards Committee: Focus on our client relationships, business standards and reputational risk management (including oversight of the Firmwide Reputational Risk Committee), which assists our Public Responsibilities Committee in its oversight responsibilities
	Career Highlights ¢Goldman Sachs »President and Chief Operating Officer (or Co-Chief Operating Officer) (June 2006 – Present) »Co-Head of global Securities businesses (December 2003 – June 2006) »Co-Head of FICC (September 2002 – December 2003) »Co-Chief Operating Officer of FICC, Head of Commodities and other FICC businesses (variously, 1999 – 2002) »Head of Commodities (1996 – 1999) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢ Trustee, American University ¢ Trustee, NYU Langone Medical Center ¢ Chairman, Advisory Board, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases
Mark Flaherty, 56 Director Since: December 2014 GS Committees ¢   Audit ¢   Governance ¢   Risk Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢   Current: None ¢   Past 5 Years: None	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Investment management: Leverages over 20 years of experience in the investment management industry, including at Wellington Management Company ¢ Background at Wellington and Standish, Ayer and Wood provides perspective on institutional investors’ approach to company performance and corporate governance ¢Corporate governance and leadership: Service on the boards of trustees and board committees of not-for-profit entities assists in Governance Committee responsibilities
	Career Highlights ¢Wellington Management Company, an investment management company »    Vice Chairman (2011 – 2012) »    Director of Global Investment Services (2002 – 2012) »    Partner, Senior Vice President (2001 – 2012) ¢Standish, Ayer and Wood, an investment management company »    Executive Committee Member (1997 – 1999) »    Partner (1994 – 1999) »    Director, Global Equity Trading, (1991 – 1999) ¢Director, Global Equity Trading, Aetna, a diversified healthcare benefit company (1987 – 1991) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢Member, Board of Trustees, Providence College ¢Member, Board of Trustees, The Newman School

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        15

Corporate Governance | Item 1.  Election of Directors

William W. George, 73 Director Since: December 2002 GS Committees ¢   Public Responsibilities (Chair) ¢   Compensation ¢   Governance Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢   Current: None ¢   Past 5 Years:      Exxon Mobil Corporation	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Focus on reputation and environmental, social and governance matters: Utilizes current and prior service on the boards of directors and board committees of several other public companies and not-for-profit entities, particularly as Chair of our Public Responsibilities Committee ¢Leadership: Served as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Medtronic, Inc. and as a senior executive at Honeywell International Inc. ¢ Organizational behavior and management: A senior fellow and former professor of leadership and management practice at Harvard Business School and an author of several books on leadership, which provide academic expertise in business management and corporate governance
	Career Highlights ¢Harvard Business School »    Senior Fellow (July 2014 – present) »    Professor of Management Practice (January 2004 – July 2014) ¢Medtronic, Inc., a medical technology company »    Chairman (April 1996 – April 2002) »    Chief Executive Officer (May 1991 – May 2001) »    President and Chief Operating Officer (1989 – 1991) ¢Executive Vice President, Honeywell International Inc., a diversified technology and manufacturing company (1978 – 1989) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢Board member, World Economic Forum USA ¢Trustee, Mayo Clinic ¢Member, National Academy of Engineering

James A. Johnson, 72 Director Since: May 1999 GS Committees ¢   Compensation (Chair) ¢   Governance ¢   Public Responsibilities Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢   Current: None ¢   Past 5 Years:      Forestar Group, Inc.;      Target Corporation	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Financial services, including investment management industry: Leverages professional experience in financial services ¢ Government affairs and the regulatory process: Experience developed through, among other things, his tenure at Fannie Mae and his work with Vice President Walter F. Mondale ¢Leadership, compensation and governance: Current and prior service on the boards of directors of public companies and not-for-profit entities, including in lead director and committee chair roles, provides additional perspective
	Career Highlights ¢Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners, a private consulting company (Present) ¢Vice Chairman, Perseus L.L.C., a merchant banking and private equity firm (April 2001 – June 2012) ¢Fannie Mae »Chairman of the Executive Committee (1999) »Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (February 1991 – 1998) »Vice Chairman (1990 – February 1991) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢Chairman Emeritus, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts ¢Member, Council on Foreign Relations ¢Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences ¢Member and Treasurer, American Friends of Bilderberg ¢Chairman Emeritus and Executive Committee Member, The Brookings Institution ¢Council Member, Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture ¢Chair, Advisory Council, Stanford University Center on Longevity

16        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Corporate Governance | Item 1.  Election of Directors

Lakshmi N. Mittal, 65 Director Since: June 2008 GS Committees ¢   Compensation ¢   Governance ¢   Public Responsibilities Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢   Current:  ArcelorMittal S.A. ¢   Past 5 Years: None	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢   Leadership, business development and operations: Founder of Mittal Steel Company and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ArcelorMittal S.A., the world’s leading integrated steel and mining company ¢    International business and growth markets: Leading company with operations in over 20 countries on four continents provides global business expertise ¢   Corporate governance and international governance: Current and prior service on the boards of directors of other international public companies and not-for-profit entities assists in Governance Committee responsibilities
	Career Highlights ¢   ArcelorMittal S.A., a steel and mining company »    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (May 2008 – Present) »    President and Chief Executive Officer (November 2006 – May 2008) ¢   Chief Executive Officer, Mittal Steel Company N.V. (1976 – November 2006) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢   Member, International Business Council of the World Economic Forum ¢   Board of Trustees, Cleveland Clinic ¢   Member, Executive Committee, World Steel Association ¢   Member, Executive Board, Indian School of Business

Peter Oppenheimer, 53 Director Since: March 2014 GS Committees ¢   Audit (Chair) ¢   Governance ¢   Risk Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢   Current: None ¢   Past 5 Years: None	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Capital and risk management: Garnered experience as CFO and Controller at Apple and Divisional CFO at ADP ¢Review and preparation of financial statements: Over 20 years as a CFO or controller provides valuable experience and perspective as Audit Committee Chair ¢ Oversight of technology and technology risks: Leverages prior experience in overseeing information systems at Apple ¢Corporate governance and leadership: Current and prior service on the boards of directors of not-for profit entities provides additional perspective on governance
	Career Highlights ¢   Apple, Inc., a designer and manufacturer of electronic devices and related software and services »    Senior Vice President (retired September 2014) »    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (2004 – June 2014) »    Senior Vice President and Corporate Controller (2002 – 2004) »    Vice President and Corporate Controller (1998 – 2002) »    Vice President and Controller, Worldwide Sales (1997 – 1998) »    Senior Director, Finance and Controller, Americas (1996 – 1997) ¢   Divisional Chief Financial Officer, Finance, MIS, Administration, and Equipment Leasing Portfolio at Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP), a leading provider of human capital management and integrated computing solutions (1992 – 1996) ¢   Consultant, Information Technology Practice at Coopers & Lybrand, LLP (1988 – 1992)
	Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢   Vice Chairman, Foundation Board of Directors, California Polytechnic State University Foundation

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        17

Corporate Governance | Item 1.  Election of Directors

Debora L. Spar, 52 Director Since: June 2011 GS Committees ¢   Compensation ¢   Governance ¢   Public Responsibilities Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢   Current: None ¢   Past 5 Years: None	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Government and public policy, including the international political economy and growth markets: Experience as former professor at Harvard Business School provides perspective to our Public Responsibilities Committee ¢ Leadership and institutional management: President of Barnard College and an author of numerous books provides additional viewpoints ¢Human capital management: Strategically positioned to advise our Board and its Committees on matters relating to our people, including with respect to diversity and recruiting and retention efforts
	Career Highlights ¢   President, Barnard College (July 2008 – Present) ¢   Harvard Business School (1991 – 2008), various positions, including: »    Spangler Family Professor of Business Administration »    Senior Associate Dean; Director, Division of Research and Faculty Development »    Professor of Business, Government and Competition; Chair, Business, Government and the International Economy Unit Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢   Member, Board of Directors, Markle Foundation ¢   Member, Board of Directors, The Wallace Foundation ¢   Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences ¢   Member, Council on Foreign Relations

Mark E. Tucker, 58 Director Since: November 2012 GS Committees ¢   Audit ¢   Governance ¢   Risk Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢   Current: None ¢   Past 5 Years: None	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Financial services industry, including insurance, international business and global capital markets, particularly the Asia-Pacific region: Garnered through executive positions at AIA Group, Prudential plc and HBOS plc ¢Government and regulatory affairs, particularly regarding the financial system: Leverages prior experience as a non-executive director on The Court of The Bank of England and member of its Audit and Risk and Financial Stability Committees ¢Risk management: Experience in insurance and financial services industries, including prior service on The Court of The Bank of England, provides perspective to our Risk Committee
	Career Highlights ¢AIA Group Limited (AIA Group), a life insurance group in the Asia Pacific region »Executive Director, Group Chief Executive and President, AIA Group (January 2011 – Present) »Chairman (February 2011 – Present) and Chief Executive Officer (August 2013 – Present), AIA Company Limited »Chairman (February 2011 – Present) and Chief Executive Officer (August 2013 – Present), AIA International Limited »Group Executive Chairman and Group Chief Executive Officer, AIA Group (October 2010 – December 2010) ¢   Group Chief Executive and Executive Director, Prudential plc, an international financial services group (2005 - 2009, and various other positions 1986 – 2003) ¢ Group Finance Director, HBOS plc, a banking and insurance company in the United Kingdom (2004 – 2005) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢ Former Non-Executive Director, The Court of The Bank of England ¢ Former Director, Edinburgh International Festival

18        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Corporate Governance | Item 1.  Election of Directors

David A. Viniar, 60 Director Since: January 2013 GS Committees ¢  Risk Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢  Current: Square, Inc. ¢  Past 5 Years: None	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Financial industry, in particular risk management and regulatory affairs: Over 30 years of experience in various roles at Goldman Sachs, as well as service as chair of the audit and risk committee of Square, Inc., provides valuable perspective to our Board ¢Unique insight into our firm’s financial reporting, controls and risk management: As our former CFO, able to provide unique insight about our risks to our Risk Committee ¢ Capital management processes and assessments: Experience gained through serving as the Goldman Sachs CFO for over 10 years
	Career Highlights ¢Goldman Sachs »     Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (May 1999 – January 2013) »     Head of Operations, Technology, Finance and Services Division (December 2002 – January 2013) »     Head of the Finance Division and Co-head of Credit Risk Management and Advisory and Firmwide Risk (December 2001 – December 2002) »     Co-head of Operations, Finance and Resources (March 1999 – December 2001) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢   Former Trustee, Union College

Mark O. Winkelman, 69 Director Since: December 2014 GS Committees ¢   Audit ¢   Governance ¢   Risk Other U.S.-Listed Public Company Directorships ¢   Current: None ¢   Past 5 Years:      Anheuser-Busch InBev	Key Experience and Qualifications
	¢Audit and financial expertise, corporate governance and leadership: Leverages prior service on the board of directors and the audit and finance committees of Anheuser-Busch InBev and service on the boards of directors and audit, finance and other committees of not-for-profit entities ¢Financial services industry: Experience gained through his role as operating partner at J.C. Flowers and through other industry experience ¢    Knowledge about our firm, including our fixed income business, and an understanding of the risks we face: Utilizes his previous tenure at Goldman Sachs
	Career Highlights ¢Private investor (Present) ¢Operating Partner, J.C. Flowers & Co., a private investment firm focusing on the financial services industry (2006 – 2008) ¢ Goldman Sachs »     Retired Limited Partner (1994 – 1999) »     Management Committee Member and Co-Head of Fixed Income Division (1987 – 1994) »     Various positions at the firm, including Head of J. Aron Division (1978 – 1987) ¢Senior Investment Officer, The World Bank (1974 – 1978) Other Professional Experience and Community Involvement ¢Trustee, University of Pennsylvania ¢Chairman of the Board, Penn Medicine

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        19

Corporate Governance | Item 1.  Election of Directors

Independence of Directors

10 of our 13 director nominees are independent

A director is considered independent under NYSE rules if our Board determines that the director does not have any direct or indirect material relationship with Goldman Sachs. Our Board has established a Policy Regarding Director Independence (Director Independence Policy) that provides standards to assist our Board in determining which relationships and transactions might constitute a material relationship that would cause a director not to be independent.

Our Board determined, upon the recommendation of our Governance Committee, that Ms. Burns, Mr. Flaherty, Mr. George, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mittal, Mr. Ogunlesi, Mr. Oppenheimer, Dr. Spar, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Winkelman are “independent” within the meaning of NYSE rules and our Director Independence Policy. Prior to his retirement from our Board in 2015, Claes Dahlbäck also was determined to be independent. Furthermore, our Board has determined that all of our independent directors satisfy the heightened audit committee independence standards under SEC and NYSE rules, and Compensation Committee members also satisfy the relevant heightened standards under NYSE rules.

Process for Independence Assessment

To assess independence, our Governance Committee and our Board were provided with detailed information about any relationships between the independent directors (and their immediate family members and affiliated entities) on the one hand, and Goldman Sachs and its affiliates on the other. Specifically, our Governance Committee and our Board reviewed and considered the following categories of transactions, which our Board has determined are immaterial under our Director Independence Policy. For more detail on certain of these transactions, see Certain Relationships and Related Transactions as well as Additional Details on Director Independence in Annex B.

¢ Ordinary course business transactions between us and an entity where a director or immediate family member is or was during 2015:

» An executive officer or employee of a for-profit entity – George (a family member), Mittal (and a family member), Ogunlesi and Tucker;

» A non-executive board member or a similar position of a for-profit entity – Burns, George, Johnson, Mittal (and family members), Ogunlesi and Winkelman; and

» An executive officer, employee, trustee, board member or similar position of a not-for-profit organization – Burns, George (and family members), Johnson, Mittal (and family members), Ogunlesi (and a family member), Oppenheimer, Spar and Winkelman.

¢ Charitable donations made in the ordinary course (including pursuant to our matching gift program) by the firm, The Goldman Sachs Foundation or the donor advised funds under our GS Gives program to a not-for-profit organization where the director or immediate family member is an employee, trustee, board member or has a similar position – Burns, Flaherty, George (and a family member), Johnson, Mittal (and family members), Ogunlesi (and a family member), Oppenheimer, Spar and Winkelman

¢ Client relationships where the director or an immediate family member is our client (for example, brokerage, discretionary and other similar accounts) on substantially the same terms as similarly-situated clients – Burns (and a family member), George (and family members), Mittal (and family members), Ogunlesi (and family members), Spar (and a family member), Tucker and Winkelman (and family members)

¢ Fund investments by a director, on substantially the same terms as similarly-situated clients, in funds sponsored or managed by us – Burns, George, Mittal, Ogunlesi, Spar, Tucker and Winkelman

20        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Corporate Governance | Structure of our Board and Governance Practices

Structure of our Board and Governance Practices

Our Board Committees

Our Board has five standing committees: Audit, Compensation, Governance, Public Responsibilities and Risk. Each of our committees:

¢ Operates pursuant to a written charter (available on our website at www.gs.com/charters)

¢ Evaluates its performance annually

¢ Reviews its charter annually

The firm’s reputation is of critical importance. In fulfilling their duties and responsibilities, each of our standing committees and our Board consider the potential effect of any matter on our reputation.

During 2014, our Lead Director initiated a review of our previous committee structure, under which all independent directors had been members of each of our standing committees. As a result of that review, effective for 2015, our Board determined to decrease the number of directors serving on each of our Audit, Risk and Compensation Committees as well as to convert our Public Responsibilities Subcommittee to our standing Public Responsibilities Committee.

As part of the 2015 evaluation of the Board and its committees, directors expressed their agreement that the new committee structure had enhanced Board and committee performance. In particular, the new structure has allowed our Board to better harness specific director skill sets and permitted directors to deepen their focus on committee matters, as well as to enable additional focus at full Board meetings on our strategy.

Audit
All independent	Key Skills & Experiences Represented	Key Responsibilities
Peter Oppenheimer*   Mark Flaherty   Mark Tucker   Mark Winkelman   Adebayo Ogunlesi   (ex-officio)	¢   Audit/Tax/Accounting ¢   Preparation or oversight of financial statements ¢   Compliance	¢   Assist our Board in its oversight of our financial statements, legal and regulatory compliance, independent auditors’ qualification, independence and performance, internal audit function performance and internal controls over financial reporting ¢   Decide whether to appoint, retain or terminate our independent auditors ¢   Pre-approve all audit, audit-related, tax and other services, if any, to be provided by the independent auditors ¢   Appoint and oversee the work of our Director of Internal Audit and annually assess her performance and administrative reporting line ¢   Prepare the Audit Committee Report

*A majority of the members of our Audit Committee, including the Chair, have been determined to be “audit committee financial experts”

Board of Directors
Chairman and CEO: Lloyd Blankfein; Lead Director: Adebayo Ogunlesi
Audit Committee All Independent
Compensation Committee
All Independent Governance Committee
All Independent
Public Responsibilities Committee All Independent
Risk Committee 5 of 6 Independent

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        21

Corporate Governance | Structure of our Board and Governance Practices

Compensation
All independent	Key Skills & Experiences Represented	Key Responsibilities
James Johnson Michele Burns William George Lakshmi Mittal Debora Spar Adebayo Ogunlesi (ex-officio)	¢   Setting executive compensation ¢   Evaluating executive and firmwide compensation programs ¢   Human capital management, including diversity	¢   Determine and approve the compensation of our CEO and other executive officers ¢   Approve, or make recommendations to our Board for it to approve, our incentive, equity-based and other compensation plans ¢   Assist our Board in its oversight of the development, implementation and effectiveness of our policies and strategies relating to our human capital management function, including: »recruiting; »retention; »career development and progression; »management succession (other than that within the purview of the Governance Committee); and »diversity and employment practices. ¢   Prepare the Compensation Committee Report

Governance
All independent	Key Skills & Experiences Represented	Key Responsibilities
Adebayo Ogunlesi Michele Burns Mark Flaherty William George James Johnson Lakshmi Mittal Peter Oppenheimer Debora Spar Mark Tucker Mark Winkelman	¢   Corporate governance ¢   Talent development and succession planning ¢   Current and prior public company board service	¢   Recommend individuals to our Board for nomination, election or appointment as members of our Board and its committees ¢   Oversee the evaluation of the performance of our Board and our CEO ¢   Review, and concur with, the succession plans for our CEO and other members of senior management ¢   Take a leadership role in shaping our corporate governance, including developing, recommending to the Board and reviewing on an ongoing basis the corporate governance principles and practices that apply to us ¢   Review periodically the form and amount of non-employee director compensation and make recommendations to the Board with respect thereto

Public Responsibilities
All independent	Key Skills & Experiences Represented	Key Responsibilities
William George James Johnson Lakshmi Mittal Debora Spar Adebayo Ogunlesi (ex-officio)	¢   Government and regulatory affairs ¢   ESG ¢   Philanthropy ¢   Reputational risk	¢   Assist our Board in its oversight of our reputation and our firm’s relationships with major external constituencies ¢   Oversee the development, implementation and effectiveness of our policies and strategies relating to citizenship, corporate engagement and relevant significant public policy issues

22        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Corporate Governance | Structure of our Board and Governance Practices

Risk
Independent Michele Burns Mark Flaherty Peter Oppenheimer Mark Tucker Mark Winkelman Adebayo Ogunlesi (ex-officio) Non-independent David Viniar	Key Skills & Experiences Represented ¢Understanding of how risk is undertaken, mitigated and controlled in complex industries ¢Technology ¢Understanding of financial products ¢Risk expertise	Key Responsibilities ¢ Assist our Board in its oversight of our firm’s overall risk-taking tolerance and management of financial and operational risks, including market, credit and liquidity risk ¢Review and discuss with management our firm’s capital plan, regulatory capital ratios and internal capital adequacy assessment process and the effectiveness of our financial and operational risk management policies and controls

Board Leadership Structure

Annual Assessment of Board Leadership Structure

Our Board does not have a policy as to whether the roles of Chairman and CEO should be separate or combined. Our Governance Committee annually assesses these roles and deliberates the merits of the Board’s leadership structure to ensure that the most efficient and appropriate structure is in place for our firm’s needs, which may evolve over time. If at any time the Chairman is not an independent director, our independent directors will appoint an independent Lead Director.

Key Components of Annual Review
Chairman-CEO and Lead Director Responsibilities
Our Policies and Practices to Ensure Strong Independent Board Oversight
Shareholder Feedback and Voting Results Regarding Board Leadership
Firm Performance Global Trends Regarding Leadership Structure

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        23

Corporate Governance | Structure of our Board and Governance Practices

Our Current Board Leadership Structure As a result of its most recent board leadership review in December 2015, which included feedback from our shareholders, our Governance Committee determined that continuing to combine the roles of Chairman and CEO is the most effective leadership structure for our Board and our firm at this time. If at any time our Governance Committee concludes otherwise, it will not hesitate to appoint an independent Chairman.
Among other reasons: ¡ Our Board leadership structure is enhanced by the independent leadership provided by our Lead Director and independent committee chairs, the independence of our Board and the governance policies and practices in place at our firm. For example: »  Our independent Lead Director has an expansive list of enumerated duties, including setting the Board agenda (working with the Chairman), and is focused on shareholder engagement »  Our Chairman and CEO and our Lead Director meet and speak with each other regularly about our Board and our firm »  Our independent committee chairs meet and speak regularly between meetings with each other and with members of our management as well as non-management employees ¡A combined Chairman-CEO structure provides our firm with a single leader who communicates the firm’s business and strategy to our shareholders, clients, employees, regulators and the public »  This structure demonstrates clear accountability to our shareholders, clients and others ¡Our CEO has extensive knowledge of all aspects of our current business, operations and risks, which he brings to Board discussions as Chairman »  A combined Chairman-CEO can serve as a knowledgeable resource for our independent directors both at and between Board meetings »  Combining the roles at our firm has been effective in promulgating a strong and effective leader of the firm, particularly in times of economic challenge and regulatory change affecting our industry	Key Pillars of the Lead Director Role
	Sets and approves agenda for Board meetings and leads executive sessions
	Focuses on Board effectiveness, composition and conducting evaluations
	Serves as liaison between independent directors and Chairman/management
	Acts as primary Board contact for corporate governance engagement and engages with regulators

Strong Governance Practices Ensure Independent Board Oversight  

¡  10 independent directors, one non-employee director

¡  Active, engaged and independent chairs of all standing committees

¡  Audit, Compensation, Governance and Public Responsibilities Committees 100% independent; Risk Committee five of six independent

¡  Regular executive sessions of independent directors chaired by our Lead Director (six in 2015); any independent director may call an executive session and suggest matters for discussion

¡   All directors may suggest inclusion of additional subjects on Board and committee agendas

¡  Annual evaluations of our Board and each committee led by our Lead Director and independent committee chairs

¢  Independent director participation and oversight of key governance process, such as CEO performance, succession planning and CEO compensation

¢   All directors free to contact any employee of the firm directly

¢  Our Board and each committee may engage independent advisors at their sole discretion

24        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Corporate Governance | Structure of our Board and Governance Practices

Key responsibilities of our

Chairman-CEO

¡ Chairs Board meetings

¡ Chairs annual shareholder meeting

¡ Serves as the public face of our Board and our firm

¡ Works with Lead Director to set agenda for Board meetings (which the Lead Director approves) and reviews schedule for Board meetings

¡Guides discussions at Board meetings and encourages directors to voice their views

¡Serves as a resource for our Board

¡Communicates significant business developments and time-sensitive matters to the Board

¡Establishes the “tone-at-the-top” in coordination with the Board, and embodies these values for our firm

¡Responsible for managing the day-to-day business and affairs of our firm

¡Sets and leads the implementation of corporate policy and strategy

¡Interacts regularly with our COO, CFO and other senior leadership of our firm

¡Manages senior leadership of our firm

¡Meets frequently with clients and shareholders, providing an opportunity to understand and respond to concerns and feedback; communicates feedback to our Board

Powers and duties of our
Independent Lead Director

¡ Provides independent leadership

¡ Sets agenda for Board meetings, working with our Chairman (including adding items to and approving the agenda), and approves the related materials; approves the schedule for Board and committee meetings; sets agenda and approves materials for Governance Committee meetings; approves agenda for other committee meetings (along with our other independent committee chairs, who also approve the materials for these meetings)

¡Engages with our other independent directors to identify matters for discussion at executive sessions of independent directors

¡ Presides at executive sessions of independent directors

¡ Advises our Chairman of any decisions reached and suggestions made at the executive sessions, as appropriate

¡ Calls meetings of the independent directors

¡ Presides at any Board meeting at which the Chairman is not present

¡ Facilitates communication between the independent directors and our Chairman, including by presenting our Chairman’s views, concerns and issues to the independent directors and raising to our Chairman, as appropriate, views, concerns and issues of the independent directors

¡ Engages with our Chairman between Board meetings and assists with informing or engaging non-employee directors, as appropriate

¡Engages with each non-employee director separately regarding the performance and functioning of the collective Board, individual director performance and other matters as appropriate

¡ Oversees our Board’s governance processes, including Board evaluations, succession planning and other governance-related matters

¡Leads the annual CEO evaluation

¡Meets directly with management and non- management employees of our firm

¡Consults and directly communicates with shareholders and other key constituents, as appropriate

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        25

Corporate Governance | Structure of our Board and Governance Practices

Year-Round Review of Board Composition

Our Governance Committee seeks to build and maintain an effective, well-rounded, financially literate and diverse Board that operates in an atmosphere of candor and collaboration.

Board Process for Identification and Review of Director Candidates to Join our Board

Identifying and recommending individuals for nomination, election or re-election to our Board is a principal responsibility of our Governance Committee. The Committee carries out this function through an ongoing, year-round process, which includes the Committee’s annual evaluation of our Board and individual director evaluations. Each director and director candidate is evaluated by the Governance Committee based on his or her individual merits, taking into account our firm’s needs and the composition of our Board.

To assist in this evaluation, the Committee utilizes as a discussion tool a matrix of certain skills and experiences that would be beneficial to have represented on our Board and on our Committees at any particular point in time.

In particular, the Committee has enhanced its focus on what skills are beneficial for service in key Board positions, such as Lead Director and Committee Chairs, and conducts a succession planning process for those positions.

In identifying and recommending director candidates, the Governance Committee places primary emphasis on the criteria set forth in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, including:

¡  Judgment, character, expertise, skills and knowledge useful to the oversight of our business;

¡  Diversity of viewpoints, backgrounds, experiences and other demographics;

¡  Business or other relevant experience; and

¡  The extent to which the interplay of the candidate’s expertise, skills, knowledge and experience with that of other members of our Board will build a strong and effective Board that is collegial and responsive to the needs of our firm.

Our Governance Committee welcomes candidates recommended by shareholders and will consider these candidates in the same manner as other candidates. Shareholders wishing to submit potential director candidates for consideration by our Governance Committee should follow the instructions in Frequently Asked Questions.

Independent Directors Shareholders Independent Search Firms Our People Candidate Pool
In-Depth review Screen qualifications Consider diversity Review independence and potential conflicts Meet with directors Consider Skills Matrix Recommend Selected Candidates for Appointment to our Board Results 8 New Directors Since 2011

26        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Corporate Governance | Structure of our Board and Governance Practices

Director Orientation

Director education about our firm and our industry is an on-going process, which begins when a director joins our Board.

Upon joining our Board, new directors are provided with a comprehensive orientation about our firm, including our business, strategy and governance. For example, new directors typically meet with senior leaders covering each of our divisions and regions. New directors will also undergo in-depth training on the work of each of the Board committees, such as an Audit and Risk Committee orientation session with our CFO, Controller, Treasurer and CRO, as well as a session with the Director of Internal Audit. Additional training is also provided when a director assumes a leadership role, such as becoming a committee chair.

Board and Committee Evaluations

We recognize the critical role that Board and committee evaluations play in ensuring the effective functioning of our Board. It is important to take stock of Board, committee and director performance and to solicit and act upon feedback received from each member of our Board. To this end, under the leadership of our Lead Director, our Governance Committee is responsible for evaluating the performance of our Board annually, and each of our Board’s committees also annually conducts a self-evaluation.

2015 Evaluations – A Multi-Step Process The Governance Committee periodically reviews the format of the Board and Committee evaluation process to ensure that actionable feedback is solicited on the operation of the Board and director performance. Questionnaire Evaluation questionnaire provides director feedback on an unattributed basis One-on-One Discussions Candid, one-on-one discussions between the Lead Director and each non-employee director to solicit additional feedback and provide individual feedback Closed Session Closed session discussion of Board and committee evaluations led by our Lead Director and independent Committee Chairs Board Summary Summary of Board and committee evaluation results provided to full Board Feedback Incorporated Policies and practices updated as appropriate as a result of director feedback

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        27

Corporate Governance | Board Oversight of our Firm

Topics considered during the Board and Committee evaluations include:
Director Performance	Board and Committee Operations	Board Performance	Committee Performance
¡Individual director performance ¡Lead Director (in that role) ¡Each Committee Chair (in that role)	¡Board and committee membership, including director skills, background, expertise and diversity ¡Committee structure, including whether the change to committee structure has enhanced Board and committee performance ¡Access to firm personnel ¡Conduct of meetings, including time allocated for, and encouragement of, candid dialogue	¡Key areas of focus for the Board ¡Consideration of reputation ¡Strategy oversight ¡Consideration of shareholder value ¡Shareholder feedback ¡Capital planning	¡Performance of committee duties under committee charters ¡Consideration of reputation ¡Effectiveness of outside advisers ¡Identification of topics that should receive more attention and discussion

Board Oversight of our Firm

Key Areas of Board Oversight

Our Board is responsible for, and committed to, the oversight of the business and affairs of our firm. In carrying out this responsibility, our Board advises our senior management to help drive success for our clients and long-term value creation for our shareholders. Our Board discusses and receives regular updates on a wide variety of matters affecting our firm.

Financial Reporting Strategy Risk Management CEO Performance Executive Succession Planning Consideration of our reputation is central to Board and Committee oversight

28        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Corporate Governance | Board Oversight of our Firm

Strategy	¢ Our Board takes an active role in overseeing management’s formulation and implementation of the firm’s strategic plans »Receives presentations covering firmwide, divisional and regional strategy and discusses these matters throughout the year both during and outside of Board meetings ¢Our Board’s focus on overseeing risk management enhances our directors’ ability to provide insight and feedback to senior management, and, if necessary, to challenge management, on our firm’s strategic direction ¢ Our Lead Director helps facilitate our Board’s oversight of strategy by ensuring that the directors receive adequate information about strategy and by discussing strategy with independent directors at executive sessions
Risk Management	¢ Our Board is responsible for overseeing the risk management of our firm, which is carried out at the full Board as well as at each of its Committees, and in particular the Risk Committee ¢Board risk management oversight includes: »Strategic and financial considerations »Legal, regulatory and compliance risks »Other risks considered by committees ¢ Risk Committee risk management oversight includes: »Overall risk taking tolerance and risk governance, as well as the Risk Appetite Statement (in coordination with our full Board) »Liquidity, market, credit, operational and model risks »Our Capital Plan, capital ratios and capital adequacy »Technology and cybersecurity risks ¢Audit Committee risk management oversight includes: »Financial, legal and compliance risk, in coordination with our full Board »Coordination with our Risk Committee, including with respect our risk assessment and risk management practices ¢Compensation Committee risk management oversight includes: »Design firmwide compensation program and policies that are consistent with the safety and soundness of our firm and do not raise risks reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our firm »Jointly with our Risk Committee, annual CRO compensation-related risk assessment (see page 40) ¢ Governance Committee risk management oversight includes: »Managing risks related to board composition and board and executive succession ¢Public Responsibilities Committee risk management oversight includes: »Brand and reputational risk, including client and business standards considerations as well as reports regarding the Firmwide Reputational Risk Committee that review certain transactions that may present heightened reputational risk »Environmental, social and governance risk
CEO Performance	¢ Under the direction of our Lead Director, our Governance Committee annually evaluates Mr. Blankfein’s performance »The evaluation process includes an executive session of independent directors, a closed session with Mr. Blankfein, and additional discussion between our Lead Director and Mr. Blankfein throughout the year ¢ The Committee reviews the results of Mr. Blankfein’s evaluation under our “360 degree” review process (360° Review Process) and also assesses Mr. Blankfein’s performance both as CEO and as Chairman of the Board against the key criteria and responsibilities for these roles that were developed by the Governance Committee

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        29

Corporate Governance | Board Oversight of our Firm

Observation in a variety of settings including Board Meetings, preparatory meetings, during visits to our offices around the world and client-related events Reviewed by the Governance Committee with our CEO annually with an update mid-year Always in a position to appoint executives from within our firm Monitoring of senior management careers to ensure appropriate exposure to the Board and our business Review of senior management summaries (including 360° evaluations) and assessment of potential for executive positions

Executive Succession Planning	¡Our Governance Committee has adopted a framework relating to executive succession planning, under which the Committee has defined specific criteria for, and responsibilities of, each of the CEO, COO and CFO roles. The Committee then focuses on the particular skill set needed to succeed in these roles at our firm ¡Our Lead Director also meets on this topic separately with our CEO and facilitates additional discussions with our independent directors about succession planning throughout the year, including at executive sessions
Financial Reporting	¡Our Board, through its Audit Committee, is responsible for overseeing management’s preparation and presentation of our annual and quarterly financial statements and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting »Each quarter, our Audit Committee meets with members of our management, the Director of Internal Audit and our independent auditors to review and discuss our financial statements as well as our quarterly earnings release ¡In addition, our Audit Committee is directly responsible for overseeing the independence, performance and compensation of our independent auditors. In this regard, our Audit Committee and Audit Committee Chair are directly involved with the periodic selection of the lead engagement partner

Commitment of our Board – 2015 Meetings

	2015 Meetings	56 Total Board and Committee     meetings in 2015
Board	14
Audit	15
Compensation	8
Governance	7
Risk	6
Public Responsibilities	6
Executive Sessions of Independent Directors without Management*	6
Additional Executive Sessions of Non-Employee Directors without Management**	8

* Chaired by our Lead Director.

** Led by our independent Committee Chairs.

30        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Corporate Governance | Board Oversight of our Firm

40
meetings
as
Risk
Chair
Michele Burns

Each of our current directors attended over 75% (the threshold for disclosure under SEC rules) of the meetings of our Board and the committees on which he or she served as a regular member during 2015. Overall attendance at Board and committee meetings during 2015 was over 96% for our current directors as a group.

We encourage our directors to attend our annual meetings. All of our current directors attended the 2015 Annual Meeting.

Actively Engaged Directors Outside of Board Meetings

Engagement outside of Board meetings provides our directors with additional insight into our business and our industry, as well as valuable perspective on the performance of our firm, the Board, our CEO and other members of senior management.

¡ Our individual directors have discussions with each other and with our CEO, members of our senior management team and other key employees, as well as with our regulators

¡ Our directors also receive weekly informational packages that include updates on recent developments, press coverage and current events that relate to our business

¡ Our Committee Chairs and Lead Director meet and speak regularly with each other and with members of our management in connection with planning for meetings

» Among other things, each Chair, working with management, sets the agendas and reviews, provides feedback on and approves the draft materials for their respective committee meetings. The Lead Director also sets the Board agenda and reviews, provides feedback on and approves materials for meetings of the full Board, as well as the schedule of the Board and committee meetings.

Active, Independent Leadership Outside of Board Meetings

In addition to formal Board and Committee meetings, our Committee Chairs and Lead Director meet and speak regularly with each other and with members of our management, as well as meet with our regulators and other constituents as applicable.

Over 65 meetings as Lead Director Bayo Ogunlesi
Over 40 meetings as Risk Chair Michele Burns
Over 10 meetings as Public Responsibilities Chair Bill George
Over 25 meetings as Compensation Chair Jim Johnson
Over 45 meetings as Audit Chair Peter Oppenheimer

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        31

Corporate Governance | Shareholder Engagement

Shareholder Engagement

Our Commitment to Active Engagement with Our Shareholders

Across our shareholder base there is a wide variety of viewpoints about matters affecting our firm. We, including our Lead Director, meet and speak with our shareholders throughout the year.

How to Contact Us

Contact Us Our Directors Communicate with our directors, including our Lead Director, Committee Chairs or independent directors as a group Mail correspondence to: John F.W. Rogers Secretary to the Board Goldman Sachs 200 West Street New York, NY 10282 Contact Us Investor Relations Reach out to our Investor Relations team at any time Email: gs-investor-relations@gs.com Phone: (+1) 212-902-0300 Contact Us Business Integrity Program You may contact us or any member of our Board, in each case in a confidential or anonymous manner, through the firm’s reporting hotline under our Policy on Reporting of Concerns Regarding Accounting and Other Matters Phone: (+1) 866-520-4056 Policy is available on our website at www.gs.com/corpgov
Lead Director Engagement Met with 33 shareholders since assuming the role of Lead Director Represents ~37% of Common Stock outstanding Diversified across size, investment style and geography Firm Engagement Frequent, year-round engagement with shareholders on a broad range of topics Over 100 meetings in 2015 focused on corporate governance Annual Meeting outreach to Top 150 shareholders representing more than 55% of Common Stock outstanding Shareholders communicate views on key governance topics – in 2015 these included: Board composition, skills and Lead Director responsibilities Board oversight of firm strategy Our compensation program Impact of regulation on our firm and our industry Proxy access Approach to ESG matters broadly Board of Directors

32        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Compensation Matters

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

2015 Annual Compensation Determinations

What We Paid

The following table shows our Compensation Committee’s determinations of the form and amount of 2015 annual compensation awarded to our NEOs as well as corresponding 2014 information. This table is different from the SEC-required 2015 Summary Compensation Table on page 49. The LTIP awards granted to our NEOs (discussed on pages 44-45) are not part of annual compensation and are not included in this table because no amounts are earned until the end of the relevant performance period.

Name and Principal Position	Year		Annual Variable Compensation				Equity-Based     Awards as     % of Annual     Variable Comp.	Equity-     Based     Awards as     % of Total
		Salary/     Fixed     Allowance	Cash	RSUs	PSUs	Total
Lloyd C. Blankfein Chairman and CEO	2015	$2.0	$6.3	$7.35	$7.35	$23.0	70	64
	2014	$2.0	$7.33	$7.33	$7.33	$24.0	67	61
Gary D. Cohn President and COO	2015	$1.85	$5.75	$6.7	$6.7	$21.0	70	64
	2014	$1.85	$6.72	$6.72	$6.72	$22.0	67	61
Harvey M. Schwartz Executive Vice President and CFO	2015	$1.85	$5.75	$6.7	$6.7	$21.0	70	64
	2014	$1.85	$6.72	$6.72	$6.72	$22.0	67	61
Michael S. Sherwood Vice Chairman	2015	$1.85/11.15*	—	$8.0	—	$21.0	100	64**
	2014	$1.85/9.15	$1.83	$9.17	—	$22.0	83	83**
Mark Schwartz Vice Chairman	2015	$1.85	$4.85	$11.31	—	$18.0	70	63
	2014	$1.85	$5.72	$11.43	—	$19.0	67	60

Note: Dollar amounts shown in millions.

* For 2015, Mr. Sherwood, who is based in the U.K., received a cash salary of $1.85 million and a fixed allowance of $11.15 million, payable partially in cash and partially in equity-based awards. This fixed allowance was provided as a result of applicable U.K. regulatory guidance. See page 42 for more details.

** This percentage reflects the RSUs paid to Mr. Sherwood as annual variable compensation, as well as the fixed allowance described above.

How Our Compensation Committee Made Its Decisions

¡ Our Compensation Committee made its annual compensation determinations for our NEOs in the context of our Compensation Principles, which encompass a pay for performance philosophy (see page 39 for more detail).

¡ After consideration of various data points, including an analysis of peer company compensation, the Committee determined that 2014 compensation amounts were appropriate to use as a baseline for 2015 decisions.

¡ Based on its assessment of the factors described on the following pages, the Committee determined that total annual 2015 compensation for each NEO should be reduced by approximately 4-5%.

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        33

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

2015 Firmwide Performance In considering our financial performance, key factors considered by our Compensation Committee included our:   ¡ Financial results, which, while solid (both on an absolute and relative basis), reflected the challenges of a mixed operating environment resulting from macroeconomic uncertainty, market volatility and increased costs related to expanded regulatory requirements;   ¡ Leading position in both equity and M&A league tables and improved positioning in debt underwriting league tables;   ¡Achievements in our Investment Management business, including record annual net revenues and record assets under supervision;   ¡ Strong year-over-year improvement in our Equities business, which largely offset the year-over-year decline in FICC;   ¡Emphasis on key operating parameters and management of our balance sheet, operating and capital efficiency, liquidity and overall risk profile; and   ¡ Leading global brand and continued commitment to high quality client service.   In assessing our financial performance, the Committee reviewed EPS, BVPS and ROE, as well as our stock price performance, pre-tax earnings, net revenues, net earnings, compensation and benefits expense, non-compensation expense and compensation ratio. The Committee focused on EPS, BVPS and ROE as measures of our operating performance and ability to generate shareholder value in 2015. All metrics were considered on a year-over-year basis, as well as relative to our peers and in the context of the broader environment in which the firm operates, on a reported and Ex. RMBS basis, as applicable.   Our Compensation Committee places substantial importance on firmwide performance metrics when assessing NEO compensation amounts. Firmwide performance is considered by the Committee in a holistic manner without ascribing specific weights to any single financial metric.   The Committee also discussed the RMBS Working Group Settlement and related historical considerations as part of this process.   11.2% Our ROE (Ex. RMBS)** remained stable at 11.2%
9%* Our EPS (Ex. RMBS)** increased to $18.67
5%* Our BVPS was $171.03 as of December 31, 2015
$33.82b Net revenues remained stable (decreasing 2% from 2014)
6%* Net earnings to common shareholders (Ex. RMBS)** increased to $8.56 billion
$13m* Compensation and benefits expense declined slightly despite an increase in headcount
5%* Non-compensation expense (Ex. RMBS)** decreased to less than $9 billion Key Firmwide Performance Metrics Considered by our Compensation Committee       *Figures reflect change vs. 2014. **For a reconciliation of these non-GAAP figures with the corresponding GAAP figures, please see Annex A.

34        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

27% variable cash compensation
9% base salary
32% RSUs
32% PSUs
Equity-based awards represent 70% of 2015 annual variable compensation (64% of total annual compensation)

2015 Individual Performance

Our Compensation Committee also considered key individual performance highlights and achievements of each of our NEOs in connection with determining his 2015 annual compensation. Our NEOs are evaluated under our 360° Review Process, which includes feedback in key areas such as those summarized in the graphic below:

¢CEO: Under the direction of our Lead Director, our Governance Committee evaluated the performance of our CEO, including a summary of his evaluation under the 360° Review Process (see page 29 for more detail). Our Compensation Committee considered this evaluation and also discussed our CEO’s performance as part of its executive session to determine his compensation.   ¢ Other NEOs: Our CEO discussed the performance of our COO, including a summary of his evaluation under the 360° Review Process, with our Compensation Committee. Our CEO and COO reviewed the performance of our other NEOs, including summaries of their evaluations, with our Compensation Committee. In addition, our CEO submitted variable compensation recommendations to the Committee for our other NEOs, but did not make recommendations about his own compensation.

Review Process 360° includes confidential input from employees, including those who are senior to, peers of and junior to the employee being reviewed Client Focus Risk Management Firm Reputation Judgment Compliance with Firm Policies Commercial Impact Culture Carrier Diversity and Inclusion Communication Leadership and People Development Client Focus

Lloyd C. Blankfein   Chairman and CEO	Key Responsibilities	2015 Annual Compensation Mix
	Our Chairman and CEO is responsible for managing our business operations and overseeing our senior leaders. He leads the implementation of corporate policy and strategy and is the primary liaison between our Board and the management of our firm. In addition to his role as the leader of our organization and people, he also serves as the primary public face of our firm.
	Key Performance Achievements
	¢Led the firm’s stable financial performance.
	¢Effectively leveraged the deep client relationships he has built on behalf of the firm.
	¢Maintained emphasis on managing the broad spectrum of risk considerations facing the firm and encouraging a relentless focus on improvement and innovation, key examples of his ability to serve the firm by establishing a “tone-at-the-top.”
	¢Drove the firm’s strategic focus and catalyzed efforts to identify potential growth opportunities, including in the consumer lending market.
	¢Demonstrated ongoing leadership within both the financial services industry and the broader corporate community.

27% variable cash compensation 9% base salary 32% RSUs 32% PSUs Equity-based awards represent 70% of 2015 annual variable compensation (64% of total annual compensation)

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        35

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

27% variable cash compensation
9% base salary
32% RSUs
32% PSUs
Equity-based awards represent 70% of 2015 annual variable compensation (64% of total annual compensation)
27% variable cash compensation
9% base salary
32% RSUs
32% PSUs
Equity-based awards represent 70% of 2015 annual variable compensation (64% of total annual compensation)

Gary D. Cohn President and COO	Key Responsibilities	2015 Annual Compensation Mix
	Our President and COO is responsible for managing our day-to-day business operations and executing on firmwide priorities. He serves as a key liaison to our clients.
	Key Performance Achievements
	¢ Deepened client coverage in many areas, including the technology sector, as well as international markets including Canada, South America and Asia.
	¢Showed significant investment in firmwide business planning and operational functions more broadly.
	¢ Led the establishment of our new Firmwide Reputational Risk Committee and its focus on assessing highly complex structured transactions and evaluating their suitability.
	¢Demonstrated a strong commitment to diversity through a number of channels, including oversight of the firm’s 2015 Managing Director selection.

27% variable cash compensation 9% base salary 32% RSUs 32% PSUs Equity-based awards represent 70% of 2015 annual variable compensation (64% of total annual compensation)

Harvey M. Schwartz  Executive Vice President and CFO	Key Responsibilities	2015 Annual Compensation Mix
	Our CFO is responsible for managing the firm’s overall financial condition, including our capitalization and our funding and liquidity profile. He is also responsible for financial analysis and reporting, as well as our operations and technology functions. He is a primary liaison to our investors.
	Key Performance Achievements
	¢ Successfully led the firm’s efforts in addressing subjects of critical significance to investors, including those relating to key capital allocation issues.
	¢ Drove key technology and operation initiatives.
	¢Continued focus on risk management, including through leadership on a number of firm committees, such as the Firmwide Risk Committee and Finance Committee.
	¢ Effectively interfaced with a broad group of regulators on a range of issues impacting our firm, our clients and the industry.

27% variable cash compensation 9% base salary 32% RSUs 32% PSUs Equity-based awards represent 70% of 2015 annual variable compensation (64% of total annual compensation)

36        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

27% fixed allowance (cash component)
9% base salary
64% RSUs (including fixed allowance)
Equity-based awards represent 70% of 2015 annual compensation excluding base salary (64% of total annual compensation)
27% variable cash compensation
10% base salary
63% RSUs
Equity-based awards represent 70% of 2015 annual variable compensation (63% of total annual compensation)

Michael S. Sherwood Vice Chairman and Co- CEO of Goldman Sachs International	Key Responsibilities	2015 Annual Compensation Mix
	Our Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs International is responsible for the firm’s business and activities in the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region and Growth Markets. He is a key leadership presence and liaison with regulators, particularly in the U.K.
	Key Performance Achievements
	¢Provided effective leadership for our firm, particularly for our employees located in the EMEA region and in connection with his role as chairman of Growth Markets.
	¢Advanced the client franchise, including through reinforcement of the firm’s culture and the importance it plays in mitigating conduct risk.
	¢Oversaw the development of Growth Markets Next Generation Leadership Programs to cultivate high-performers in Growth Markets offices.
	¢Continued to focus on improving the productivity of the firm’s regulatory interactions.

27% fixed allowance (cash component) 9% base salary 64% RSUs (including fixed allowance) Equity-based awards represent 70% of 2015 annual compensation excluding base salary (64% of total annual compensation)

Mark Schwartz Vice Chairman and Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asia Pacific	Key Responsibilities	2015 Annual Compensation Mix
	Our Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asia Pacific is responsible for the firm’s business and activities in the Asia Pacific (APAC) region. He serves as an important liaison for the firm, particularly in China.
	Key Performance Achievements
	¢Continued to focus on strengthening significant long-term client relationships and developing new business in the APAC region while remaining committed to risk management.
	¢Demonstrated continued dedication to building the firm’s franchise in the APAC region, particularly in China.
	¢Provided influential leadership for the firm in a key region of focus.
	¢Remained deeply engaged in the firm’s philanthropic efforts, particularly our 10,000 Women program in China.

27% variable cash compensation 10% base salary 63% RSUs Equity-based awards represent 70% of 2015 annual variable compensation (63% of total annual compensation)

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        37

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Importance of Discretion

Our Compensation Committee continues to believe that discretion is a critical feature of the firm’s executive compensation program, which supplements compensation with metrics-based outcomes to achieve our overarching goal of enhancing shareholder value while promoting the safety and soundness of our firm.

Key Benefits of Discretion within our Compensation Program

¢  Our business is dynamic and requires us to respond rapidly to changes in our operating environment. A rigid, formulaic program based on metrics could hinder our ability to do so and could have unintended consequences.

¢  Our program is designed to encourage executives to act prudently on behalf of both shareholders and clients, regardless of prevailing market conditions. This goal could be compromised by a strictly formulaic program, which might incentivize executives to place undue focus on achieving specific metrics at the expense of others.

¢  Strictly formulaic compensation would not permit adjustments based on less quantifiable factors such as a disparity between absolute and relative performance levels or recognition of key individual achievements.

¢  Equity-based awards comprise a significant portion of annual variable compensation for our NEOs and help to ensure long-term alignment without the disadvantages of purely formulaic compensation.

Our Compensation Committee has listened to shareholder feedback and made enhancements to our compensation program over time, which have helped to ensure that our executive compensation program continues to be appropriately aligned with our Compensation Principles.

Our Compensation Committee Exercises Judgment to Actively Manage our Pay Programs Examples of Annual Pay Decisions Despite strong performance relative to US Peers in key metrics such as ROE and BVPS growth, no variable compensation for any Senior Executive given firm’s absolute performance levels Despite continuing outperformance and very strong absolute performance, no cash variable compensation for any Senior Executive due to market conditions Decrease in NEO compensation from 2010 levels to reflect 2011 performance Decrease in NEO compensation from 2014 levels to reflect 2015 performance 2008 2009 2011 2014 2015 Examples of Structural Enhancements Introduction of “Shares at Risk” with five-year transfer restrictions from RSU grant date Introduction of risk-based clawbacks Introduction of metricsbased PSUs as component of annual compensation for CEO, COO and CFO Introduction of Stock Ownership Guidelines

38        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Key Pay Practices

Our Compensation Committee considers the design of our executive compensation program to be integral to furthering our Compensation Principles, including paying for performance and effective risk management. The following chart summarizes certain of our key pay practices.

What We Do 

ü	Focus on aligning pay with firmwide performance, including through use of RSUs, PSUs and LTIP awards
ü	Proactively engage with shareholders
ü	Review and carefully consider shareholder feedback in structuring executive compensation
ü	Grant equity-based awards as a significant portion (for 2015, at least 70%) of our NEOs’ annual variable compensation
ü	Award RSUs with underlying “Shares at Risk”; five-year transfer restrictions (from RSU grant date) apply to all or substantially all delivered Shares at Risk (after applicable tax withholding)
ü	Exercise judgment responsive to the cyclical nature of our business
ü	Apply clawback policy to variable compensation awards
ü	Utilize Stock Ownership Guidelines for NEOs and retention requirements for PMDs
ü	Provide for annual assessment by our CRO of our compensation programs to ensure programs do not encourage imprudent risk-taking
ü	Utilize an independent compensation consultant

What We Don’t Do 

Ò	No employment, “golden parachute” or severance agreements with our executive officers
Ò	No guaranteed bonus arrangements with our executive officers
Ò	No tax gross-ups for our executive officers
Ò	No repricing of underwater stock options
Ò	No excessive perquisites
Ò	No ongoing pension benefit accruals for executive officers
Ò	No hedging transactions or short-sales permitted for any executive officer

Framework for Compensation Decisions

Our Compensation Principles

Our Compensation Principles guide our Compensation Committee in its review of compensation at our firm, including the Committee’s determination of NEO compensation. The full text of our Compensation Principles is available on our public website at www.gs.com/corpgov. Key elements of the Compensation Principles include:

Paying for Performance	Encouraging Firmwide Orientation and Culture	Discouraging Imprudent Risk-Taking	Attracting and Retaining Talent
Firmwide compensation should directly relate to firmwide performance over the cycle.	Employees should think and act like long-term shareholders, and compensation should reflect the performance of the firm as a whole.	Compensation should be carefully designed to be consistent with the safety and soundness of our firm. Risk profiles must be taken into account in annual performance reviews, and factors like liquidity risk and cost of capital should also be considered.	Compensation should reward an employee’s ability to identify and create value, but the recognition of individual performance should be considered in the context of the competitive market for talent.

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        39

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Compensation Committee Framework to Determine NEO Compensation

In addition to our Compensation Principles, our Compensation Committee is guided by our Compensation Framework, which more broadly governs the variable compensation process for employees who could expose the firm to material amounts of risk (such as our NEOs). Pursuant to the Compensation Framework, our Committee considered the following factors in using its discretion to determine the amount and form of compensation to be awarded to each of our NEOs (firmwide financial performance and individual performance are discussed above on pages 34-37):

Shareholder Feedback

¡ In making NEO compensation decisions, our Compensation Committee reviews and carefully considers:

» Specific feedback received from shareholders and other constituents; and

» The results of our Say on Pay votes.

¡ Our Compensation Committee believes that the results of our most recent Say on Pay vote (97% support) indicate that our shareholders strongly support the philosophy of our firm’s compensation program, including the Committee’s emphasis on prudent use of discretion in making compensation decisions and key structural enhancements in recent years such as the introduction of PSUs.

Risk Management

¡ Effective risk management underpins everything that we do, and compensation is carefully designed to be consistent with the safety and soundness of our firm.

¡ Our CRO presents his annual risk assessment jointly to our Compensation Committee and our Risk Committee in order to assist them with evaluating this design.

» This assessment is focused on whether our program is consistent with regulatory guidance requiring that financial services firms ensure that variable compensation does not encourage imprudent risk-taking.

» Our CRO’s view was that the various components of our compensation programs and policies work together to balance risk and reward in a manner that does not encourage imprudent risk-taking.

Compensation Committee Decisions Firmwide Financial Performance Individual Performance Shareholder Feedback CRO Input and Risk Management Market for Talent Regulatory Considerations Independent Compensation Consultant Input

40        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Market for Talent

¢ Our Compensation Committee reviews the competitive market for talent as part of its review of our compensation program’s effectiveness in attracting and retaining talent, and to help determine our NEOs’ compensation.

» Our goal is always to be in a position to appoint people from within the firm to our most senior leadership positions and our executive compensation program is intended to incentivize our people to stay at Goldman Sachs and to aspire to these senior roles.

¢ The Committee conducts an evaluation of our existing NEO compensation program, comparing it to that of our US Peers, as well as other key financial institutions (American Express Company, Barclays PLC, Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, UBS AG and Wells Fargo & Company).

¢ This evaluation is performed with information and assistance from our Global Head of Human Capital Management (HCM), and is based on information on compensation (including plan design and compensation levels for named executive officers at peer firms) and financial performance obtained from an analysis of public filings by our Finance and HCM Divisions, as well as compensation surveys conducted by Willis Towers Watson.

Regulatory Considerations

¢ Our Compensation Committee also considers regulatory matters and the views of our regulators when determining NEO compensation. Throughout 2015, our senior management briefed the Committee on relevant regulatory developments.

Independent Compensation Consultant Input

¢ Our Compensation Committee recognizes the importance of using an independent compensation consultant that is appropriately qualified and that provides services solely to our Committee and not to our firm. Accordingly, the Committee again retained Semler Brossy as its independent compensation consultant in 2015.

¢ The Committee uses Semler Brossy because of the quality of its advice as well as its:

» Extensive experience working with a broad cross-section of companies;

» Multi-faceted business perspective; and

» Expertise in the areas of executive compensation, management incentives and performance measurement.

¢ In 2015, the Committee asked Semler Brossy to assess our compensation program for our PMDs, including our NEOs.

Views of Independent Compensation Consultant

“The PMD pay program continues to:

¢Be aligned with, and sensitive to, firm performance;

¢Contain features that reinforce significant alignment with shareholders and a long-term focus; and

¢ Utilize policies and procedures, including subjective determinations, that facilitate the firm’s approach to risk taking and risk management by supporting the mitigation of known and perceived risks.”

¢ Semler Brossy did not recommend, and was not involved in determining, the amount of any NEO’s compensation.

¢ In addition to providing its assessment of our compensation program for PMDs, Semler Brossy also participated in the discussion of our CRO’s compensation-related risk assessment and reviewed the peer compensation and financial information provided to the Committee by our Finance Division, our HCM Division and Willis Towers Watson (as described above).

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        41

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

In March 2015, our Compensation Committee determined that Semler Brossy had no conflicts of interest in providing services to the Committee and was independent under the factors set forth in the NYSE rules for compensation committee advisors based on these factors:

  Semler Brossy provides services only to the Committee (and not to our firm).   Semler Brossy has no significant business or personal relationship with any member of the Committee or any executive officer.     The fees our firm paid to Semler Brossy are not material to Semler Brossy’s total revenues.   None of Semler Brossy’s principals owns any shares of our Common Stock.

Overview of Compensation Elements

Fixed Compensation

¢  Fixed compensation provides our NEOs with a predictable level of income that is competitive with our peers.

¢  We made no changes to NEO base salaries, and our Compensation Committee believes that these salary levels are competitive in the market for talent.

¢  The recently implemented requirements of the European Union’s Fourth Capital Requirements Directive (CRDIV) impact the amount of variable compensation that is permitted to be granted to certain U.K. employees. In order to deliver the appropriate balance of fixed and variable components of pay and comply with CRDIV, the Committee determined in January 2015 to provide Mr. Sherwood with a fixed allowance of $11.15 million for 2015, in addition to his base salary. Mr. Sherwood’s fixed allowance was increased from 2014 to reflect the value of his role, including in connection with his increasing contributions to the firm in respect of Growth Markets leadership, as well as the expansion of his responsibilities relating to the firm’s regulatory framework.

»  In order to align the equity component of Mr. Sherwood’s overall 2015 compensation with that of the other NEOs, this fixed allowance was paid approximately 48% in RSUs, with the remainder paid in cash.

»  The fixed allowance RSUs will deliver into Shares at Risk in three approximately equal installments in each of 2017, 2018 and 2019. Substantially all of these Shares at Risk will be restricted from sale until January 2021. However, pursuant to regulatory guidance, these fixed allowance RSUs are not subject to the clawback and forfeiture provisions that apply to year-end RSUs (e.g., cause and/or non-compete provisions).

Annual Variable Compensation

¢  Variable compensation provides our NEOs with the opportunity to realize cash and equity-based incentives that are aligned with firmwide and individual performance. Amounts were determined based on our Compensation Committee’s assessment of firmwide and individual performance, among other factors.

¢  In 2015, we paid annual variable compensation to our NEOs in the form of cash, RSUs and/or PSUs. The following table summarizes the key elements of each of the equity-based components. Certain elements are common to these components, including:

»  Clawback and forfeiture provisions, which are described more fully on pages 46-47; and

»  Treatment upon a termination of employment or change-in-control, which is described more fully in Executive Compensation—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control on pages 56-59.

42        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Variable Compensation  Element	Key Facts
RSUs*	¢	Provide NEO with annual equity-based incentives; value tied to firm performance through stock price
	¢	Vested at grant; underlying shares are generally delivered in three approximately equal installments on first, second and third anniversaries of grant
	¢	Shares underlying RSUs are Shares at Risk, meaning that transfer restrictions apply for five years after grant date to all or substantially all Shares at Risk that are delivered (after applicable tax withholding)
		»	Approximately fifty percent of underlying shares are transferable upon delivery to permit NEOs to satisfy tax withholding obligations
	¢	Transfer restrictions generally prohibit sale, transfer, hedging or pledging of underlying Shares at Risk for five years from date of grant, even if the NEO leaves our firm (subject to limited exceptions; see pages 56-59 for more detail)
		»	Transfers may be permitted in limited circumstances (for example, gifts to estate planning entities) so long as the Shares at Risk continue to be subject to the underlying terms
	¢	Each RSU includes a dividend equivalent payment right
PSUs* Payout Thresholds for PSUs** Average “ROE” 150% 100% 50% 0% >14% 11% 4% <4% Payout %	¢	Provide CEO, COO and CFO (who have ultimate responsibility for firmwide performance and are uniquely positioned to drive our strategic plan) with annual variable compensation that has a metrics-based outcome; value tied to firm performance both through stock price and metrics-based structure
		»	50-50 split between RSUs and PSUs intended to balance more traditional equity compensation with these awards that use specific performance metrics
	¢	PSUs will pay out between 0-150% of target based on our average “ROE” over 2016-2018
		»	In order for the award to pay out at 100%, our average “ROE” for 2016-2018 must be 11% (see graphic at left)
		»	Payout thresholds are the same as those used for 2014 PSUs
		»	Awards will settle in cash based on the average closing price of our Common Stock over a ten trading day period
	¢	The Committee continues to believe ROE is the appropriate risk-based metric for the PSUs because it is an important indicator of the firm’s operating performance
	¢	Average “ROE” is the average of the annual “ROE” for each year during the performance period. Annual “ROE” is calculated for each year by dividing net earnings applicable to common shareholders by average monthly common shareholders’ equity, adjusted for the after-tax effects of amounts that would be excluded from “Pre-Tax Earnings” under The Goldman Sachs Amended and Restated Restricted Partner Compensation Plan (RPCP)
		»	The types of amounts that could be excluded from “Pre-Tax Earnings” include, but are not limited to, amounts related to: exit or disposal activities, impairment or disposal of long-lived assets or impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets, net provisions for litigation and other regulatory proceedings and items that are unusual in nature or infrequent in occurrence and that are separately disclosed, in each case if the aggregate net effect of such amounts on Pre-Tax Earnings exceeds a pre-established threshold (for relevant RPCP provisions, see page 3 of Exhibit 10.1 of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 24, 2006, filed April 5, 2006)
		»	Additionally, if necessary or appropriate to maintain intended economics of PSUs, our Compensation Committee will make adjustments for any accounting changes, rule changes or other actions that impact capital and may also determine, in its sole discretion, whether unusual or exceptional events or transactions will be included or excluded from the calculation
	¢	Each PSU includes a cumulative dividend equivalent payment right payable only if and when the underlying PSU award pays out
	¢	Terms of the PSUs are not affected by a future termination of employment or change-in-control (absent circumstances constituting “cause” - e.g., any material violation of any firm policy or other conduct detrimental to our firm)

* With respect to the RSUs and PSUs awarded for 2015 annual compensation, the amount of units awarded was determined in each case by dividing the dollar value of the applicable component of each NEO’s variable compensation by the closing price of our Common Stock on the grant date ($151.65 on January 21, 2016).

** Payout is scaled if results are between 4% and 14%.

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        43

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan

In January 2016, our Compensation Committee also granted to each NEO a long-term incentive compensation award. The Committee considered several qualitative and quantitative factors, including firmwide financial performance and an assessment of various aspects of individual performance, such as the roles and responsibilities of each individual, including the resulting potential impact on future firm performance, in determining the following initial notional values: Mr. Blankfein – $7.0 million; Mr. Cohn – $6.7 million; Mr. Harvey Schwartz – $6.7 million; Mr. Sherwood – $6.7 million; and Mr. Mark Schwartz – $4.0 million.

2016 LTIP Awards – Key Facts

¢	Our Compensation Committee believes that LTIP awards help to further tie our NEOs’ long-term pay to long-term growth in the value of our firm.
	»	Because LTIP awards have longer-term performance periods with aspirational payout thresholds directly linked to future performance in certain key metrics, the Committee considers them separately from annual compensation.
¢	LTIP awards are forward-looking cash awards; payout is based on average “ROE” and average change in BVPS over the performance period.
	»	ROE and BVPS continue to be important risk-based indicators of our operating performance and our ability to generate shareholder value.
	»	The thresholds for these metrics continue to be appropriate based on our Compensation Committee’s review of our historical data and the macroeconomic environment.
	»	The awards will have a 0% payout if performance is below minimum thresholds. No amounts are earned based on performance in one year; negative performance in one year would offset positive performance during the performance period.
	»	Our Compensation Committee does not have discretion to adjust the final award value of the 2016 LTIP awards based on individual performance; clawback/forfeiture provisions apply throughout the performance period.
¢	The awards are expected to have an eight-year performance period (i.e., January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2023), except in limited circumstances.
	»	An eight-year performance period is an appropriate period of time during which to assess management’s performance over the long-term and accounts for the cyclical nature of our business and the broader macroenvironment in which we operate.
	»	Our Compensation Committee retains the flexibility to determine prior to the end of 2017 if, due to unforeseen circumstances, a three-year performance period would be more appropriate for a particular 2016 LTIP award (for example, due to a change in applicable regulatory guidance regarding incentive compensation).
	»	Payout would occur in the month immediately following the end of the performance period (generally January 2024).
¢	LTIP awards are subject to our clawback policy (see pages 46-47).
	»	Our Compensation Committee has the ability to recapture any payment under a 2016 LTIP award that is made based on materially inaccurate financial statements or performance criteria.
	»	The 2016 LTIP awards are also subject to the same clawback provisions as the 2015 year-end equity awards and underlying Shares at Risk for the entire performance period.
	»	Additionally, in the event an NEO’s employment terminates within the first six months of the performance period, the Committee will have the ability to reduce the award value down to a minimum of $0 based on an evaluation of factors it deems appropriate.

44        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Extension of Performance Period for LTIP Awards Granted in February 2014 (2014 LTIP Awards)

¢ In December 2015, our Compensation Committee extended the performance period of the 2014 LTIP Awards from December 2016 to December 2021 for each of our NEOs to align with its intention that all LTIP awards have an eight-year performance period.

How the LTIP Operates

¢ The 2016 LTIP awards are calculated in three steps, as follows:

¢ Step 1: Our Compensation Committee determines the LTIP award’s initial notional value based on the factors noted on the prior page.

¢ Step 2: On an annual basis, the LTIP award’s notional value increases/decreases by the year’s annual “ROE,” as calculated under the LTIP (the Annual “ROE” Adjustment), subject to a 12% cap.

¢ Step 3: At the end of the performance period, the final balance of the LTIP award is adjusted based on average “ROE” and average change in BVPS over the entire performance period (the Average “ROE”/BVPS Adjustment), subject to a cap of 150% of the amount determined following Step 2 (see table below for applicable payout thresholds).

Additional Details Regarding LTIP Calculations

LTIP Performance Metrics

¢ “ROE” is calculated under the LTIP in a manner identical to that described for our PSUs above; see page 43 for more detail.

¢ Average “ROE” is the average of the annual “ROE” for each year during the performance period.

¢ Average change in BVPS is the average of the annual changes in our firm’s book value per common share for each year during the performance period.

¢ If necessary or appropriate to maintain intended economics of the LTIP awards, our Compensation Committee will adjust these calculations for any accounting changes, rule changes or other actions that impact capital and may also determine, in its sole discretion, whether unusual or exceptional events or transactions will be included or excluded from the calculations.

Thresholds Applicable to Average “ROE”/BVPS Adjustment for 2016 LTIP Awards (Step 3)

Payout*	Average “ROE” Over Performance Period (Applies to 50% of Adjusted Notional Value at End of Performance Period)	Average Change in BVPS Over Performance Period (Applies to 50% of Adjusted Notional Value at End of Performance Period)
Zero	<5%	<2%
50%	5%	2%
100%	12%	7%
150%	³15%	³12%

* Payout is scaled if results are between specified percentages.

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        45

Grant Date During Performance Period End of Performance Period Step 1: Determine initial notional value Step 2: Apply Annual “ROE” Adjustment Step 3: Apply Average “ROE”/BVPS Adjustment

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Other Compensation Policies and Practices

Stock Ownership Guidelines and Retention Requirements

¢ Based on our Compensation Committee’s recommendation and taking into account shareholder feedback, our Board adopted Stock Ownership Guidelines in January 2015. These guidelines apply to all of our NEOs, as well as any other individual in a Senior Executive position, and provide that:

» Our CEO must retain beneficial ownership of a number of shares of Common Stock equal to 10x his base salary for so long as he remains our CEO; and

» Each other executive subject to the Guidelines must retain beneficial ownership of a number of shares of Common Stock equal to 6x his base salary for so long as he remains in a Senior Executive position at the firm.

» Additional transition rules would apply in the event that an individual becomes newly appointed to a Senior Executive position.

¢ Each NEO currently meets these Stock Ownership Guidelines.

¢ Separate from the Stock Ownership Guidelines, our Shareholders’ Agreement continues to impose retention requirements on each of our NEOs with respect to shares of Common Stock received in respect of equity awards (although short-term RSUs are not subject to the retention requirements).

» Our CEO is required, for so long as he holds that position, to retain (including, in certain cases, ownership through estate planning entities established by him) at least 75% of the shares of Common Stock received (net of payment of any option exercise price and withholding taxes) as compensation (After-Tax Shares) since becoming a Senior Executive.

» Similarly, each of our other NEOs is required, for so long as he holds a Senior Executive position, to retain at least 50% of After-Tax Shares received beginning in January 2015, and 75% of After-Tax Shares received as a Senior Executive prior to January 2015.

Clawback Policy

¢ Our Compensation Committee adopted a clawback policy in January 2015 that formalized and expanded our longstanding clawback practices in a comprehensive, standalone policy. The policy applies to all of our NEOs, as well as any other individual in a Senior Executive position, and permits recovery of awards (including equity-based awards, underlying Shares at Risk, cash variable compensation and LTIP awards, as applicable) in certain circumstances.

¢ The clawback policy also expands the Sarbanes-Oxley Clawback provisions to apply to variable compensation (whether cash- or equity-based) paid to any of our Senior Executives (even though the Sarbanes-Oxley Act provision on which it is based requires the clawback to apply only to our CEO and CFO).

¢ As in prior years, 2015 year-end PSUs and RSUs (and underlying Shares at Risk) are subject to forfeiture or recapture by us in certain cases, even after the transfer restrictions lapse.

» If we determine that Shares at Risk may be recaptured after delivery, we can require the return of those shares to us or the repayment to us of the fair market value of the shares (including those withheld to pay withholding taxes) and any other amounts, such as dividend equivalents, paid or delivered in respect thereof.

¢ 2015 year-end PSUs and RSUs (and, in certain cases, underlying Shares at Risk) provide for forfeiture or recapture if:

» The Committee determines that during 2015, the NEO participated (including, in certain cases, participation in a supervisory role) in actions on behalf of our firm or our clients without appropriately considering risk of any kind to our firm or the broader financial system, which have or reasonably could be expected to result in a material adverse impact on our firm, the NEO’s business unit or the broader financial system;

» Our firm is determined by bank regulators to be “in default” or “in danger of default” as defined under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or fails to maintain for 90 consecutive business days the required “minimum Tier 1 capital ratio” (as defined under Federal Reserve Board regulations);

46        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

» The NEO engages in conduct constituting “cause” (e.g., any material violation of any firm policy or other conduct detrimental to our firm); or

» The NEO associates with any business enterprise that competes with any portion of our business.

¢ Mr. Sherwood’s year-end RSUs, including in certain cases underlying Shares at Risk, are also subject to several additional clawback provisions mandated by U.K. regulatory guidance. These provisions contemplate clawback in the event of:

» A material downturn in financial performance suffered by the firm or certain business units;

» A material failure of risk management suffered by the firm or certain business units on or before December 31, 2022;

» Serious misconduct that is sufficient to justify summary termination of employment under English law occurring on or before December 31, 2022 (to the extent not otherwise covered by the “cause” clawback described above); and

» A failure of supervision (i.e., a forfeiture resulting from the serious misconduct of an employee over which Mr. Sherwood has supervisory responsibility, where the forfeiture relates to compliance, control or risk) that occurred during 2015.

¢ The 2016 LTIP awards are also subject to the same clawback provisions as the 2015 year-end equity awards and underlying Shares at Risk for the entire performance period.

Hedging Policy; Pledging of Common Stock

Our NEOs are prohibited from hedging any shares of our Common Stock, even shares they can freely sell, for so long as they remain executive officers. In addition, our NEOs and all other employees are prohibited from hedging their equity-based awards. Our employees, other than our executive officers, may hedge only shares of our Common Stock that they can otherwise sell. However, they may not enter into uncovered hedging transactions and may not “short” shares of our Common Stock. Employees also may not act on investment decisions with respect to our Common Stock except during applicable “window periods.” None of our executive officers has any shares of Common Stock subject to a pledge.

Qualified Retirement Benefits

During 2015, each of our NEOs (other than Mr. Sherwood) participated in The Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan (401(k) Plan), which is our U.S. broad-based tax-qualified retirement plan. In 2015 these individuals were eligible to make pre-tax, and/or “Roth” after-tax, contributions to our 401(k) Plan and receive a dollar-for-dollar matching contribution from us on the amount they contribute, up to a maximum of $10,600. For 2015 these individuals each received a matching contribution of $10,600.

Mr. Sherwood has not participated in The Goldman Sachs UK Retirement Plan (GS U.K. Pension Plan) since April 2006, when he elected not to accrue any future pension benefits in respect of his continuing service with the firm. The firm provides each employee who has opted out of future participation in the GS U.K. Pension Plan, including Mr. Sherwood, with an annual payment in lieu of his or her participation. For employees who opted out in April 2006, including Mr. Sherwood, the amount of this payment is $27,027, which has remained fixed since 2006 and is approximately equal to the firm’s annual cost in respect of each such employee’s participation in the GS U.K. Pension Plan at that time.

Perquisites and Other Benefits

Our NEOs received in 2015 certain benefits that are considered “perquisites” for purposes of the SEC rules regarding compensation disclosure. While our Compensation Committee was provided with the estimated value of these items, it determined, as in prior years, not to give these amounts significant consideration in determining our NEOs’ 2015 variable compensation.

During 2015, we made available to each of these individuals (other than Mr. Sherwood) a car and driver and, in some cases, other services for security and/or business purposes. Car and driver services were contracted through a third party for Mr. Mark Schwartz. We also offered our NEOs benefits and tax counseling services, generally provided or arranged by our subsidiary, The Ayco Company, L.P., to assist them with tax and regulatory compliance

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        47

Compensation Matters | Compensation Discussion and Analysis

and to provide them with more time to focus on the needs of our business. Additionally, at our request, Mr. Mark Schwartz previously relocated to our Beijing office, and received international assignment-related benefits and tax equalization-related payments in connection with that arrangement.

Our PMDs, including our NEOs, participate in our executive medical and dental program and receive executive life insurance while they remain PMDs. Our PMDs, including our NEOs, also receive long-term disability insurance coverage. Our NEOs are also eligible for a retiree health care program and receive certain other perquisites, some of which have no incremental cost to us. See “All Other Compensation” and footnote (c) in —Executive Compensation—2015 Summary Compensation Table.

Section 162(m)

Under current law, our U.S. federal corporate tax deduction for compensation paid to certain of our NEOs is limited to $1 million of non-performance-based compensation. Our NEOs’ variable compensation for 2015, including equity-based awards, is determined under the RPCP, which is our shareholder-approved plan under which we pay variable compensation to members of our Management Committee, including our NEOs. The RPCP provides for a maximum amount of variable compensation determined pursuant to a formula contained in the RPCP, with the Compensation Committee retaining the discretion to pay less than the formula amount. Amounts awarded pursuant to the RPCP are intended to constitute qualified performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (which does not count against the $1 million deduction limit). However, we may decide to pay non-deductible variable compensation. In addition, because salaries are not considered performance-based compensation under Section 162(m), salaries paid to our NEOs in excess of $1 million are not fully tax deductible by us.

GS Gives

We established our GS Gives program to coordinate, facilitate and encourage global philanthropy by our PMDs. Since 2009, we have reduced the amount of compensation available to pay our PMDs, including our NEOs, in connection with GS Gives; for 2015, this reduction in compensation was $152 million.

GS Gives underscores our commitment to philanthropy through diversified and impactful giving. We ask our PMDs to provide us with recommendations of not-for-profit organizations that should receive donations from our contributions to GS Gives. These recommendations help to ensure that GS Gives invests in a diverse group of charities that improve the lives of people in communities where we work and live. GS Gives focuses on underserved communities, and we encourage our PMDs to make recommendations of grants to organizations consistent with one of four thematic pillars: building and stabilizing communities; increasing educational opportunities; creating jobs and economic growth; and honoring service and veterans. GS Gives undertakes diligence procedures for each donation and has no obligation to follow recommendations made by our PMDs.

During 2015, GS Gives accepted the recommendations of over 500 current and retired PMDs and granted over $175 million to over 2,000 not-for-profit organizations around the world. The U.S. Dollar equivalent amounts donated in 2015 by GS Gives based on the following individuals’ recommendations were: Mr. Blankfein – $5.5 million; Mr. Cohn – $7.4 million; Mr. Harvey Schwartz – $2.1 million; Mr. Sherwood – $14.2 million; and Mr. Mark Schwartz – $3.7 million.

48        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Compensation Matters | Executive Compensation

Executive Compensation

The 2015 Summary Compensation Table below sets forth compensation information relating to 2015, 2014 and 2013. Pursuant to SEC rules, compensation information for Messrs. Sherwood and Mark Schwartz is only reported beginning with 2014 (the year that each executive became a named executive officer). For a discussion of 2015 NEO compensation, please read —Compensation Discussion and Analysis above.

Pursuant to SEC rules, the 2015 Summary Compensation Table is required to include for a particular year only those equity-based awards granted during that year, rather than awards granted after year-end, even if awarded for services in that year. SEC rules require disclosure of cash compensation to be included in the year earned, even if payment is made after year-end.

Generally, we grant equity-based awards and pay any cash variable compensation for a particular year shortly after that year’s end. Mr. Sherwood’s 2014 and 2015 fixed allowances were treated similarly. As a result, annual equity-based awards, cash variable compensation and Mr. Sherwood’s fixed allowance are disclosed in each row of the table as follows:

2015

¢ “Salary” includes the cash-based component of Mr. Sherwood’s fixed allowance for 2015

¢ “Bonus” is cash variable compensation for 2015

¢ “Stock Awards” are PSUs and RSUs awarded for 2014 (including Mr. Sherwood’s equity-based fixed allowance for 2014)

¢ PSUs and RSUs awarded for 2015 (including the equity-based component of Mr. Sherwood’s fixed allowance for 2015) are not included because they were granted in January 2016

2014

¢ “Bonus” is cash variable compensation for 2014

¢ “Stock Awards” are RSUs awarded for 2013

2013

¢ “Bonus” is cash variable compensation for 2013

¢ “Stock Awards” are RSUs awarded for 2012

2015 Summary Compensation Table

Name and Principal Position	Year	Salary	Bonus	Stock   Awards(a)	Change in   Pension   Value(b)	All Other   Compensation(c)	Total
Lloyd C. Blankfein Chairman and CEO	2015	$ 2,000,000	$ 6,300,000	$ 13,909,078	$            —	$377,074	$ 22,586,152
	2014	2,000,000	7,333,333	12,495,134	8,602	325,843	22,162,912
	2013	2,000,000	6,300,000	11,305,054	—	323,759	19,928,813
Gary D. Cohn President and COO	2015	1,850,000	5,745,000	12,739,520	—	253,780	20,588,300
	2014	1,850,000	6,716,667	11,394,314	2,033	237,070	20,200,084
	2013	1,850,000	5,745,000	10,204,277	—	233,688	18,032,965
Harvey M. Schwartz Executive Vice President and CFO	2015	1,850,000	5,745,000	12,739,520	—	200,282	20,534,802
	2014	1,850,000	6,716,667	11,394,314	753	216,063	20,177,797
	2013	1,850,000	5,745,000	13,515,005	—	175,168	21,285,173
Michael S. Sherwood Vice Chairman and Co-CEO of Goldman Sachs International	2015	7,595,000(d)	—	16,897,346	25,190	121,836	24,639,372
	2014	1,850,000	1,833,333	17,139,416	110,252	128,872	21,061,873
Mark Schwartz Vice Chairman and Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asia Pacific	2015	1,850,000	4,845,000	10,251,898	—	7,211,873	24,158,771
	2014	1,850,000	5,716,667	9,199,166	17,944	7,441,685	24,225,462

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        49

Compensation Matters | Executive Compensation

(a) Amounts included for 2015 represent the grant date fair value of RSUs and PSUs granted in January 2015 for services in 2014 (2014 Year-End RSUs and 2014 Year-End PSUs, respectively), in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Accounting Standards Codification 718 Compensation—Stock Compensation (ASC 718). For Mr. Sherwood, 2014 Year-End RSUs also include (1) the short-term RSUs granted to him as a result of applicable regulatory guidance in the U.K. (2014 Short-Term RSUs) and (2) the equity-based component of his 2014 fixed allowance (2014 Fixed Allowance RSUs). Grant date fair value for 2014 Year-End RSUs and 2014 Year-End PSUs is determined by multiplying the aggregate number of units by $175.63, the closing price per share of Common Stock on the NYSE on January 20, 2015, the grant date. The value for 2014 Year-End RSUs, other than Mr. Sherwood’s 2014 Short-Term RSUs and the portion of his 2014 Fixed Allowance RSUs that was immediately transferable, includes an approximately 10% liquidity discount to reflect the transfer restrictions on the Common Stock underlying these 2014 Year-End RSUs. Amounts included for 2014 represent the grant date fair value of RSUs, granted in January 2014 for services in 2013 (2013 Year-End RSUs), in accordance with ASC 718. Grant date fair value for 2013 Year-End RSUs is determined by multiplying the aggregate number of RSUs by $166.25, the closing price per share of Common Stock on the NYSE on January 28, 2014, the grant date, and, other than with respect to short-term 2013 Year-End RSUs granted to Mr. Sherwood as a result of applicable regulatory guidance in the U.K., includes a 15% liquidity discount to reflect the transfer restrictions on the Common Stock underlying these 2013 Year-End RSUs. Amounts included for 2013 represent the grant date fair value of RSUs granted in January 2013 for services in 2012 (2012 Year-End RSUs), in accordance with ASC 718. Grant date fair value for 2012 Year-End RSUs is determined by multiplying the aggregate number of RSUs by $141.01, the closing price per share of Common Stock on the NYSE on January 17, 2013, the grant date, and includes a 15% liquidity discount to reflect the transfer restrictions on the Common Stock underlying the 2012 Year-End RSUs.

(b) For 2015, the change in pension value was negative for each NEO (other than Mr. Sherwood) as follows: Mr. Blankfein—$(997); Mr. Cohn— $(382); Mr. Harvey Schwartz—$(167); and Mr. Mark Schwartz—$(2,014).

(c) The below chart, together with the accompanying narrative following footnote (d), describes the benefits and perquisites for 2015 contained in the “All Other Compensation” column above.

Name	401(k) Matching Contribution		Term Life Insurance Premium		Executive Medical and Dental Plan Premium		Long-Term Disability Insurance Premium		Executive Life Premium		Benefits and Tax Counseling Services*		Car**
Lloyd C. Blankfein		$ 10,600		$ 120		$ 77,759		$    763		$ 28,619		$ 63,795		$ 60,641
Gary D. Cohn		10,600		120		77,759		763		13,586		80,025		58,664
Harvey M. Schwartz		10,600		120		38,326		763		11,972		84,336		50,614
Michael S. Sherwood***		—		189		13,718		1,141		9,118		69,264		—
Mark Schwartz****		10,600		120		24,998		763		24,045		45,101		5,275

* Amounts reflect the incremental cost to us of benefits and tax counseling services provided by Ayco or by another third-party provider. For services provided by Ayco, cost is determined based on the number of hours of service provided by, and compensation paid to, individual service providers. For services provided by others, amounts are payments made by us to those providers.

** Amounts reflect the incremental cost to us attributable to commuting and other non-business use. We made available to each of our NEOs (other than Mr. Sherwood) in 2015 a car and driver for security and business purposes. Car and driver services were contracted through a third party for Mr. Mark Schwartz. The cost of providing a car is determined on an annual basis and includes, as applicable, driver compensation, annual car lease, car rental or car service fees and insurance cost as well as miscellaneous expenses (for example, fuel and car maintenance).

*** Amounts for Mr. Sherwood have been converted from British Pounds Sterling into U.S. Dollars at a rate of 1.52882 Dollars per Pound, which was the average daily rate in 2015.

**** Certain of the amounts for Mr. Mark Schwartz have been converted from Chinese Yuan into U.S. Dollars at a rate of 6.30520 Yuan per Dollar, which was the average daily rate in 2015.

(d) Represents Mr. Sherwood’s salary ($1,850,000) and the cash component of his fixed allowance ($5,745,000).

Also included in the “All Other Compensation” column are amounts reflecting the incremental cost to us of providing our identity theft safeguards program for U.S. PMDs, assistance with certain travel arrangements, in-office meals and security services. We provide security (the incremental cost of which was $132,560 for Mr. Blankfein) for the benefit of our firm and our shareholders. We do not consider these security measures to be personal benefits but rather business-related necessities due to the high-profile standing of our NEOs.

Mr. Mark Schwartz previously relocated to our Beijing office at our request and, for 2015, received international assignment-related benefits of $1,000,000 and tax equalization-related payments of $6,100,000. These amounts were paid after year-end on a discretionary basis under the RPCP. The international assignment-related benefits were consistent with our Global Mobility Services program applicable to expatriate employees, and the tax equalization-related payments are intended to equalize Mr. Schwartz’s net tax position with that of a similarly compensated employee in the United States.

50        Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Compensation Matters | Executive Compensation

For Mr. Sherwood, the amount in the “All Other Compensation” column also includes $27,027, which was the amount paid to him in lieu of his participation in the firm’s U.K. retirement plan.

We provide our NEOs, on the same terms as are provided to other PMDs and at no incremental out-of-pocket cost to our firm, waived or reduced fees and overrides in connection with investments in certain funds managed or sponsored by Goldman Sachs, unused tickets to certain events and certain negotiated discounts with third-party vendors.

We make available to our NEOs, for business use, private aircraft from third-party vendors. Our policy is not to permit personal use of such aircraft by our NEOs except in connection with business trips where the NEO pays our firm for any additional costs. In situations where an NEO brings a personal guest as a passenger on a business-related flight, the NEO pays us an amount equal to the greater of: (a) the aggregate incremental cost to us of the usage by the guest, and (b) the price of a first-class commercial airline ticket for the same trip.

Goldman Sachs  |  Proxy Statement for 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders        51

Compensation Matters | Executive Compensation

2015 Grants of Plan-Based Awards

The awards included in this table are 2015 LTIP awards, 2014 Year-End PSUs and 2014 Year-End RSUs, each granted in January 2015.

The following table sets forth plan-based awards granted in early 2015. In accordance with SEC rules, the table does not include awards that were granted in 2016. See —Compensation Discussion and Analysis above for a discussion of those awards.

Name	Grant     Date		Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan  Awards(a)						Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards(b)						All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#)(C)		Grant Date Fair Value of Stock Awards ($) (d)
			Threshold ($)		Target ($)		Maximum   ($)		Threshold (#)		Target (#)		Maximum (#)
Lloyd C. Blankfein		1/15/2015		0		7,000,000		25,997,613(e)		—		—		—		—		—
		1/20/2015		—		—		—		0		41,755		62,633		—		7,333,431
		1/20/2015		—		—		—		—		—		—		41,755		6,575,647
Gary D. Cohn		1/15/2015		0		6,700,000		24,883,430(e)		—		—		—		—		—
		1/20/2015		—		—		—		0		38,244		57,366		—		6,716,794
		1/20/2015		—		—		—		—		—		—		38,244		6,022,726
Harvey M. Schwartz		1/15/2015		0		6,700,000		24,883,430(e)		—		—		—		—		—
		1/20/2015		—		—		—		0		38,244		57,366		—		6,716,794
		1/20/2015		—		—		—		—		—		—		38,244