Simmons leaves Goldman’s board

By Felix Salmon
February 13, 2010
explained that the decision as to whether she should continue to sit on the board of Goldman Sachs was a complex one which would not be taken lightly:

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

On Tuesday, Brown president Ruth Simmons explained that the decision as to whether she should continue to sit on the board of Goldman Sachs was a complex one which would not be taken lightly:

If Simmons were to leave Goldman’s board, she said, she does not think she would join another board…

One reason Simmons cited not to seek out new positions was that the seniority she now enjoys on Goldman’s board allows her to advocate for programs to help women and minorities.

Simmons said that, as with her retirement from Pfizer’s board three years ago, when to call it quits with Goldman will not be a decision she makes by herself, but rather in cooperation with the Corporation, the University’s highest governing body, with which she meets regularly to evaluate her actions.

“I feel very strongly that I don’t know enough as an individual — a sole individual — to make that decision alone,” she said.

On the other hand, it seems that complex decisions on such matters can still be taken quickly. Goldman put out a press release on Friday afternoon, just as the long weekend was starting, saying that Simmons was leaving the board, and citing “increasing time requirements associated with her position as President of Brown University”.

Happily, Simmons leaves with Goldman stock resurgent: her 27,386 restricted stock units are worth $4.2 million right now, and can be sold the year after she retires from the board; she also has another 10,000 options on top of that. Goldman Sachs board members, it seems — who are all members of the compensation committee — are compensated as well as you might expect from the company which invented the $68.5 million CEO bonus.

I said after Tuesday’s interview with Simmons was published that she seemed to think about her membership on Goldman’s board much more in terms of what it could do for her and her pet causes than in terms of being a shareholder representative tasked with overseeing senior management, and I called for a revamp of the board. Friday’s news is exactly the step in that direction that I was looking for: maybe Simmons took my comments to heart!


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

First Ben Stein, now this woman. Can you start next on all of Congress?

Posted by OnTheTimes | Report as abusive

Congress, eh? I was going to ask him to get that creepy clerk at the CVS near me fired; no way that guy’s in the shareholders’ best interests.

Posted by absinthe | Report as abusive

You must be a politician, setting the bar so low.

Posted by OnTheTimes | Report as abusive

A disappointing thing about this article is how it presumes that, in the wake of real changes worth making, any part of Goldman Sachs should remain standing.

Posted by HBC | Report as abusive

The least she can do is thank the US Taxpayer. Good riddance, Madame. May the wind be ever in your face.

Posted by kthomas | Report as abusive

Felix Salmon: The most influential financial blogger… at Goldman Sachs?

Posted by MarkC123 | Report as abusive

So without Simmons, Goldman wouldn’t have much in the way of “programs to help women and minorities”? I can’t imagine the women and people of minority heritage who actually work at Goldman appreciate the clumsy implication that whatever success they have had must be due to someone else’s “help.” Or are these programs in the community? In that case, why does she need to be a current board member of Goldman to support them?

Posted by SelenesMom | Report as abusive