高盛 (GS) 2011 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good morning.

My name is Dennis and I will be your conference facilitator today.

I would like to welcome everyone to the Goldman Sachs fourth-quarter 2011 earnings conference call.

Also, this call is being recorded today, Wednesday, January 18, 2012.

Thank you.

Mr.

Holmes, you may begin your conference.

Good morning.

This is Dane Holmes, Director of Investor Relations at Goldman Sachs.

Welcome to our fourth-quarter earnings conference call.

Today's call may include forward-looking statements.

These statements represent the firm's believe regarding future events that by their nature are uncertain and outside of the firm's control.

The firm's actual results and financial condition may differ, possibly materially, from what is indicated in those forward-looking statements.

For a discussion of some of the risk factors that could affect the firm's future results please see the description of risk factors in our current annual report on Form 10-K for our physical year ended December 2010.

I would also direct you to read the forward-looking disclaimers in our quarterly earnings release, particularly as it relates to our Investment Banking, transaction backlog, capital ratios, risk-weighted assets and global core excess.

And you should also read the information on the calculation of non-GAAP financial measures that is posted on the Investor Relations portion of our website at www.gs.com.

This audio cast is copyrighted material of the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

and may not be duplicated, reproduced or rebroadcast without our consent.

Our Chief Financial Officer, David Viniar, will now review the firm's results.

David.

Thanks, Dane.

I would like to thank all of you for listening today.

I will give an overview of our fourth-quarter and full-year results and then take your questions.

Full-year net revenues for 2011 were $28.8 billion.

Net earnings were $4.4 billion.

Earnings per diluted share were $4.51 and our return on common equity was 3.7%.

Excluding the impact of a $1.6 billion preferred dividend associated with our repayment of the Berkshire Hathaway preferred stock earnings per diluted share were $7.46 and our return on common equity was 5.9%.

Fourth-quarter net revenues were $6 billion, net earnings were $1 billion, and earnings per diluted share were $1.84.

Over the course of 2011 the macroeconomic picture was clouded by several growing concerns.

While the broader marketplace first began to evaluate the economic challenges facing the Eurozone in 2010, the market's focus and concern accelerated meaningfully during 2011 and persists into 2012.

The discussion evolved from largely a regional consideration into a significant global issue as market participants became increasingly worried about the secondary implications of a potential sovereign default.

These underlying macroeconomic concerns have been exacerbated by growing skepticism regarding the willingness of the global political infrastructure to address the economic risks confronting the system, which was highlighted by the political debate within the United States on raising the debt ceiling.

In response to these dynamics, market volatility increased significantly over the course of the year.

While the S&P 500 ended 2011 essentially flat prices were volatile with the index' valuation ranging from up 8% in the spring to down nearly 13% in the fall.

Not surprisingly, the broader environment led our clients across a variety of businesses to be materially more risk averse.

The firm's perspective on managing its risk exposures mirrored the sentiment of the broader market and consequently our risk exposures remained low in 2011.

Ultimately macroeconomic concerns, heightened market volatility, lower corporate activity and decreased risk appetite among our institutional clients translated into fundamentally lower level of revenue opportunities over the course of the year, hampering our returns.

While we are disappointed in our results this year, we remain firmly committed to supporting our client franchise, helping clients navigate the challenges ahead and managing our firm with a long-term orientation.

I will now review each of our businesses.

Investment Banking produced fourth-quarter net revenues of $857 million, up 10% from the third quarter, primarily due to an increase in underwriting revenues following a weak third quarter.

For the full year Investment Banking net revenues were $4.4 billion, down 9% from 2010 due to the more challenging macro backdrop.

Within Investment Banking fourth-quarter Advisory revenues were $470 million, down 10% from the third quarter.

Goldman Sachs ranked first in worldwide announced M&A globally for 2011.

We advised on a number of significant transactions that closed during the fourth quarter, including Foster's $12.3 billion sale to SABMiller, Global Crossing's $3.2 billion sale to Level 3 Communications, and AGL Resources' $3.2 billion merger with Nicor.

We also advised on a number of important transactions that were announced during the fourth quarter, including Entergy's $5.6 billion spinoff and subsequent merger of its electric transmission business with ITC Holdings, Statoil's $4.7 billion acquisition of Brigham Exploration Company, and HealthSpring's $3.8 billion sale to Cigna.

Fourth-quarter underwriting net revenues were $387 million, up 50% sequentially as new issuance activity improved relative to a more challenging third-quarter environment.

Equity underwriting revenues of $191 million more than doubled from the third quarter, reflecting higher volumes and improved market share.

Goldman Sachs was ranked first in global equity and equity related common stock offerings and IPOs for 2011.

Net underwriting revenues increased 17% to $196 million, reflecting an improvement in high-yield issuance compared to a particularly difficult third quarter.

During the fourth quarter we participated in noteworthy underwriting transactions, including Chow Tai Fook's $2 billion initial public offering, Michael Kors' $1.1 billion initial public offering, and UPC's $1.25 billion combination high-yield notes and term loan offering.

Our Investment Banking backlog decreased compared to the end of the third quarter, but was higher than at year-end 2010.

Let me now turn to Institutional Client Services, which is comprised of FICC and equity client execution, commissions and fees and security services.

Net revenues were $3.1 billion in the fourth quarter, down 25% from the third quarter.

Net revenue generation within FICC and equity client execution declined as client activity was seasonally slower and macro concerns continued to weigh on sentiment.

Full-year net revenues of $17.3 billion for Institutional Client Services were down 21% relative to 2010 as a result of client risk aversion and difficult market-making conditions.

FICC client execution net revenues were $1.4 billion in the fourth quarter, down 21% sequentially.

Commodities and foreign exchange revenues increased relative to the third quarter, although client activity levels within both businesses remained relatively muted.

Our rates business decreased sequentially as macro trends remained in focus and client flows decreased into year-end.

Credit and mortgages remain challenging as activity levels declined across most products and a divergence between cash and derivative pricing impacted hedging and inventory management.

For the full year FICC client execution net revenues of $9 billion were down 34% from 2010 as the challenging European backdrop led to reduced client risk-taking.

In equities, which includes equity client execution, commissions and fees and security services, net revenues for the fourth quarter $1.7 billion, down 27% sequentially.

Equity client execution revenues were down 42% to $526 million due to decreased client activity, particularly in derivative products.

Commissions and fees were $782 million, down 23% from the third quarter on lower market volumes.

Security services net revenues of $385 million were down 6% sequentially, given seasonally lower activity levels.

For the full year equities produced net revenues of $8.3 billion, up 2% from 2010.

Turning to risk.

Average daily value at risk in the fourth quarter was $135 million, higher than the third quarter due to significantly greater volatility in the interest rate category.

Now a review of investing and lending, which produced revenues of $872 million in the fourth quarter.

The firm's investing in lending activities across various asset classes, primarily including debt securities and loans and equities -- and equity securities are included in this segment.

These activities include both direct investing and investing through funds as well as lending activities.

Our investment in ICBC produced a $388 million gain in the quarter.

Other equity investments generated a $384 million gain, largely reflecting gains on public equity investments.

Losses from debt securities and loans were $221 million, driven by losses on relationship loans, including the effect of hedges.

Other revenues of $321 million consist primarily of operating revenues from our consolidated investment entities.

For the full year Investment & Lending generated net revenues of $2.1 billion, driven by $1.1 billion in gains from other equity investments, and $1.4 billion of revenues from other investments, which was partially offset by $517 million in losses from ICBC investments.

In Investment Management we reported fourth-quarter net revenues of $1.3 billion, up 3% from the third quarter as a result of $141 million in incentive fees generated from the firm's alternative asset products.

Management and other fees were 3% lower sequentially at $1 billion.

For the full year Investment Management net revenues were $5 billion, relatively flat from 2010 levels.

During the fourth quarter assets under management increased $7 billion to $828 billion largely due to market appreciation equities.

On a full-year basis assets under management declined by 1%.

Now let me turn to expenses.

Compensation and benefits expense, which includes salaries, bonuses, amortization of prior-year equity awards, and other items such as benefits declined 21% to $12.2 billion for 2011 and translated into a compensation and net revenue ratio of approximately 42%.

Within compensation and benefits expense current-year discretionary compensation declined significantly more than revenues.

Fourth-quarter non-compensation expenses were $2.6 billion, 5% lower than the third quarter.

Brokerage clearing exchange fees declined on lower equity client volumes.

In addition, we recognized the UK bank levy for the first three quarters of 2011 during the third quarter.

These reductions were offset by approximately $170 million of impairments on consolidated investments within depreciation and amortization.

We also made a $78 million donation to Goldman Sachs Gives, our donor advised charitable fund.

Compensation was reduced to find this contribution.

This amount is in addition to prior-year contributions made to Goldman Sachs Gives.

For the full year non-compensation expenses were essentially flat.

Total staff at year-end was approximately 33,300, down 7% from year-end 2010.

Our effective tax rate was 28% for 2011, down from 30.3% for the first nine months.

The decrease in tax rate was primarily due to an increase in permanent benefits as a percentage of earnings and the mix of earnings.

During the quarter we repurchased 9.2 million shares of common stock for a total cost of $908 million.

For the full year we repurchased 47 million shares for a total cost of approximately $6 billion.

The uncertain operating environment creates both challenges and opportunities for the firm.

In the current environment the strength of our financial and competitive positioning provides protection against potential tail events, as well as the flexibility to be proactive if opportunities arise.

The challenges stemming from reduced market demand for risk capital requires a focused approach to our capital allocation process, and we continue to monitor the sizing of each of our businesses to ensure we are appropriately managing our resources.

The more muted operating environment has also intensified our focus on expenses.

While it is not possible to cut expenses as a means to prosperity, we understand the benefits of a proactive and disciplined approach, particularly if the operating environment remains challenging.

In the second quarter of 2011 we launched an internal initiative to identify areas where we can operate more efficiently and originally targeted $1.2 billion in savings.

We are currently targeting $1.4 billion in savings and will closely monitor our expense run rate and make further adjustments as necessary.

The uncertainty facing the macroeconomic environment and reduced opportunity set for the financial services industry has increased the importance placed on franchise strength from the perspective of the depth and diversity of a firm's businesses as well as its relative competitive positioning.

We believe our franchise is incredibly strong and growing, particularly in its global scope.

Our people remain a critical component in creating, maintaining and expanding our franchise and in our ability to create long-term shareholder value.

The combination of our strong client franchise and our talented and dedicated global team favorably positions the firm to effectively navigate the current challenges.

Despite the difficult operating environment we believe that significant opportunities exist through the continued expansion of our global footprint and responding to shifting competitive dynamics stemming from reduced risk capacity in Europe.

In the near term we remain committed to managing our capital expenses as efficiently as possible while maintaining our world-class franchise and our investment in critical initiatives.

Over the longer term we remain committed to driving shareholder value by providing our institutional client base with unparalleled advice and execution, coupled with the platform and the people to offer global, full-service solutions in an increasingly interconnected and complex world.

With that I would like to thank you again for listening today, and I am now happy to take your questions.

Guy Moszkowski, Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

So just to follow up on the comments that you made right at the end, and I am totally respectful of the need to maintain a very strong platform, but clearly fixed for you and for a lot of others is seeing a pretty sustained run of considerably lower revenue generation then when you put a lot of the infrastructure in place.

And given some of the regulatory outlook, a lot of it granted is still uncertain, but with Volcker and Basel III and everything coming in, I'm just wondering how you are thinking about balancing the infrastructure you have and where you might consider resizing?

Guy, that is one of the most critical questions and a very difficult one to answer.

We have all been doing this for a long time and we have seen downturns before.

Every time you are in one it feels like it is never going to end and that the world is different now.

I wouldn't say, for example, that the environment feels worse than it felt in the fall of 2008, nor necessarily after the tech bubble burst, nor necessarily after the fall of 1998.

So is it cyclical, is it secular, that is a very difficult question to answer.

As you saw we tried to be very disciplined on expenses.

We cut headcount last year.

We will continue to review the environment as we go forward.

We'll continue to see where regulation ultimately comes out and what it will mean for the opportunities.

And we will try and balance exactly the things you said to strengthen the franchise and the global opportunities set with the current environment and make sure we are sized appropriately.

There is no scientific answer to it though.

I guess the follow-up to that, given the -- some of the opportunities that might be bubbling up from the obvious weakness of competitors across the pond is what do you see happening there, and can you give us a little bit of color on whether you are seeing opportunities already and what type of opportunities you are seeing?

Well, again, it is a little early to tell largely because the opportunity set just isn't that great.

Because of the macro uncertainties most of our clients are still very much in a wait-and-see mode.

But we are starting to see some glimmers of opportunities.

We are starting to see some assets being sold from troubled institutions.

We are also starting to see a little bit less competition in the few transactions that are out there.

So from a competitive position it actually feels pretty good.

And maybe that segues us into just any commentary you can give us, granted that it is very early going here in the first quarter, but how it is feeling in January to date both relative to what we saw last quarter, but also comparable period last year?

If you take as a given like an hour of caveats of it only being the first two weeks, of it being early, if things can change, I can go on and on and on.

It is not a high bar, but the first two weeks in January certainly feel a lot better than the December and November period.

And versus the first couple of weeks of last year?

Probably kind of about the same as the beginning of last year.

Okay, that helps.

Just one final question.

Can you give us an estimate of your Basel III basis Tier 1 common?

Again, with a lot of caveats, rules not done, lots of estimates, all of that, if we did it at the end of the fourth quarter it would be a little bit under 8%.

And if we roll forward, taking just the consensus estimates, which you guys do, and just passive roll off of some of the correlation and other structured credit, you get to by the end of 2013 a little bit below 11%.

Okay, that is great.

Thanks so much.

Glenn Schorr, Nomura.

So you wound up buying back $6 billion of stock in the year, but net earnings pre the preferred dividend was $4.4 billion.

How does that work with -- and that doesn't include the Berkshire preferred buyback, so I am just curious how that factors into CCAR and understanding the huge volatility that can happen in earnings for you guys?

I am not sure I understood the question, Glenn, sorry.

I thought -- I apologize, I thought there was a limitation on a payout of a combined basis on dividends and buybacks based on your forward earnings projections as part of CCAR.

Do I understand that wrong?

We put in what we want to do for CCAR and the Fed tells us yes or no.

I don't think you should expect that it will be a long-term sustainable way we do things of buying back more than our earnings.

I don't think you should expect that to happen a lot going forward.

Okay, another small thing.

Book was down a drop in the quarter, a function of higher share count, even though you bought back.

Is that a stock issuance thing (multiple speakers)?

It was divesting of previously issued shares.

And you had mentioned the current year comp was down significantly more than the revenues even though total comp wasn't.

Is there any --.

Total comp and benefits weren't.

Correct.

Is the prior period deferred becoming a larger piece of the GAAP number and of -- is there any point where that becomes a bigger issue?

In other words, you are constantly buying back to the (inaudible) of the previous holder.

It is something I have seen in some other --.

It has actually been about flat for the last couple of years.

So no big change this year in the deferred vesting or percentages?

No, it was roughly flat year-over-year.

Okay, cool.

And then maybe one last one, David.

Funding costs right now, you guys have been able to get off some reasonable deals all-in, especially some of the 50 year paper, but funding costs all-in for the industry are just a lot higher.

How do you balance knowing what to issue now versus hanging out?

And what happens if funding costs stay here as that rolls through the balance sheet, is that a big impact?

Obviously, we would rather have lower funding costs than higher funding costs, but as you also know, we have talked about it, we don't do a lot of carriage rates.

That is not where we make money.

So while certainly we are not happy with higher funding costs it really has a more marginal impact on our returns because of the way we think about doing transactions.

And I think we are -- we would -- we are, as you know, very conservative and we would probably continue funding at higher rates for quite a while if rates stay here.

Last one.

It is a quickie.

EU-related concerns and versus three months ago, better, worse, post LTRO?

I would say a tiny bit better, largely because of exactly what you mentioned.

The LTRO showed a willingness to certainly at least make sure the banks are on solid footing, and there is a lot of work still to be done with the sovereign, so I'd say a tiny bit better.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thanks, David.

Roger Freeman, Barclays Capital.

Just back on headcount expense reduction, do you have severance costs for the fourth quarter?

It looks like over 900 or so people came out, which was generally more than we were expecting.

And I'm just curious too was there a mix weighting between senior partners versus other employees?

So severance costs were -- for the full year they were around $250 million, and for the fourth quarter only around $50 million.

So it wasn't that big -- that is why we didn't talk about it separately.

It is just part of our comp expense.

And as far as headcount reduction, it is really across the board, pretty much across the pyramid of the firm.

And just to clarify, on the $1.4 billion in targeted savings, is that still -- did you achieve all that through the efforts in 2011 or is there still some to go?

We achieved most of it.

There is a small amount left to go in 2012, but most of it was done by the end of 2011.

All right.

Then on Basel III, just following up there.

One, do you think that active mitigation ultimately could bring that 11% number meaningfully higher?

And, second, how are you charging the [debt] for capital at this point.

Is it on a Basel I basis or Basel III or some combination?

On your first question I think active mitigation can bring the 11% higher.

I am not sure I can answer the question yet how meaningfully; we are still doing work on that.

As far as how we are charging the [debt] that is a little bit of a complicated question.

And we're working through that now and there is no one-size-fits-all yet.

We have to be careful, as you know, Basel III does not kick in for quite a while, and quite a bit of what we do is very short dated.

And so we don't want to charge [debts] on a Basel III basis, have them turned down profitable opportunities that would be long gone from our balance sheet long before Basel III ever kicks in.

So we are really taking into consideration the tenor of what we do and trying to figure out what capital regime we are going to be under.

And it is still, I would say we are going through a transition process here.

Okay, and then, lastly, just bigger picture, do you think about expanding ROE longer-term?

How would you rank order the buckets that can get you there -- topline, profitability and the balance sheet stock buybacks, and maybe how big do you think each of them are relative to each other?

In some ways that is an easy question.

I rank the topline growth as numbers 1 through 10, and then we can talk about everything else afterwards.

And so, yes, we're going to be prudent in managing our capital.

Yes, we are going to be prudent in managing our expenses.

But our ROE growth is going to largely be driven by growing our revenues, expanding our footprint, expanding our client base and growing the firm.

We are not -- as I said in my remarks, we are not going to cut our way our way to prosperity, but we will try and size the firm appropriately for the environment.

All right, thanks a lot.

Howard Chen, Credit Suisse.

On relationship rep lending there has been a debate about the mark-to-market versus held-to-maturity treatment.

You have always been a champion of a good mark-to-market discipline, but was just hoping to get your sense of, one, where we are in that debate, and two, how does that potential capital treatment impact your CCAR results for 2012?

So it is still something that we are considering.

We are looking at the accounting treatment for just what I will call a portion of the relationship loan commitments.

As you mentioned, it won't affect the current submission of CCAR at all, but it is a consideration -- is being driven by the more onerous capital treatment for the fact that the same assets held on mark-to-market versus held-for-investment bases are different, and it is much more onerous for mark-to-market.

So that is what is driving even our consideration.

You should now, and I will use this word, we are still fanatical believers in mark-to-market.

Substantially all of our assets today are mark-to-market.

Our risk is managed on a mark-to-market basis.

Whatever we conclude on what I will call a very small portion of assets, just relationship lending, those statements will still be true.

Substantially all of our assets will be mark-to-market, and we will manage all of our risk on a mark-to-market basis, so nothing will change there.

Okay, thanks for the thoughts on that, David.

And then, separately on the Volcker Rule as we come up on the end of this extended common period, just hoping to get your view, what specifically would you like to see changed, and what would you deem to be a positive outcome as we come onto July and later in this year?

Look, Howard, that is, again, a very hard question to answer.

As you know, the rule was written with 1,000 questions.

So there is a lot that has to change before the rule is done.

We want to make sure that the market-making rules are not written in such a way that they make it so onerous to -- for us, and not just us but for all of the firms, to continue our market-making function and that liquidity in the market dries up and it hurts the growth in the capital markets, it hurts overall growth, it hurts our clients, it hurts liquidity, it costs more to do business, that the compliance regime is so onerous and those costs have to be passed on.

We just -- we want to make sure that nothing prevents free flow of capital and the growth of the US capital markets.

Thanks, David, and then the final one for me.

Over the past few years you have been actively investing in the emerging markets franchise of the firm, getting a first mover advantage.

How much have you reigned that back or are thinking about reigning that back as we head into just an uncertain 2012?

I guess what I would say is just given the environment we have moderated our pace of investment, but we are still investment.

We continue to think that the growth markets are going to be a great place of growth for Goldman Sachs.

As I said before, it is growth which is going to drive our ROE.

While clearly it is not going to be a straight line up, we continue to be -- we have talked before about the most important thing for us is growth in GDP, and we think the GDP growth in the growth markets is going to be stronger than in the developed markets.

That is not to say we are not investing in places like the United States, we are, but we are going to invest faster in the growth markets.

But (multiple speakers).

Great, thanks for taking the questions.

In this environment in a more moderated pace.

Thanks.

Michael Carrier, Deutsche Bank.

I mainly wanted to follow-up on expenses.

When we think about that $1.4 billion, obviously it is tough when we are thinking about year-over-year, but we assume that revenues are flat in 2012, all else equal, should we be expecting the full expense base to be down that $1.4 billion?

I guess another way of saying it is just how much investment would be going on to offset that?

Well, again, it is going to be a hard number to track.

That assumed no change in compensation.

Obviously, there was a big change in compensation in 2011 as well.

So, obviously, expense was down even more than that when you add in compensation.

So that is going to be a good driver as well.

But from a comp flat bases that $1.4 billion is going to be there.

What goes from there, we will just have to wait and see.

Then just getting back to the top line, I think when you look across the businesses, whether it is cyclical or structural, it just feels like everything is fairly negative.

Two things or two questions on that part.

When you look at some of the firms pulling back in certain businesses, are you starting to see some market share opportunity or any changes in pricing?

Then when you look across the capital market businesses, particularly in FICC, are there trends that you are seeing that are more structural growth versus what the current environment feels like?

And one that comes up would be maybe in Europe, the shift from bank loans to maybe bonds in terms of funding or financing corporations.

But any (technical difficulty) but you're still seeing some structural growth despite all the pressures?

So on the first part, on the competitive situation, yes, we are seeing the effects of some of our competitors pulling away.

But it is still very muted because there just aren't that many opportunities yet.

And so have we seen change in pricing?

I would say even towards the end of last year we saw a couple of block trades where I would tell you the pricing was a lot more reasonable than what you usually see in December when people are buying market share.

But it was not enough examples for me to tell you pricing has changed.

It was a couple of examples, but that is all that was out there.

So the data points, it was all the data points there were, but there weren't enough of them for me to reach a conclusion that pricing has changed.

So that is where that is.

As far as trends and structural growth, again, things are still muted -- have been so muted over the last half of last year that it is very hard to pick those out.

I think when the world gets better, I think we will probably see some of the things you're talking about, but it is hard to tell right now.

Okay, and then last one, just any update on European exposures?

And then on the tax rate, just for the quarter obviously low -- I don't think you mentioned mix -- but just going forward any changes there besides mix?

Our European exposure continues to be quite low for the -- our total credit exposure for the five periphery countries on what we will call a gross funded basis, with gross funded being total exposure less only US Treasury and cash collateral that we hold, so that is the only offset is about total -- about $3.9 billion as of year-end.

And net basis, which includes offsets for CDS hedges only where the CDS is collateralized and only where the CDS is not from a bank in the same country that is hedging, then you get down to about $2.3 billion.

So our exposure there continues to be extremely modest.

Okay, and then anything on the tax rate?

Oh, I'm sorry, on the tax rate.

No, there is nothing particular there.

Obviously, earnings were lower.

The mix -- you know, mix lead to lower tax rate.

I would not expect a 28% tax rate next year.

I would expect it to be more in the low 30%'s as it has been.

Okay, thanks a lot.

Kian Abouhossein, JPMorgan.

The first question is regarding management changes.

If you could just address a topic in terms of why these changes were introduced.

Sure.

Look, I would tell you, and this is something that I have spoken with many of you about over the last year or so, I would call this normal progression at Goldman Sachs.

As you know, fewer than normal partners have retired over the last four years.

That was especially true at the senior ranks.

I think people at Goldman Sachs have been very loyal, and through both what I would call a financial crisis and reputational issues, the senior people at Goldman Sachs did not leave.

The normal tenure -- average tenure of a partner at Goldman Sachs as a partner is about eight years.

You tend to find 15% to 20% of the partnership turning over every two years.

It has been like that almost through our history.

And you saw far less than that turning over over the last four years.

I think what you're seeing now, as I said, normal progression.

David Heller and Ed Eisler, the two co-heads of the Securities Division who both announced their retirement, are too fantastic people.

They are as good as any two people in the industry.

But we have equally good people behind them.

You saw we announced that Isabelle Ealet will become a division head, and she is fantastic.

And it has been natural progression of people retiring and the various very, very strong bench moving up.

Okay, very clear.

And the second question is relating to your earlier comment, and please correct me if I understood it wrongly, but you mentioned that first-quarter year-to-date seems to have started similar to last year.

And if I look at issuance volumes it looks significantly lower globally.

What would you say is driving the quarter?

And then also volumes in some areas look lower as well.

Again, very -- and please don't read anything into what I say about two weeks -- I mean, we are literally two weeks in.

Yes, I think issuance volume is low, but you have seen some clients come back and being a little more willing to take risk.

You have all been seeing a reasonable rally in the equity markets and so I think those things have been helpful.

If I look at 2011 you could argue it was two different worlds, the first half versus the second half, especially in fixed income.

And looking into 2012 how would you think about fixed income, more a world of the second half or more that kind of environment or more the first half?

Well, first of all, in 2011 I would actually -- I agree with you it was two different worlds, but I would say it was almost the first quarter and the last three quarters, as opposed to the first half and the last half.

And as far as 2012, I wish I had a crystal ball.

As you know, I am very hesitant to predict and never claim to be good at predicting.

We just don't know.

There is still a lot of macro headwinds out there with the biggest one being Europe.

And ultimately what ends up happening in Europe and whether that -- whether some of those sovereign issues get resolved I think is going to drive a lot.

On the flip side, as you know, since -- probably since the summer, virtually all of the US macro data has been -- economic data has been a little bit better than expected.

So you kind of have some offsetting factors there, and how it plays out we are just going to have to wait and see.

And it seems to me that one of the issues which also came up in your conference calls regularly is the issue of credit, which was much more difficult to trade over the last three quarters.

Do you think there is a change in the environment in the credit world or do you think it is similar?

And what is the structural change would you say in credit?

I don't think there was -- has necessarily been a structural change.

And I think it is too early to tell if there has been a change in the environment from just two weeks.

One of the big issue in credit was big divergence in the basis between cash and derivatives.

A very unusual divergence, made it very, very hard to manage.

I expect that that normalize at some point, but when that point is going to be, I just don't know.

Great, very helpful.

Thank you.

Fiona Swaffield, Royal Bank of Canada.

Just two issues I had.

One is debt rollover, so maturity for 2012, I wondered whether you can talk through what you raised already this year in terms of senior and how you're going to manage the rollover.

I thought it was $26 billion.

And the secondary second area is just on the cost side, the $1.4 billion.

Historically you have accrued the staff compensation to revenue ratio kind of on an even basis at three quarters.

I am just wondering should we expect some step change given there should be some of these cost benefits coming through, or is that something we really don't really know until the end of the year with a true-up?

Thanks.

Sure.

As far as the rollover of our debt, we have -- I think it is roughly $25 billion that matures this year.

And we have been in a blackout period so far this year so we haven't raised any until today.

So we will see going forward.

As far as accruals, what we will do is what we've always done, which is we accrue with a comp ratio as to our best estimate of where we think our comp is going to be.

And then we adjust as we get to year-end when we know what it actually is.

And exactly what that is going to be I don't know yet, but that is how we will accrue.

But just to check on that last thing, so if you did think that you knew that X of the $1.4 billion has come through lower, say, fixed costs then we could see that in a lower comp ratio accrual?

If we thought it was going to be lower, it would be lower accrual, but I wouldn't expect that that is necessarily going to happen.

And could I just clarify, I think I may have misunderstood, but I think that you said that the variable compensation under your control is down more than the revenue, so down more than 26, yet I think you said that that was flat so I'm trying to move out the working parts, but maybe I misunderstood.

I did say it was down significantly more than revenues.

That is correct.

So what would the other -- if the one-third is flat so, i.e., fix salaries are up a lot and maybe it is something to do with severance, it is that the moving --?

No, no.

If deferred comp is flat then obviously the -- and the whole amount was down 21% and part of it was not down at all, then the rest of it has to be done a lot more than 21%.

Okay.

Jeff Harte, Sandler O'Neill.

You mentioned that the backlog was down sequentially, but up year-over-year.

It seems for a while now we have had a very strong supply side, kind of the backlog, but a lack of demand or ability to get deals done.

Are you seeing the supply side of things still hang on as far as companies are eager to do things, it is just a matter of demand picking up or is even the supply side waning a little bit?

I think it is both.

I think, for example -- and I may have this a little wrong, but I'm not far off -- I think filed IPOs are the highest they've ever been, or close to it if not the highest they've ever been, and it is just a question of the markets being receptive to the deals.

So a lot of that.

As far as the M&A backlog, I would say there is more a lot of dialogue and companies circling each other and talking and wanting to do things, but even on getting things announced until people are little more bit more confident I don't think they're going to pull the trigger.

So it is a combination of those two things.

And can you talk a little bit geographically about the competitive environment?

I'm thinking -- I mean, headcount reductions in the industry certainly seem to be more US-centric.

How are some of the emerging markets and are there still higher growth areas trending as far as competition for talent and competitors in general?

I think there is -- there is always high competition for the best talent.

Is there the same -- obviously, given the industry slowdown is there the same level of competition for everyone?

The answer is probably no.

But for the best people, for the really good talent there is a high level of competition within -- from our traditional competitors.

There is a high level of competition from what you call the shadow banking industry, from other places and it is true outside the US and in the US.

And have you seen that -- the competition is always there, but have you seen any kind of a trend change over the last, say, six to eight months where things have been difficult?

No.

And then, finally, the relationship lending in the quarter, this is the first time I remember you disclosing how big that loss or that impact was.

Is that a function of it not having been material enough before?

Is it something new for the way you are accounting?

I am just wondering why this quarter we are hearing about it.

It is the former.

There was so material within the context of the whole number that we decided it should be disclosed, and before it wasn't.

Okay, thanks.

Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley.

A couple of questions.

One, a kind of housekeeping issue, but it is on the Investment & Lending segment.

So the debt marks had the impact of a hedge.

I guess I just wanted to understand how much the hedge impacted the debt section of the I&L both this quarter and last quarter?

The hedge on the relationship lending?

Yes.

In the quarter, although there was a lot of volatility because of the basis between the hedges -- the hedges as well as -- versus the cash positions over the course of the quarter, the hedges had very little -- the hedges versus the marks had very little effect.

It was really almost all just the day one marks.

Okay, and versus last quarter?

I don't have last quarter in front of me.

We will get back to you on that one.

Okay, and then just on capital return, I know you mentioned that you submitted your request.

One of the things [INOSAID] looks at is sustainability, predictability of earnings.

So I guess I'm just wondering how you present that -- how you present your capital request to the Fed, given the volatility that we are seeing in the industry right now?

Do you just kind of shoot for the low end of the range or you're just very conservative in your outlook for earnings or -- I'm just trying to understand how you think through that?

We make our best estimate given the economic environment that is prescribed.

So the thing that really causes the most volatility in earnings is the economic environment.

If you give us an economic environment, if that economic environment actually happens, we can get relatively close on where we are going to come out.

Obviously, there is going to be variability; it is not going to be exact.

The thing that causes the variability really is the change in economic environment.

So for a given economic we make our best prediction.

And then you mentioned that you have got expectations for common Tier 1 under Basel III going to just under 11% by the end of 2013, which is based in part on estimates, right, consensus estimates.

Yes.

So to the degree economic environment is -- so like the consensus estimate comes down then we should expect that you're going to be hitting a lower number than that sub 11% by the end of 2013?

If earnings were lower on that calculation our ratio would be lower, and if earnings were higher on that calculation our ratio would be higher.

All right, thanks.

Brennan Hawken, UBS.

So just a couple of quick questions.

One, a follow-up on one of Glenn's questions here.

So the recently submitted CCAR, can you help us understand how you came up with your projection for 2012 pre-provision net revenue, and maybe whether or not the Fed has given you any guidance on the numbers that they look at when they come up with their own set of projections for a firm like Goldman?

As I mentioned, both the Fed gives us certain economic environments, both in a base and a stress case.

We also have our own based on conversations with our economists.

We come up with our own economic scenario.

We then do a very detailed analysis going business by business on what we think our results will be given those economic scenarios, and that's what we submit.

And has the Fed given you any color on how they think about it?

Well, they gave -- they have economic scenarios as well.

So there is ours and their economic scenarios, and based on those we put in submissions on both.

And then on a different sort of issue, given some of the drying up of liquidity in certain fixed income markets, with dealers holding less inventory, and the oligopolistic nature of institutional fixed income asset management business, do you think that there is an increasing risk that you could end up seeing some disintermediation from the buy side and just using dealers less often and just interacting between each other?

Look, I think that the market-making function that we and others perform is a very, very valuable function for our mutual fund, hedge fund, corporate, etc., clients to be able to access markets as quickly as they want to, be able to get prices on things they want to buy and sell very, very quickly when they want to do it.

I think that the ability to do that directly is going to be hard.

I think people would have to be set up in a way that they're not set up now to execute at a speed that they are not set up to execute, and to have a liquidity that they don't have right now.

So I think that the function that we and others perform in providing that liquidity market is going to remain a very valuable function.

Okay, thanks.

Matt Burnell, Wells Fargo Securities.

Just a question on your international revenue trends in the fourth quarter.

I am just curious as to were they substantially different enough to change the relationship of the international revenues relative to the US revenues in the quarter?

And I guess looking forward how are you thinking about that relationship over the next year or two?

Look, it is a little hard because of certain factors, so for example, our Asia revenues as a percentage were much higher in the fourth quarter than the third quarter.

But that is partially because ICBC was up nearly $400 million in the third quarter and down $1 billion -- I'm sorry, in the fourth quarter, and down $1 billion in the third quarter.

So that really accounted for most of the change.

As far as kind of a trend, I would expect that we have been running for the last few years between 50% and 60% in the US and between 40% and 50% outside the US, with variability around that largely because of things that I just talked about.

I would expect that to trend more towards 50% in the US, or maybe even less, and the rest outside the US.

Right, so that is not very different from what you have been seeing for a while.

I guess I am just curious in the training and the Investment Banking businesses, maybe excluding investing in lending and (multiple speakers).

I think we will trend towards a less than 50% in the US and a little more than 50% outside the US.

Okay.

And then just an administrative question.

In terms of the DVA, CVA effects in the quarter, you noted in the release that they were effectively minimal.

What benefit did you get this quarter from some of the hedging that you said you did in the third quarter on that exposure?

A largely didn't matter.

Our spreads were pretty flat quarter-over-quarter.

So with or without hedging it was pretty much -- the whole amount was about $20 million, so it didn't really matter.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

Mike Mayo, CLSA.

So you have had the best loan syndications in the industry, I guess, in about a couple of decades.

Is some of that activity reflecting a swath in the capital markets to loans or why are you seeing that?

I missed the beginning where you said we have had the best -- I didn't hear what you said, the best something in a few decades.

I didn't hear what you said.

The best loan syndications in the industry in two decades.

So my question is, are you seeing that in less fixed income or bond issuance?

Are some of those funds going to loans or do you have any color on that?

I am sorry, I am still confused.

The best loan syndications in a couple of decades?

Yes, the loan syndication activity for the industry in 2011 was some of the highest you have seen in about 20 or 21 years.

Okay.

And my question is are you seeing activity move from capital markets back to loans?

Well, I actually think that was largely structural.

There was just a lot of cash available for loans and so I think people took advantage of that.

Okay.

I don't necessarily think that is going to be a trend.

Okay, so you would expect -- that is fine.

Let me go to the capital question.

Where are you leaning right now?

Are you leaning toward having higher capital levels for a perception of greater stability of Goldman Sachs or are you leaning toward, okay, let's buy back a lot more stock because we are trading below book value?

You and I have talked a little bit about this before, Mike, it is a very hard question and it is not a science.

We sit here with our stock price where it is, and as I said to you, I am relatively certain that at some point in the future we are going to wish we bought back a lot more stock at this price.

Yet the flip side is a very tough environment, and in a tough environment we tend to be very conservative and want to hoard cash and hoard capital.

And so we make -- those two things you mentioned are offsetting thoughts that we have and we just try and make the best decision we can in the environment.

Well, if you feel a teeny bit better about Europe would that mean you would lean a little bit more toward buybacks?

I should emphasize teeny in how much better I would feel.

And then, lastly, your revenue weakness recently, are you saying none of that is due to secular factors, it is all cyclical, there is no structural changes that is hurting your revenues?

I never make -- I shouldn't use never -- I don't like to use the word never.

I don't make statements that bold and I couldn't say that.

I think that we are clearly in a cyclical downturn.

There is less activity that is cyclical.

That will come back.

I have no idea when, but it will come back.

Over time there have always been secular changes in our business, and I think we'll go through some secular changes now in how we deliver our services.

I think the services that our clients want -- you have heard us talk about this -- the advice, the capital, the liquidity, the risk management, the asset management, I think the services are still going to be the same services.

I think there will be a cyclically higher demand for those services than there is now, and there might be some secular change in how those services have to be provided.

And our job is to make sure that we are able to provide them in the way that we will be able to and will be required going forward.

Let me try one last time.

Your ROE target of 20%, I know you don't have an ROE target now, do you think you will have one in the future once you know what the capital rules are?

Yes, I think we will.

And would the sole adjustment to that ROE target be based on the capital?

So if you have to hold one-fourth more capital then your ROE would go from 20% down to 15%?

No, it would be a combination of changes in capital requirements and changes in what we view as the opportunity set going forward.

So that is why I can't give you the number now.

Thank you.

Betsy Graseck, Morgan Stanley.

Just a follow-up.

You mentioned the -- you said 11% on 2013 for common Tier 1.

What is your estimate for the 2012 year-end?

I don't have that now.

We can get back to you on that as well.

Okay, because I think in the past you had said sub 10%, and just wondering if you are still there or not.

I will come back to you.

I don't think it is going to be far from that, but I will come back to you.

Okay, thanks.

Roger Freeman, Barclays Capital.

Just a couple of quick ones.

The repurchases, do you have any remaining authorization from last year that you can do in the first quarter?

Yes, we have a small amount remaining that we can do in the first quarter, but it is pretty small.

And on the SIFI buffer, I know it is not finalized yet, but do you have any reason -- is there any reason we shouldn't expect 200 basis points for you?

Well, we read in the paper that it was going to be 150 basis points.

We don't know any more than what we read in the paper.

Oh, and just lastly on VAR, the interest rate VAR you had noted that that was up because volatility was up a lot.

Did you actually -- did you reduce risk in interest rates or did you increase for VAR adjust in the quarter?

So if you remember, at the end of the third quarter, I told everybody that you should expect our VAR to be higher in the fourth quarter because volatility was already up and our ending VAR was higher than it was in the third quarter.

So we knew that this was going to happen because volatility was so much higher.

Okay, got it.

Okay, thanks.

At this time there are no further questions.

Please proceed with any closing remarks.

I would like to thank everybody for joining us for our fourth-quarter earnings call.

If you have any incremental questions, please don't hesitate to contact us at Investor Relations, and otherwise enjoy the rest of your day.

Thanks, bye.

Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude the Goldman Sachs fourth-quarter 2011 earnings conference call.

You may now disconnect.