For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-10-08): Designation Watch · Gem Score +4 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 28 · Value -12 · Sentiment -41 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $1,018.84 vs $951.17 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
GS NYSEThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a leading global investment banking, securities, and asset and wealth management firm headquartered in New York, New York. It provides a comprehensive range of financial services to corporations, financial institutions, governments, and individuals across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The firm operates through three primary segments: Global Banking & Markets, Asset & Wealth Management, and Platform Solutions. In Global Banking & Markets, it offers investment banking advisory for mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, restructurings, and corporate defense; securities underwriting; prime brokerage; and market-making in various financial products including fixed income, currencies, commodities, and equities. The Asset & Wealth Management segment delivers investment management, advisory services, and private equity and hedge fund operations for institutional and high-net-worth clients. Platform Solutions supports transaction banking and digital finance offerings. Founded in 1869, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. maintains a presence in major financial centers worldwide, serving as a key intermediary in global capital markets and facilitating complex financing solutions.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 51.32
Total Equity: $124.97B
Shares: 334,684,334
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $164.26B
EBITDA: N/A
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $164.26B
Revenue: $58.28B
Revenue: $58.28B
Revenue: $58.28B
Total Equity: $124.97B
Tax Rate: 21.4%
Equity: $124.97B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $164.26B
Current Liabilities: N/A
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $0.00
Total Equity: $124.97B
Shares: 334,684,334
Shares: 334,684,334
CapEx: -$2.06B
Shares: 334,684,334
Stock Price: $1,018
Net Income: $17.18B
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 11:41am (69d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $59.3B | $47.4B | $46.3B | $53.5B | $58.3B |
| Cost of Revenue | — | — | — | — | — |
| Gross Profit | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Expenses | $18.3B | $16.0B | $16.1B | $17.4B | $19.6B |
| Operating Income | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Income | $21.6B | $11.3B | $8.5B | $14.3B | $17.2B |
| EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS | $60.25 | $30.42 | $23.05 | $41.07 | $51.95 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $59.45 | $30.06 | $22.87 | $40.54 | $51.32 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 31, 2026 9:10am (68d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $261.0B | $241.8B | $241.6B | $182.1B | $164.3B |
| Total Current Assets | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Assets | $1.5T | $1.4T | $1.6T | $1.7T | $1.8T |
| Current Liabilities | — | — | — | — | — |
| Long-Term Debt | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Liabilities | $1.4T | $1.3T | $1.5T | $1.6T | $1.7T |
| Total Equity | $109.9B | $117.2B | $116.9B | $122.0B | $125.0B |
| Retained Earnings | $131.8B | $139.4B | $143.7B | $153.4B | $165.3B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 11:41am (69d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $921.0M | $8.7B | -$12.6B | -$13.2B | -$45.2B |
| Capital Expenditure | -$4.7B | -$3.7B | -$2.3B | -$2.1B | -$2.1B |
| Free Cash Flow | -$3.7B | $5.0B | -$14.9B | -$15.3B | -$47.2B |
| Acquisitions (net) | $0 | -$2.1B | $487.0M | — | — |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividends Paid | -$2.7B | -$3.7B | -$4.2B | -$4.5B | -$5.3B |
| Stock Buybacks | -$5.2B | -$3.5B | -$5.8B | -$8.0B | -$12.4B |
| Net Change in Cash | $105.2B | -$19.2B | -$248.0M | -$59.5B | -$17.8B |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 11:41am (69d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | -20.2% | -2.3% | +15.7% | +8.9% |
| Gross Profit Growth | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Income Growth | — | — | — | — |
| Net Income Growth | -48.0% | -24.4% | +67.6% | +20.3% |
| EBITDA Growth | — | — | — | — |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Jul 31, 2026 9:11am (68d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-01 | $4.50 | — | — | — |
| 2026-03-02 | $4.50 | — | — | — |
| 2025-12-02 | $4.00 | — | — | — |
| 2025-08-29 | $4.00 | — | — | — |
| 2025-05-30 | $3.00 | — | — | — |
| 2025-02-28 | $3.00 | — | — | — |
| 2024-12-02 | $3.00 | — | — | — |
| 2024-08-30 | $3.00 | — | — | — |
| 2024-05-30 | $2.75 | — | — | — |
| 2024-02-28 | $2.75 | — | — | — |
| 2023-11-29 | $2.75 | — | — | — |
| 2023-08-30 | $2.75 | — | — | — |
| 2023-05-31 | $2.50 | — | — | — |
| 2023-03-01 | $2.50 | — | — | — |
| 2022-11-30 | $2.50 | — | — | — |
| 2022-08-31 | $2.50 | — | — | — |
| 2022-05-31 | $2.00 | — | — | — |
| 2022-03-01 | $2.00 | — | — | — |
| 2021-12-01 | $2.00 | — | — | — |
| 2021-08-31 | $2.00 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — upside vs downside from this company's own quarters
Computed 2026-08-27 02:36Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Growth Outlook
Analyzed 2026-09-17 16:48The question every valuation on this page silently assumes: is this company likely to grow? Judged forward — the business, its category, the world — against what's already printed.
Claude Reading
Independent read on the numbers first: the quarterly NI trajectory is the loudest signal — $2.99B → $4.11B → $4.74B → $3.72B → $4.10B → $4.62B → $5.63B → $6.63B. That's a TTM NI of roughly $21.0B versus $17.18B for calendar 2025 and $14.28B for 2024, a ~47% two-year jump. On 291M-ish shares that's ~$72 TTM EPS, putting the stock at ~13.2x trailing on a fresh peak. The last two quarters ($5.63B, $6.63B) annualize to $24.5B — nearly matching the 2021 SPAC/IPO-boom peak of $21.64B and then some. That is the crux: are we underwriting $20B+ as the new run-rate, or is this the 2021 redux where NI collapsed to $11.3B the following year?
The model outputs disagree in a revealing way. Synthesis says fair value $1,018–1,092 (signal-adjusted +14.8%), narrative layer says 12.9% below DCF, but Market Forces and Thesis Evaluation both explicitly flag 2025/26 as a cyclical peak with "mean-reversion imminent." Those cannot both be right. The DCF-anchored fair values almost certainly extrapolate TTM earnings power forward; if you instead normalize NI to a through-cycle $15–16B (blending 2022's $11.3B, 2023's $8.5B, 2024's $14.3B, and peak years), you get ~$52–55 normalized EPS, and even at a generous 15x that's $780–825, i.e., the stock is 15–20% *rich* to mid-cycle, not cheap. The synthesis is implicitly betting the peak holds; the thesis engine (-8 score, top bear weight 72) is betting it doesn't. I side with the thesis engine.
Two things sharpen the bear case. First, the operating cash flow of *negative $45B* in 2025 with FCF of -$47B is not a rounding issue for a bank (working capital swings in trading inventory dominate GAAP OCF for dealers, so I don't panic), but it does mean the "poor cash flow quality" flag is largely a bank-accounting artifact — I'd downweight that specific warning. Second, and more damning: debt/equity of 3.57x and ROA of 1.07% mean the 17% ROE is pure leverage. That's fine in a benign credit environment, but with "macro headwinds" flagged and $356B of debt against $125B equity, any credit event or trading-book drawdown compresses book value fast. P/B of 2.40x is well above the 1.2–1.5x GS has traded at in stress periods (2020, 2022). The insider activity is noise — those August 6 "conversions" of ~1.96M and ~478K shares repeated eight times look like a data-duplication artifact, not real buying; the only genuine open-market print is a 600-share sale. "Net insider buying" as a signal here is wrong.
Contrarian pushback on my own skepticism: Asset & Wealth Management genuinely is a higher-quality, less cyclical earnings stream than it was five years ago, and if the alternatives fundraising and fee-based AWM revenues are structurally 30%+ of the mix now, some margin uplift is durable. The 36.6% earnings CAGR isn't entirely mirage. But even generously crediting $2–3B of "new normal" earnings, you're at $17–18B mid-cycle NI, ~$60 EPS, and 15x gets you $900 — right at spot. There is simply no margin of safety at $951 unless you underwrite the peak. The synthesis model's $1,092 target requires believing Q2 2026's $6.63B NI run-rate ($26B annualized) is sustainable, which would be an all-time record by a wide margin and contradicts every historical cyclicality pattern in capital markets. I dissent from the fair-value verdict.
GPT Reading
Goldman’s raw earnings tape is undeniably strong right now. On the trailing twelve months through 2026-06-30, net income is $20.98 billion, up from $15.56 billion in the prior TTM window, a 34.8% jump. The quarterly progression is even more striking: $4.10 billion, then $4.62 billion, then $5.63 billion, then $6.63 billion. That is not the profile of a bank under pressure; it is the profile of a franchise enjoying operating leverage into a favorable capital-markets backdrop. If I annualize the latest quarter, you get roughly $26.5 billion of earnings power, which makes the current $276.95 billion market cap look closer to 10-11x run-rate earnings than the reported 14x TTM multiple. Return on equity at 17.0% is also the key fact here: for a systemically important bank with Goldman’s franchise quality, a sustained mid-to-high teens ROE can justify a premium to book, and 2.4x book is rich but not absurd if those returns hold.
The problem is that the stock price already leans heavily on that “if.” At $951, investors are paying about 13.2x the current TTM earnings per share implied by the market cap and 2.2x-2.4x book depending on whether you use the stated equity of $124.97 billion or the feed’s P/B metric. That multiple is not demanding for a great compounder, but Goldman is not a clean compounder in the way a fee-heavy asset manager or exchange is. Revenue moved from $46.25 billion in 2023 to $53.51 billion in 2024 to $58.28 billion in 2025, a good recovery, but still not above the $59.34 billion delivered in 2021. In other words, the business has recovered to near prior-peak revenue while the stock now capitalizes it at a much fuller value than in past cycles. The market is effectively treating a cyclical rebound in investment banking and markets activity as a more durable earnings plateau. I’m not willing to underwrite that at nearly $1 trillion per share-equivalent psychology and almost $277 billion of equity value.
The balance-sheet and cash-flow presentation reinforce that caution. I do not read the negative $45.15 billion operating cash flow and negative $47.22 billion free cash flow in the same way I would for an industrial company; for a dealer bank, those figures are often balance-sheet mechanics rather than economic distress. But they do matter insofar as they remind you that reported net income is not “cash EPS” in any simple sense. Goldman also carries $355.96 billion of debt against $164.26 billion of cash and $124.97 billion of equity. That leverage is normal for the model, but it means valuation mistakes are not cushioned by hard, distributable free cash flow in the way they would be elsewhere. The dividend yield is just 1.9%, so shareholders are not being paid much to wait if the capital-markets cycle cools. At this price, you are mostly buying continued excellent execution and benign macro rather than balance-sheet optionality.
The best case against my caution is straightforward and respectable: maybe this really is a structurally better Goldman. If the franchise can consistently earn around $21-24 billion after tax, then a 14x TTM multiple is not excessive, especially with a 17% ROE and the possibility that wealth and asset management are making earnings less volatile over time. On that view, comparing 2025-2026 to 2021 misses mix improvement and operating discipline. The quarterly earnings cadence does suggest momentum is still accelerating rather than fading, and if the latest $6.63 billion quarter reflects a genuinely higher baseline, then the shares are not expensive at all. A bull would also argue that for a premier advisory and trading franchise, paying around 2.4x book is acceptable when many lesser institutions cannot approach Goldman’s returns on capital.
What would change my mind is evidence that this is not just a great stretch of market conditions but a new earnings floor. Specifically, if the next few quarters keep net income above roughly $5.5 billion per quarter without a major surge in market beta, and TTM ROE holds at 16%+ while annual revenue pushes decisively above the old 2021 peak of $59.34 billion, I would accept that the current valuation is supportable and likely conservative. On the other hand, if quarterly earnings slip back toward the $4.0-4.5 billion range, that would take TTM earnings back toward the mid-teens in billions and make $951 look plainly too high. My read today: this is an excellent firm priced close to excellence, with too little margin of safety for a cyclical capital-markets name.
Grok Reading
The numbers tell a clear recovery story that has already moved well past the 2023 trough. Trailing net income through mid-2026 is running near $21B once the four most recent quarters are stacked ($6.63B + $5.63B + $4.62B + $4.10B), a sharp step-up from the $17.18B full-year 2025 print and a world away from the $8.52B trough in 2023. That trajectory produces a TTM P/E of roughly 14× at $951 and an ROE of 17 percent on $125B of equity—respectable for a capital-markets franchise and enough to justify the 2.4× book multiple without requiring heroic assumptions. Revenue has also climbed from $46B in 2023 to $58B in 2025, so the earnings rebound is not pure operating leverage; absolute dollars are higher. The balance sheet remains a classic dealer structure—$356B of debt against $164B of cash and a 3.6× debt-to-equity ratio—but that is the business model, not a red flag unique to this cycle.
What stands out as the real tension is cash-flow quality versus reported earnings. Full-year 2025 operating cash flow was –$45B and free cash flow –$47B; for a firm posting mid-teens ROE and a 29.5 percent net margin, that disconnect is material. Trading inventory swings, collateral, and wholesale funding can distort bank cash-flow statements, yet the magnitude is large enough that a non-trivial slice of the $17–21B earnings run-rate is likely mark-to-market or working-capital related rather than sticky fee income. The recent quarterly NI acceleration (especially the $6.63B June quarter) therefore looks partly cyclical—trading and IB strength—rather than a permanent margin reset. Asset and wealth management is the cleaner compounding engine, but it is still not large enough to dominate the P&L when markets are hot.
The strongest opposing case is straightforward: the market is already giving Goldman credit for durability it may not possess. A 14× multiple on peak-cycle earnings, a 5.5× sales multiple, and a valuation synthesis that still only clears to the low-$1,000s imply limited margin of safety if IB volumes and trading gains mean-revert. The 29.5 percent net margin is an outlier versus the firm’s own history (2022–23 were far lower), and the negative FCF plus macro headwinds cited in the secondary signals argue that 2025–26 results are the high-water mark, not the new baseline. Insiders show mostly conversions and a token sale, offering no real vote of confidence, while the thesis-evaluation layer already tilts slightly bearish on exactly this peak-margin risk. If those bears are right, the stock at $951 is closer to fully valued than cheap.
I would flip to a clearer undervalued call if the next two quarters hold NI above $5B while FCF turns sustainably positive and wealth-management fee growth continues to outpace trading, proving the margin mix is structural. Conversely, two consecutive quarters of NI back below $4B or a visible compression in ROE toward low double-digits would confirm mean reversion and push the stock toward overvalued at this price. Until then the franchise looks modestly inexpensive relative to mid-cycle earning power, but not enough to ignore the cash-flow and cyclicality caveats.
Qwen Reading local experiment · off-panel
The most glaring contradiction in this dataset is the collision between a 14.0x trailing P/E multiple and a "Poor Cash Flow Quality" flag driven by negative operating cash flow of -$45.15B. For a bank, negative operating cash flow is often a mechanical artifact of how trading assets and liabilities are classified under GAAP, but the magnitude here—exceeding the entire annual net income of $17.18B—demands scrutiny. The market is pricing Goldman Sachs at $951.17, implying a market cap of $276.95B, which is a 5.46x price-to-sales multiple on $58.28B in revenue. This is an expensive valuation for a firm whose earnings trajectory is clearly cyclical, not structural. The net margin expanded to 29.47% in 2025, up from 26.7% in 2024 and a mere 18.4% in 2023. This margin expansion is the engine driving the current multiple, but it is built on a foundation of revenue that has already peaked at $59.34B in 2021 and has since declined to $58.28B. The "mature earner" classification with 0.85 confidence is misleading; this is a cyclical peak performer being valued as a steady compounder. The 36.6% earnings CAGR cited in the momentum section is a statistical illusion created by the low base of 2023 ($8.52B) and the high base of 2025 ($17.18B). It does not represent sustainable growth; it represents a mean-reversion event that has already occurred.
The balance sheet tells a story of aggressive leverage that the market is underpricing. With total debt of $355.96B against equity of $124.97B, the debt-to-equity ratio of 3.57 is high, but for a bank, the more critical metric is the return on equity of 16.99%. This is a respectable ROE, but it is being achieved with a payout ratio of only 29.23% and a dividend yield of 1.89%. The market is paying a 2.4x price-to-book multiple for a company that is not returning capital at a rate that justifies the premium. The insider activity data is a red herring; the "Net Insider Buying" signal is likely driven by the "C-Conversion" entries, which are typically option exercises or conversions, not open-market purchases. The actual sale of 600 shares on 2026-08-28 is negligible, but the absence of significant open-market buying by insiders at a $951 price point is telling. If the management team believed the 29.5% net margin was a new normal, we would expect to see more aggressive buybacks or higher dividends, not a 29% payout ratio. The "Valuation Synthesis" model suggests a fair value of $1,018.84, but this is based on a composite that likely overweights the 2025 earnings peak. The "Market Forces" model correctly identifies the "unsustainable 2025 earnings," but the "Thesis Evaluation" score of -8 is too mild. The bear case is not just about mean reversion; it is about the structural erosion of the investment banking franchise. The revenue decline from 2021 to 2025, despite the margin expansion, suggests that the top line is under pressure from competition and lower deal volumes. The 2025 revenue of $58.28B is 1.8% lower than 2021's $59.34B, yet the net income is 20.7% lower. This indicates that the cost structure has not been reduced enough to offset the revenue decline, or that the 2025 margin expansion is driven by one-time items or favorable market conditions that are not repeatable.
The strongest case against my bearish read is the "Asset & Wealth Management compounding machine" argument. Goldman's AWM segment has indeed shown resilience, and the "Platform Solutions" segment is growing. However, the data does not support the notion that this growth is sufficient to offset the cyclical nature of the core business. The 2025 net income of $17.18B is 20.3% higher than 2024's $14.28B, but this is still 20.7% lower than 2021's $21.64B. The market is pricing in a recovery that has not yet materialized in the revenue line. The "Macro Headwinds" signal is a critical factor that the valuation models are underweighting. In a high-rate environment, the cost of funding for a bank with $355.96B in debt is a significant drag on margins. The 1.07% ROA is low for a bank of this size, indicating that the asset base is not generating sufficient returns to justify the risk. The "Narrative Economics" layer correctly identifies that the market is anchored to fundamentals, but it underestimates the risk of a fundamental shift. The "steady-compounder" archetype is a misnomer; Goldman Sachs is a cyclical bank with a growing but not yet dominant non-cyclical segment. The 12.9% discount to DCF fair value cited in the narrative is likely an overestimate of intrinsic value, as DCF models for banks are notoriously unreliable due to the difficulty in projecting cash flows.
What would change my mind is a sustained increase in the payout ratio to above 50% and a significant buyback program that reduces the share count by more than 5% annually. This would signal that management believes the current earnings level is sustainable and is willing to return capital to shareholders. Additionally, a recovery in investment banking revenue to above $60B would validate the "new normal" thesis. However, given the current data, the risk of mean reversion is high. The 2025 earnings peak is likely to be followed by a decline as the cyclical components of the business normalize. The market is paying a premium for a company that is not delivering consistent growth, and the negative operating cash flow is a warning sign that the earnings quality is lower than it appears. The 14.0x P/E is not cheap for a bank with a 1.07% ROA and a 3.57x debt-to-equity ratio. The stock is overvalued relative to its risk-adjusted return profile.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Net income has re-accelerated from $8.85B in 2023 to $11.24B, $15.56B, and $20.97B on the TTM through mid-2026 - a durable rebound in the core investment banking, trading, and asset management franchise. Diluted shares have compounded down at roughly 3.5% per year (from 356.8M in 2022 to 309.3M now) with buybacks running 257% of SBC, so per-share value is being concentrated, not diluted. Insiders are net buyers ($82.3M bought vs $5.5M sold), which is a genuine positive signal at a firm this size. The forensic red flags (Altman Z of 0.2 in 'distress,' OCF/NI of -1.33x, -$41.5B FCF, net debt of -$250.6B) are largely artifacts of applying industrial-company models to a broker-dealer: Goldman funds trading inventory and client financing with wholesale debt, and working-capital swings in securities balances dominate the cash flow statement. That does not make them irrelevant - it means leverage, funding mix, and mark-to-market marks are the real risks, and those are structural to the business model. On balance, this reads as a solidly healthy franchise: rising earnings, disciplined capital return, credible insider behavior, offset by the inherent opacity and cyclicality of a large dealer balance sheet.
Verify before trusting this (6)
- CET1 ratio, supplementary leverage ratio, and liquidity coverage ratio trend from the 10-Q/10-K
- Level 3 assets as % of total and any material concentration in illiquid marks
- Mix of net income by segment (Global Banking & Markets vs Asset & Wealth Management vs Platform Solutions) and durability of AWM fee streams
- Any remaining consumer/Platform Solutions charge-offs or writedowns still to flow through
- Details of the 2026-08-06 conversions - appear to be internal fund/entity reclassifications rather than dilutive issuance, but confirm
- Payout ratio and regulator-approved buyback capacity under latest CCAR/stress test
The e2e composite pins deserved value at $1,018.84 (anchored-PE method) with a signal-adjusted stretch to $1,092.20, implying 7% to 15% upside from $951.17. That is a modest, not compelling, gap for a cyclical dealer whose earnings quality carries a weak flag. Haircutting the composite ~5% for earnings-quality noise pulls deserved value closer to ~$970, which puts the stock within a few percent of fair - essentially in the fairway.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Trading and IB revenue run-rate vs normalized assumptions embedded in anchored PE
- Buyback pace and CET1 headroom under evolving Basel endgame rules
- Source of the earnings-quality flag - one-off marks vs recurring accrual noise
- Advisory backlog and DCM/ECM pipeline commentary in the latest transcript
The pressure on GS right now is net negative but not extreme. The tape is risk-off (VIX 17.7, S&P off highs) and GS carries a 1.28 beta, so macro drag lands with amplification on this name versus a defensive. On top of that, Goldman's own economists just pushed the call for another 25bp Fed hike in October, which the market read as self-inflicted rate-headwind news, and the stock sold off 3.9% on Solomon's own comments about softer FICC and a surprise $500M expense hit. That is a rare case of the CEO personally supplying the bear catalyst into a jittery tape. The narrative itself is minimal-intensity, durable, steady-compounder - there is no cult bid to defend the stock on down days, and no premium story to unwind either; it simply drifts with sector tone and headlines. With the fundamentals-vs-story read already showing the market discounting execution risk (trading below DCF), sentiment is doing the marking-down, not euphoria unwinding. Offsetting positives are real but softer: AI-finance headlines (the $22B Crux/Blackstone/Alphabet chip financing) and the $70B revenue-base ambition give bulls something to point at, and a rare options-gauge signal is being framed constructively. Net: moderate headwind, driven mainly by the CEO-sourced Q3 warning into a risk-off tape.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Q3 print: magnitude of FICC softness and whether the $500M item is one-off or a run-rate creep
- October FOMC outcome versus GS's own hike call - a dovish surprise would flip sector tone fast
- Peer prints (JPM, MS) trading commentary as read-through catalysts
- Follow-through news flow on AI-finance mandates that could seed a stronger narrative overlay
- VIX and credit spreads - a break of the nascent risk-off regime would mute the beta drag
The world GS lives in is mid-to-late in a capital-markets upcycle: issuance and M&A reopened, industry margins expanded ~5pp, and earnings across Capital Markets grew ~32% — but the sector cycle indicator has turned to slowdown with a 5% 10-year and a barely positive curve. That combination usually means the revenue cycle plateaus before it breaks: deals already mandated still close, sponsor formation slows. Structurally, capital formation is migrating toward private markets and alternatives, which favors GS's AWM/private-credit build but pressures the classic underwriting-and-advisory spread where boutiques take advisory share and scale flow houses compress execution economics. GS's franchise — balance sheet, prime brokerage, and top-of-book advisory relationships — is intact; the question is slope, not survival.
When we made this prediction on Sep 18, 2026, GS was $941.83. We expect it to be $1,005.00 by Mar 2027, and we consider it great value under $820.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Sep 18, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.