paying more people more money to manage a business earning less
For the third year running, Goldman Sachs New Zealand has recorded a loss — a quiet but telling signal that one of finance's most storied names is struggling to find its footing in a market that may have moved on without it. Revenue halved in 2025 even as the firm paid its shrinking team more, a paradox that speaks to the difficulty of maintaining institutional ambition in a contracting local landscape. The departure of Andrew Barclay after 26 years closes a long chapter, while the parent company's global surge in equities and investment banking makes the New Zealand story feel less like a tide going out and more like a particular shore being left behind.
- Goldman Sachs New Zealand's investment banking revenue has collapsed 90 percent over six years, and the latest financial year saw overall revenue cut in half — the bleeding has not slowed.
- Even as the business contracts, staff expenses rose to $4.5 million and senior management pay climbed to $1.4 million, creating a widening gap between what the firm earns and what it spends on people.
- The 26-year tenure of managing director Andrew Barclay ended in June, a leadership rupture that marks both a generational shift and an open question about the operation's strategic direction under Nathan Bond.
- The firm still holds mandates for KMD Brands and ExxonMobil's New Zealand exit, suggesting residual credibility — but isolated transactions cannot mask a structural retreat from the market.
- Goldman Sachs globally beat expectations with equities up 27 percent and investment banking up 48 percent, making New Zealand's decline look less like a global storm and more like a local reckoning.
Goldman Sachs New Zealand has now posted losses for three consecutive years, with 2025 delivering another sharp blow: revenue was cut in half, and the firm's investment banking division — once its core engine — has shed 90 percent of its revenue over the past six years. What makes the picture particularly striking is that staff expenses rose to $4.5 million and key management compensation increased to $1.4 million, even as the business around them continued to shrink.
The year also brought a significant leadership change. Andrew Barclay, who had led the New Zealand operation for 26 years, departed in June and has since founded his own advisory firm and taken the chairmanship of Television New Zealand. Nathan Bond, previously head of investment banking for the country, stepped into the board role — inheriting a business in structural decline.
The firm is not without work. It retains mandates advising KMD Brands on capital-raising and managing ExxonMobil's exit from the New Zealand market, transactions that speak to its lingering credibility in the local market. But these assignments sit against a backdrop of persistent contraction.
The contrast with the parent company is difficult to ignore. Goldman Sachs globally reported strong results in April, with equities trading up 27 percent and investment banking surging 48 percent. The New Zealand operation's troubles, then, are not a symptom of global headwinds — they point to something more particular: a local market that has contracted, or evolved in ways that no longer align with the firm's traditional strengths.
Goldman Sachs' New Zealand arm has now lost money for three consecutive years, a streak that underscores the deepening troubles of what was once a commanding presence in the local investment banking market. The 2025 financial year brought the latest blow: revenue was cut in half, yet the firm continued to increase what it paid its staff and senior executives even as the business contracted around them.
The year was marked by significant upheaval in leadership. Andrew Barclay, who had steered the New Zealand operation for 26 years as managing director, departed in June. His replacement on the board was Nathan Bond, promoted from his role as the firm's head of investment banking for the country. Barclay has since launched his own advisory firm, Barclay & Co, and accepted the chairmanship of Television New Zealand—a move that signals both his standing in the local business establishment and his apparent readiness to move on from the Goldman Sachs chapter.
What makes the financial picture particularly striking is the disconnect between the firm's shrinking revenue and its rising personnel costs. Staff expenses—covering salaries, bonuses, and related payments—climbed to $4.5 million from $3.5 million. Compensation for key management personnel also increased, reaching $1.4 million compared to $1.3 million the year before. The firm was, in effect, paying more people more money to manage a business that was earning less.
The investment banking division has been in freefall. Over the past six years, revenue from that segment has collapsed by 90 percent. Yet the firm has managed to retain some meaningful mandates: it is advising on KMD Brands' capital-raising efforts and handling work related to ExxonMobil's exit from the New Zealand market. These assignments suggest the operation still has enough credibility to land significant transactions, even if the overall market for such work has dried up.
The parent company's global performance tells a different story. Goldman Sachs reported results in April that beat analyst expectations, though its share price still declined when the numbers hit the New York Stock Exchange. The divergence between divisions was stark. The fixed income, currencies and commodities unit saw revenue drop 10 percent to $4 billion. But equities trading surged 27 percent, wealth management climbed 10 percent, and investment banking—the crown jewel—jumped 48 percent. The New Zealand operation's struggles, then, are not a reflection of global headwinds alone. They point to something more localized: a market that has simply contracted, or shifted in ways that no longer favor the firm's traditional model.
Citações Notáveis
Goldman Sachs' global investment banking division surged 48% in the first quarter, while its New Zealand arm continues to contract— Goldman Sachs first-quarter results to NYSE
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would a firm keep increasing staff pay when it's losing money three years running?
Because you can't just shut down overnight. You need people to manage the decline, to service existing clients, to chase the deals that might come. And in investment banking, talent is portable—if you cut too hard, the people who might actually land the next mandate walk out the door.
But that seems backwards. Shouldn't losses trigger layoffs?
In theory, yes. But Goldman Sachs is a global firm. The New Zealand office is a small piece. They may be betting that the market will turn, or that the right leadership change—which they just made—will unlock something. Or they're simply accepting the losses as a cost of maintaining a presence.
Andrew Barclay left after 26 years. That's a long time to stay in one place. What does his departure signal?
It signals that the old model wasn't working anymore, and maybe he knew it. He'd built something, but the market had moved on. Rather than fight a losing battle, he stepped aside for someone new and went off to do something else—something that probably felt more promising.
They still have mandates for KMD Brands and ExxonMobil. Are those enough to turn things around?
Probably not. Two mandates, even significant ones, don't reverse a 90 percent decline over six years. They're lifelines, not a recovery. They keep the lights on and give the new leadership something to point to, but they're not evidence of a turnaround.