Goldman Sachs’ wealth management fee revenue jumped 17% year-over-year, with double-digit growth in alternatives management fees annually.
However, the firm’s total net revenue from its asset and wealth management divisions missed estimates by about $140 million, with higher management fees offsetting lower private banking revenues, CNBC reported.
The wealth earnings come amid the investment bank’s total first-quarter 2026 earnings, with blockbuster results from equities traders benefiting from market volatility as institutional investors reacted to the boom in artificial intelligence and the ramifications of the Iran war.
The bank’s stock division reported $5.33 billion in revenue, the largest quarterly figure in history, while its investment banking fees climbed 48%, largely on the back of revenue from mergers.
However, the firm’s fixed-income, currency and commodities revenue missed estimates by over $800 million, a 10% year-over-year dip. The news dragged down Goldman Sachs’ stock price during Monday morning trading.
Though the asset and wealth’s total net revenue of $4.078 billion missed estimates, it was still up 10% from 2025’s first quarter (though down 14% from the fourth quarter of 2025). Total asset and wealth management fees were $3.077 billion, up 14% year-over-year, with asset management incentive fees up $183 million (42% year-over-year).
However, private banking and lending revenue was down 12% from last year, “reflecting the impact of lower deposit spreads related to Marcus deposits, partially offset by higher deposit balances,” according to the bank’s presentation released to investors (Marcus is the investment firm’s consumer banking division launched in October 2016).
In an earnings call for Q1, Chairman and CEO David Solomon expanded on this issue, saying there was an impact from “the more competitive environment for deposit raising,” which he expected to persist as a headwind for much of 2026.
“(In) our aggregate durable revenues in (asset and wealth management), we’re up high single digits for this most recent period, but it was a function of more strength on the management fee line and less performance in the private banking and lending line,” he said. “And we’d expect that to improve toward the end of the year heading into 2027.”
Earlier this month, Goldman Sachs claimed in a regulatory filing that its reliance on institutional investors rather than retail investors in its $15.7 billion private credit fund helped the firm escape the turmoil that hit industry peers like Blue Owl and BlackRock earlier this year.
However, the firm continued to be interested in private credit, with Solomon acknowledging during the call that while “there’s going to continue to be some noise around the retail space,” he nonetheless expects it to be “a very attractive platform” for the firm in the medium and long-term.
