May 31, 2011
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Economically, I would have to defer to the generic letter, in terms of the message content. Personally, I would prefer pre-set, periodically reviewed salaries for all, plus bonuses from earnings out of own investments, without having the power to dictate in any way the level of these bonuses.
You are the only one I came to "know", through your textbook in macroeconomics, a course I only audited while being enrolled in a microeconomics class, in my last semester as a graduate student. I won't go through how the whole affair took me down, or how much it could be my fault. I will only say that in North America, a university professor is waiting for more than a year now to be "vetted"
as a (math) "teacher" by the patronizing organization of his ... "peers".
Sir, education is catastrophic for multiple reasons, chiefly among them substandard curricula and lack of discipline among students, plus substandard professional qualification of teachers (and their lack of means to impose discipline). They obsess with "how" to teach it and are ridiculous at "what" they teach. Reason overall seems to be undue influence of business (utter lack of interest from students, unqualified influence of parents and many others aside).
Here is a piece of evidence for you (all):
Textbook commonly used in high schools and universities:
- between 80 and 100 dollars
- written by education experts, none - as far as I know - with PhDs
- pitifully simplified contents
Check it out:
Textbook only those in-the-know have heard of (same publishing
- 18.95 dollars
- written by just two university professors - with PhDs, of course
- contents probably world class, covering up to first year in university (although some parts of the world had even higher levels, through their supplementary books)
You can see it here:
In the world I have access to, nobody knows or is willing to explain these two textbooks existing side by side. The rumor has it, it's business.
Generic letter below:
America paid a terrible economic price because of irresponsible risk-taking by Wall Street executives. Those executives took those risks because they knew that they could walk away with billions of dollars in bonuses and stock options and never pay for the long-term consequences of their actions. We need tough rules so that Wall Street pay packages don't encourage short-term risk taking.
Your rules should require at least a five year deferral period for executive bonuses at big banks, ban executive hedging of their pay packages, and require specific details from banks on precisely how they ensure that executives will share in the long-run risks created by their decisions. It should apply to the full range of important financial institutions, and draw in all the key executives at those companies.
Once this rule is passed, only you will know the details of its enforcement. But it's important for the public to know the progress you are making on this vital issue. You should report back to the public annually with a detailed report on progress in creating accountability for Wall Street pay.
Referencing Docket No.'s:
OTS: RIN 155-AC49
OCC: RIN 1557-AD39
Fed: RIN 7100-AD69
SEC: RIN 3235-AL06
FHFA: RIN 2590-AA42
FDIC: RIN 3064-AD56
Mr. Ad Du