Wall Street Traders Send Frustrated, Typo-Riddled Letter to Congress
Financial executives have spent so much time testifying before Congress these days that earlier this week, The Hill offered CEOs a Dos-and-Don'ts guide to staying on lawmakers' good side. Something tells me that the good folks at the Security Traders Association of New York (STANY) haven't read it.
In a letter to the Senate Banking Committee today, the STANY offers a hilariously hyperbolic plea for rejection of the 90% tax on bailout bonuses that the House passed last week. You can read the full letter right here, but here are some key passages ...
... here, STANY visibly shakes its collective head at the idea of a bonus tax, asking senators what the Founding Fathers would make of congressional anger over executive compensation:
Whether retroactive, punitive taxes upon bonuses that were contractually mandated prior to the government's involvement in A.I.G. are legally immutable or not, the use of taxation to punish a select group violates the principals upon which this country was founded. The government's reaction to the bonuses undermines businesses' faith in the government, which will frustrate the purposes of the relief programs aimed at economic recovery. At a time when the government is unveiling programs to encourage private investor to partner with it, we need a government that can be counted on to not change the rules of the game.
Then STANY goes on to suggest that any limits on executive bonuses might force businesses to not cooperate with the Treasury Department's new bank rescue plan:
This kind of retroactive, emotional rulemaking negatively impacts the incentive of parties to do business with the government and with firms that partner with the government. Now is the time when Wall Street and the federal government should be working together to implement viable solutions to improve the economy. Reactionary policies, such as H.R. 1586 serve to make businesses leery of such a partnership.
Even as the STANY praises AIG executive Jake DeSantis for his resignation op-ed in yesterday's New York Times, it admits that DeSantis could have feigned the whole thing:
Whether this letter which has received a tremendous amount of buzz since being posted is a legitimate resignation letter or not, the sentiments are shared by many on Wall Street.
The letter contains at least 10 grammatical errors, according to my informal count -- including the spelling of President Obama's name as "Barak". Perhaps The Hill can write a follow-up with tips on how to draft a letter to the Capitol.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Yeah, threatening/blackmailing the Government is going to go over well with folks.
March 26, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to be working like a charm for them so far.
March 26, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE WANTS ARE BONUSEZ RITE NOW!
March 26, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snicker...
March 26, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I like about this is them decrying "changing the rules in the middle of the game". This from the crowd that decided to change the rules on pensions to enrich themselves and screw the average people, the crowd that switched the rules and decided that selling out their fellow citizens' jobs and sending them overseas in order to enrich themselves. Tax the crap out of em! Don't stop at their bonuses, raise the top rate to 95%, tax them till they're actually poor and have to find real jobs like the rest of us.
March 26, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That letter is just awful. Did nobody proofread this? Apparently, securities traders are not required to have a college education.
March 26, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wanna bet the writer is a Regent University alumni?
March 26, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for being pedantic, but I'd like to point out that the singular for "alumni" is "alumnus"…
That letter contains one of my worst pet peeves, however: the use of "principal" when "principle" is meant.
March 27, 2009 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you -- you saved me the trouble! ;-)
March 27, 2009 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the repugs are bound to jump on board pretty soon. Maybe Michele Bachmann will sell these self-important buffoons an assault weapon or two.
March 26, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I like about this is them decrying "changing the rules in the middle of the game". This from the crowd that decided to change the rules on pensions to enrich themselves and screw the average people, the crowd that switched the rules and decided that selling out their fellow citizens' jobs and sending them overseas in order to enrich themselves. Tax the crap out of em! Don't stop at their bonuses, raise the top rate to 95%, tax them till they're actually poor and have to find real jobs like the rest of us.
March 26, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bone Us?
March 26, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent.
March 26, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bueller?
I had no idea our country was founded on principals. Do all our principals know this?
I thought "No taxation without representation" was a founding principle, not "no taxation".
This is truly am embarrassment.
March 26, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more I look at this letter, the more errors I find. I didn't catch that one, nice find.
March 26, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fare, tey may be working on the basis of some bague high school history recollection of the Intolorable Acts.
Because getting paid by the taxpayers for wrecking the economy is totally the same thing as the Boston Tea Party.
March 26, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all fairness, they have probably never seen the word "principles," as well as have any personal knowledge of its meaning. On the other hand, "principals" is a primary term in any contract.
March 26, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty easy to explain this. These poor guys probably had to lay off their 15 blonde secretaries, who do all the spelling and grammar work in the company. You don't think finance frat boys actually ever deign to write anything, do you?
March 26, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just a beaut of a sentence:
The expectation will be enforced? Contracts must a reasonable expectation? How do you legally enter a contract?
If my students submitted writing of this caliber, I'd gently suggest they visit the writing lab.
March 26, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just bizarre. How did that sentence make it into a letter sent the the US Senate?
BTW, I think she meant to write "*there* must be a reasonable expectation", not "they". But that only partially fixes this travesty of grammar.
March 26, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's startling is that two people signed it, which should mean that at least two people read it, and didn't catch the problems.
Ouch.
March 26, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He, its more attention to detail than they gave to investigating the riskiness of those CDO's they were "insuring."
March 26, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
Pretty much explains who we got here.
March 26, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who, how. . .what's the diff, anyway?
March 26, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
With so many grammatical errors, it makes you wonder if impostors wrote the letter because there's no way a group like that could send one so poorly written.
March 26, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I'm all for making fun of grammatically-challenged traders, but Elana? Honey? The letter isn't frustrated (though the mental image of a piece of paper wringing its hands certainly is entertaining). The letter expresses frustration. See, there's a difference. And when you're up there with a byline on a major website, I rather hope you're a better writer than my 14-year-old.
March 26, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"honey"?
March 26, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bitch much?
March 26, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I mean is this bitching about the meaning of "frustrated" is kinda, well, frustrating.
It's a blog. Posts are done quickly, and grammar, usage, sometimes take a back seat. That's regrettable, but hardly reason to act like a real jerk, and be patronizing toward Elana.
Yeah, I just defended you Elana, but don't get used to it!
March 26, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goodness, usually the folks here are absolutely vicious toward the slightest mistake on the part of the reporters. I missed the memo that this time is different.
I retract the "honey" and will consider swapping it for "bitch," as that is the accepted terminology. (You say that like it's a bad thing ...?)
For the record, I am a professional writer, (though, sadly, lacking the prestigious MA in journalism), and I make plenty of mistakes, but I sincerely hope if I do it while mocking others (who presumably did not attend Columbia J-school), someone would call me on it.
I apologize for spoiling your fun.
I'm new here ... your point is taken.
March 26, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me for a few mill a year they could find scare up some "best-er" and "brightest-er" securities traders.
Seriously, shouldn't six or seven figures a year buy you someone who knows to proofread business letters?
March 26, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mean "besterer."
March 26, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another fun one, mostly because I like to pile-on:
"Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has stated that he was counseled not to bringing suit against AIG to prevent the payments, lending credence to our belief that at least as far as legal arguments are concerned payment of the bonuses by AIG was appropriate."
Let's see, "counseled to not bringing suit". Run-on sentence. Passive voice. Horribly awkward.
March 26, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's plenty to pile on upon.
(channeling the letter writers...)
March 26, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is clownish.
Reminds me this Chik-Fil-A ad...
http://www.foundshit.com/images/eat-more-chikin.jpg
March 26, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a Chic-fil-A ad.
March 26, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Fourth paragraph from the top. "In principal". There it is again!
March 26, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they've got morgage pavements on there mines.
March 26, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the letter:
We'd like to call your attention to a letter of dubious authenticity?
Go on....
So did Jason "Jake" DeSantis not resign? Or did he accept a position with A.I.G.F.P. and decide to return to A.I.G. Clearing Corporation rather than resign? Or did he never really make a move from the A.I.G. Clearing Corporation to head up A.I.G.F.P.?
March 26, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are missing some commas there - before "which" and after "posted". Also, do you really want to use the word "buzz" in a letter to Congress?
This letter is so bad. So, so bad.
March 26, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, the letter is laughably bad. It reads like it was written over a liquid lunch.
But I find myself distracted by the fact that the President and Executive Director of the Security Traders Association of New York are interested in continuing to manage perception with a letter they suggest may not be, to use their word, "legitimate".
March 26, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think what they are getting at is that the letter was written as an op-ed and probably wasn't the actual letter that he resigned with. Maybe it is, but I doubt it. He was just using the "resignation letter" format for its effect.
March 26, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That struck me as well. They're saying "Hey, that letter might be a fake, but it really expresses how a lot of people feel". They're undermining their own cause.
OR should that be "Their undermining they're own cause"?
March 26, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's like eric the red said, they're acknowledging that the op-ed and the actual letter of resignation are two physically different things.
It's always possible. But why?
When they couldn't even be bothered to spell President Obama's name correctly, why did they feel the need to become pedantic about something like that?
March 26, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the bio page for this organization. The letter signers are Lisa Utasi and Kimberly Unger.
http://www.stany.org/Home/about_us/board_of_directors.aspx
Utasi has a degree from SMU and Unger is a lawyer. (she was even on the Law Review) YIKES!
March 26, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they've just spent too much time surfing Lolcats.
March 26, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
They need that money to continue paying for remedial English classes.
March 26, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume by "reactionary" the authors of the letter mean "reactive".
March 26, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
They might have been referring to themselves as "reactionary." So "Reactionary policy" could be policies to punish reactionaries. No? Never mind.
March 26, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
They really mean reactionary. They used it in the very first paragraph, too: "...we are writing to express our concern about the reactionary policies..."
March 26, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, hell, they don't know which one to pick. The very next sentence is "We oppose the style of reactive politics....blah..blah..blah"
March 26, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What??? A Wall St. trader might have faked a resignation letter in order to get public sympathy for his lavish lifestyle? (#@)(%)(&^)(#$^__+#%*^*G($)JG)($*&$^$ 'IM!!!!!!!!!
March 26, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I've read all these comments and it was very entertaining so I looked at the letter. I couldn't get past the first sentence. It ends with "...we are writing to express our concerns about the reactionary policies of the past few weeks, culminating in the House with the introduction of H.R.1586."
Would not the "culminating in the House" really when the House passed HR 1586 on 328-93 vote? I find it odd that merely introducing legislation is its culmination, when in this case it actually passed. Just wondering.
March 27, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Back off, folks.
The letter was by Yoda wrote.
March 27, 2009 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, give 'em a break! They never had to write letters before, all they needed to do was funnel the cash in amounts sufficient for TV time and sit back and reap the benefits. This begging letter stuff is all new to them.
March 27, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink