From Craigslist;-
‘What am I doing wrong?
Okay, I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from New York. I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all.
Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board ? Any wives ? Could you send me some tips ? I dated a business man who made average of around 200 – 250K. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. $250,000 won’t get me to Central Park West. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker, and lives in Tribeca. She’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right ? How do I get to her level ?
Here are my questions specifically:
– Where do you single rich men hang out ? Give me specifics – bars, restaurants, gyms
– What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won’t hurt my feelings
– Is there an age range I should be targeting ?
– Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the Upper East Side so plain? I’ve seen really ‘Plain Jane’ boring types, who have nothing to offer incredibly wealthy guys. Then I’ve seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the East Village. What’s the story there ?
Lawyers, investment bankers, doctors. How much do those guys really make ? And where do the hedge fund guys hang out ?
How do you rich guys decide on marriage vs. just a girlfriend ? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY.
Please hold your insults – I’m putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial – at least I’m being up front about it. I wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them – in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice hearth and home’.
~o0o~
An investment banker responds..
‘I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I’m not wasting your time. I qualify as a guy who fits your bill – that is, I make more than $500K per year. That said, here’s how I see it:
Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is a plain and simple crappy business deal. Here’s why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here’s the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity – in fact, it is very likely that my income will increase, but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!
So, in economic terms, you are a depreciating asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, however your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain – you’re 25 now and will likely remain pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 – stick a fork in you!
So, in Wall Street terms, we’d call you a trading position – not a buy and hold…hence the rub…marriage. It doesn’t make good business sense to ‘buy you’ (which is what you’re asking) – so I’d rather lease. In case you think I’m being cruel, I would say the following: if my money were to go away, so would you so when your beauty fades I need an out too. It’s as simple as that. So the deal that makes sense for me is dating, not marriage.
Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as ‘articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful’ as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that, if you are as gorgeous as you say you are your $500K man hasn’t found you if only for a tryout.
By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn’t need to have this difficult conversation.
With all that said, I must say you’re going about it the right way. Classic ‘pump and dump’. I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, please let me know’.
~o0o~
The original poster responds..
‘Dear Investment Banker
I must confess that I was somewhat taken aback upon reading your e-mail. Indeed, it has taken some time for me to sufficiently recuperate from my surprise. Lest your confidence quickly inflate for little reason (as we know is the predisposition for Wall Street types), allow me to hasten to reassure you that the source of my surprise was neither your candor nor the accuracy of your perception. Indeed, it is your ‘claimed’ success in light of your poor grasp of economics which has me baffled. If the standards required to meet with financial success on Wall Street have sunk so low, perhaps I should indeed ‘make my own money’.
By now you are likely scratching your ever-vanishing hairline in confusion, so allow me to elaborate, dear man. To build some credibility I will tell you a bit more about yourself. It is absolutely clear that you are an investment banker and not a trader, as any good trader would understand that human courtships are based upon a semi-efficient open market, and not an investment banking cartel. However, your inability to grasp the realities of the dating market is not surprising, given that you have successfully employed the tools of collusion and market manipulation rather than true acumen in your pursuit of so-called ‘wealth’.
If your grasp of finance were not a minority partner with your ego, you would realize that the ‘outflows’ associated with my depreciating ‘assets’ are quite certain, and therefore subject to a low discount rate when determining their present value. In addition, though your concept of economics evidentially failed to move past the 1950s, advancement in plastic surgery is not subject to the same limitation. Thus, with some additional capital expenditure, the overall lifetime of ‘outflows’ generated by these assets is greatly increased. Sad that Ashton Kutcher has demonstrated understanding of the female asset class which you, in all of your financial ‘wisdom’, have not.
You, on the other hand, are, given the uncertainty of the Wall Street job market, more of an inflation-indexed junk bond with an underwater nested call option. Though you may argue that you are more of an equity investment, my monetary minimums required from you do not change, and if you are unable to pay them, I will liquidate you without the benefit of a Chapter 11 – just as you would me.
Because your outflows are so much more uncertain with respect to mine, I require additional compensation in the form of a underwater nested call option on your future assets. I say underwater because, even taking into account the value of your junk bond coupon payment to me, the value of my ‘outflow’ is in excess of the market price of your equity (which is quite low due to its riskiness associated with your poor grasp of finance, and my existing claim upon your junk bond coupon).
I must thank you though for raising these issues, despite the reputational cost of subjecting your weak logic to such widespread scrutiny. This took either considerable courage or ignorance on your part – but we’ll give you the benefit of doubt, just this once. My current boyfriend (a trader who lives in Central Park West, of course) and I thoroughly enjoyed discussing your response, and we wish you the best of luck in your unhappy pursuit of that elusive market inefficiency’.
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 27, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Michael
It’s an interesting example of our civilization forgetting about love and what marriage is about, but on the other hand: They’re both freaks, so what’s the problem here? We’re not freaks, and we do not try to chat up money-loving, freak women.
Even if we “normal” men and women get fewer and fewer, it’s a waste of time getting agitated about the mating rituals of scorpions. There’s nothing in it for us except watching our hearts getting poisoned too.
January 28, 2008 at 4:54 pm
bachelor tom
You mention love Michael. I agree that most people give and take affection more than the hypothetical relationship described in the article. We are genetically predisposed towards kinship and physical contact.
The female respondent did not answer the main issue the banker raised, that of her depreciating assets. Most women have sexual assets between the ages of 18 and 50 (or whenever menopause kicks in). At that point her value as a sexual asset approaches nil, in a strictly contractual arrangement (assuming the male in question has no geriatric fetish).
There are those who argue that marriage was always a calculated agreement. I don’t think it’s quite that simple, but I don’t believe in the romance script either.
January 28, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Jim
Oh, she tried to answer the point about depreciating assets; she mention plastic surgery. She apparently thinks that can make up for aging. It shouldn’t have to. There are lots of gorgeous women in thier 40’s who have never gone near that nonsense.
The romance script was never intended for marriage. It was intended for relationships with mistresses. It is major progress that we think it is part of marriage at all. We just haven’t gotten all the kinks worked out yet, if we ever do.
January 29, 2008 at 4:01 am
Davout
Although this woman has probably spent a few hours buried in a dictionary (and soliciting help from trader boyfriend, no doubt) crafting a reply, no amount of snarkiness and veneers of economic terminology can hide her cognitive dissonance and logical fallacies.
First she makes specific reference to an investment banker in her initial statement as a desirable mate. Then, upon reading an investment banker’s reply, she throws a hisssy fit and lambasts these bankers as victims to an uncertain job market, men with ‘vanishing hairlines’ and those whose confidence ‘inflates quickly for little reason’. Her cognitive dissonance is plainly evident when she tries to distinguish the traders as the moral superiors of investment bankers in order to validate her relationship with her current
suckerboyfriend.The entire screed of her reply is reminiscent of a petulant girl stamping her feet and pouting because the knight in shining armour bypassed her for women with better looks and attitude. Makes for a good laugh, nonetheless. I wonder if the Investment banker has delivered another smackdown.
February 3, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Khankrumthebulgar
Her angry Chip On The Shoulder attitude reminds me of a Female Attorney with Dewey Cheatem and Howe PC. Who has it in for her Man. Ask Terry G. Bollea aka. Hulk Hogan about his wife. Was it worth it? To be taken to the cleaners after 24 years and Millions of Dollars. No gratitude, five homes, renting one for $35,000 a month and still not enough.
Her attitude is mercenary and repellent. The fact is that Women’s beauty fades rapidly after 25. Their value to a Man is when they are an agreeable Pleasant companion, Mother to his Children, and somebody who offers solace for his challenges. Not somebody who wants to have a Dick measuring contest.
Plainer Women often have a better more realistic Attitude and are reasonable. Whereas exceptionally beautiful Women have under developed personalities and are often in an arrested state of Development. She appears to be both Unrealistic and Unreasonable.
February 5, 2008 at 6:37 pm
bachelor tom
The sad part is that contemporary women are deeply confused. They act like they are empowered and know what they want and how to get it, but it’s not true. Their anxiety and insecurity comes out in bad behaviour and projecting hostility onto men.
February 9, 2008 at 5:11 pm
M
Do we actually believe that she shared this with her current boyfriend? What a load of tripe she writes. It made me stupider just to read it. But I hope she sticks to her standards. Get her out of the gene pool.
July 18, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Ryan
The final response by the “woman” in this story seems to dance around aimlessly never touching long on any one point, all the while offering lots of speculation and opinion. Also there was no further rebuttal from the “banker” who wouldn’t have needed anything more than simple logic to prove her wrong all counts of her self indulged excuse. That being said the whole thing seems rather contrived and I would have difficulty believing it was written by more than one person whom obviously has a pro feminist point of view.
July 6, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Yo!
Wow, I though it was funny the way she got mad and resorted to crude insults.
And she’s 27 now, getting up there guys.
November 21, 2010 at 10:13 pm
gimmeaciggieyacarnt
what a bitch! damaged goods indeed!!
November 21, 2010 at 10:18 pm
haha
thank god for prenuptial agreements.
January 5, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Anonymous
i declare BS
All three parts were written by the same person. At least the last 2
I would bet my life that the person (character being portrayed) writing the first section did not and could not have written the third.
A man wrote the third for sure and possibly, the same man wrote all 3
April 27, 2012 at 8:11 pm
GRW
The Ashton Kutcher reference doesn’t hold much weight anymore either…
May 4, 2013 at 2:27 pm
senseiern
Her final comment is that she has a boyfriend. So, not only is she a depreciating asset, it is one that will possibly provide no return on initial investment if a larger investor comes along and buys you out in a bancrupcy sale.