What a sad day it must have been that the gold digger needed her boyfriend (although not a very educated one) to help her respond to the banker's initial reply. I really did my best trying to comprehend what the girl was saying in her reply. Alas, it sounded more like she was just going crazy with the financial thesaurus in a noble, yet vain attempt to sound somewhat educated.
I sure hope her boyfriend realizes what a tool she is -- then again, if he's as smart as she claims he is, he is smart enough to use her as well. Funny how things work. :-)
Although in her reply she does make one good point, "that the "outflows" associated with my depreciating "assets" are quite certain, and therefore subject to a low discount rate when determining their present value", the initial value of her looks are actually quite low. Let's move away from all those high and mighty economical terms and use some layman terms. End of the day, it's all about supply and demand, right?
She may be all new and shiny now, but just like a car that a proud owner bought off the dealer lot, every year that goes by her value depreciates, as do the car. Why? Cause every year that goes by a newer and better model comes along, plus one always needs to account for regular wear and tear. Plastic surgery is like some individual's vain attempt to keep their cars contemporary by putting a silly body kit or "rims" on their 1980 Pontiac Grand AM. Everyone's seen Joan Rivers -- she's probably had more plastic surgery than any human being I know. I still would rather have a Victoria Secret model.
The reply, nevertheless, is entertaining. BTW -- to the mystery girl if she ever comes across this blog. Ashton was smart because he married someone who was wealthy, and well connected to an industry he struggled in. In your proposal, you are more like Ashton than Demi. Well, actually, you really have nothing of value (a gold digger is a gold digger is, well, a gold digger).
Sad part is, if you really are as pretty as you claim, you probably won't need to worry about money. At least that's what the latest Victoria Secret catalog has taught my young, malleable mind.
To the gentleman who called me a depreciating asset
Date: 2007-10-11, 8:23AM EDT
Dear Sir,
I must confess that I was somewhat taken aback upon reading your email. 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 St. 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 St. have sunk so low, perhaps I should indeed "make my own money", except for the fact that the effort/reward ratio is far too high for my liking - especially when so many of your ilk have displayed a far more cogent grasp of market realities than you have.
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. Though you did not mention the details of your occupation, it is 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 that true acumen in your supposed wealth generation.
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 St. 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 the question, despite the reputation cost of subjecting your weak logic to such widespread scrutiny. This took either considerable courage or ignorance on your part- and 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.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 445962092
No comments:
Post a Comment