Gold digger seeking 'bad' business deal...
I found this article about a posting on a New York online dating scene hilarious.
A 25-year old woman posted an ad on an NYC dating site seeking a husband earning at least US$ 500,000 a year.
"I dated a business man who makes average around 200 - 250k. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. $250,000 won't get me to Central Park West," she said on the website.
A Wall Street banker, allegedly from JPMorgan Chase, has likened her request to a business transaction and concluded plainly that the deal is wishful thinking on her part. Read the article for the entire story.
Two pearls of wisdom stand out....
1. "...in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset," he said. "Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay 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!"
2. "It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease," he said.
Hilarious...
posted by Milan @ 10/14/2007 07:23:00 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I also find the woman's point of view very logical too.
See if you think about it, she is only seeking financial security institutionalised by marriage, and trading her looks and class for it.
Suppose these two get married, and after a while the looks begin to fade, the guy is open to look for physical attirbutes elsewhere, as long as he continues providing this woman with the financial security she seeks.
However, the guy is missing another point elsewhere. His future cashflows, given the nature of his profession, are not risk-free. She is not looking out for old money. She obviously wants a person who has made his own money in considerably risky professions like financial markets, or law.
The trade-offs are not risk-free for either one in the trade.
I see your point about the risk-return tradeoff. She is taking a risk in the guy, because of his risky future cash flows (as you mentioned). Hence, she deserves higher than normal returns. Whether those higher returns deserve to be as high as a $500,000 per annum package is an exercise in subjectivity. The diminishing
returns she will provide in terms of her looks MAY or MAY NOT merit the returns she is seeking.
I'm not sure, however, that your premise that financial security is ALL she is seeking is entirely valid. Certainly, her ad
seems to indicate that. But I'd think her demands in all likelihood will not be limited to this. We could run a probability
statistic on this and regress back.
I think you're right that nether party is risk-free, but I do believe the banker is bringing more to the table and she
has an arbitrage opportunity here...
Post a Comment
<< Home