一个年轻漂亮的美国女孩在美国一家大型网上论坛金融版上发表了这样一个问题帖：我要怎样才能嫁给有钱人？
“我下面要说的都是心里话。本人25岁，非常漂亮，是那种令人惊艳的漂亮，谈吐文雅，有品味，想嫁给年薪50万美元的人。你也许会说我贪心，但在纽约年薪 100万才算是中产，本人的要求其实并不高。这个版上有没有年薪超过50万的人？你们都结婚了吗？我想请教你们各位一个问题――――怎样才能嫁给你们这样的有钱人？我约会过的人当中，最有钱的年薪 25万，这似乎是我的上限了。要住进纽约中央公园以西的高尚住宅区，年薪25万远远不够。我是来诚心诚意请教的。有几个具体的问题:
1， 有钱的单身汉一般都在哪里消磨时光？（请列出酒吧，饭店，健身房的名字和详细地址）
2， 我应该把目标定在哪个年龄段？
3， 为什么有些富豪的妻子看起来相貌平平？我见过那些女人，长相如同白开水，毫无吸引人的地方，但她们却能嫁入豪门。4你们怎么决定谁能做妻子，谁只能做女朋友？我现在的目标是结婚！
――――波尔斯女士 "
下面是R. Kanber, an economist 的回帖：
“亲爱的波尔斯女士：我怀着的极大的兴趣看完了贵帖，我相信有不少女士有跟你类似的疑问。让我以一个投资家的身份，来分析一下你的处境。我年薪超过50万，完全符合你的择偶标准，所以请相信我并不是在浪费大家的时间。
从生意人的角度来看，跟你结婚是个糟糕的决策，道理再明白不过，请听我解释。抛开细枝末节，你所说的其实是笔简单的财貌交易：甲方提供迷人的外表，乙方出钱，公平交易，童叟无期。
但是，这里有个致命的问题，你的美貌会必然消失掉，而我的钱一般不会无缘无故的减少，事实上，我的收入一直足年增加，但你不可能一年比一年漂亮！
因此，从经济学的角度来讲，我是增值资产，你是贬值资产，不但贬值，而且加速贬值！你现在25岁，在未来的5年里，你仍可以保持苗条的身材，俏丽的容貌，虽然每年略有退步，但美丽消失的速度会越来越快！如果它是你仅有的资产，十年后，你的价值堪忧！用我们华尔街的术语来说，每笔交易都有一个仓位，跟你的交往属于一个“交易仓位”(trading position)，一旦价值下跌趋势成立就要立即抛售，而不宜长期持有――――也就是你想要的婚姻。
听起来似乎很残酷，但对于一件会加速贬值的物资，就是如此。明智的选择是租赁，而不是购入。华尔街年薪能超过50万美元的人，当然都不是傻瓜，因此我们只会和你交往玩玩，但不会和你结婚。所以我劝你不要苦苦寻找嫁给有钱人的秘方。
顺便说句，你捣可以想办法把自己变成年薪50万的人，这比碰到一个有钱的傻瓜的胜算要大！
希望我的回帖能对你有所帮助。如果你对我的“租赁”感兴趣，请跟我联系...... "
Such a clever answer! I think the above advice is super to all women!
3 comments:
the english version was funnier.
rent... hahaha
I tried to find the English version but couldn't..
This is a real world example, taken from craigslist.org. some postings are entertaining, so are just plain mean.
Enjoy!
PS. For those of you way out of the loop, people post personals on Craig’s List.
THIS APPEARED ON CRAIG'S LIST the other day:
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 makes average around 200 - 250. 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, and 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 (I'm 25)?
- 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 married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?
- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?
- How you decide 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 home and hearth.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests Craig's List PostingID:
THE ANSWER
Dear Pers-:
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 plain and simple a 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 to grow...in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't be getting any more beautiful!
So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! 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!
So in Wall Street terms, we would 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. It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense 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 that the $500K hasn't found you, if not 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, let me know.
Head of Equity Sales and Sales Trading
600 Fifth Avenue 15th Floor
New York, New York 10020
And the lady replied:
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.
Post a Comment