Craigslist Ad Circulating on Email
THIS AD APPEARED ON CRAIG'S LIST:
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.
PostingID: 432279810
THE ANSWER:
Dear Pers-431649184:
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 cr@ppy 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 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.
3 comments:
I saw this email yesterday. FUNNY and it made the news.
Marriage Seeker Gets Short Shrift
A Central Park address was an essential part of the "bargain". A 25 year-old woman who advertised for a husband earning at least $500,000 a year in New York failed to get her hoped-for response from one reader.
The woman, who described herself as "spectacularly beautiful", also asked for names of bars and restaurants frequented by "single rich men".
But one reply claimed that her offer was a bad "business deal".
The unknown correspondent argued that the advertiser's main "assets" would "depreciate" sharply over time.
It remains unclear whether the advert - let alone the response - is genuine, or a spoof.
'Simple trade'
In the original ad, posted on the personals website Craigslist.com, the author claimed an income of $250,000 a year wasn't large enough to "get her" to Central Park West, one of New York's most desirable residential neighbourhoods.
People might think that this guy's response about women being depreciating assets is not exactly how they want their firm to be perceived by the public
John Carney, DealBroker.com.
The response, also posted on Craigslist, said this amounted to a pitch for a "simple trade" in which "you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money".
The reply's writer - who said his income topped $500,000 a year - claimed his earnings would appreciate significantly during the lifetime of a marriage.
But he went on to say the proposal was not "efficient" in a pure financial sense since "your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity".
The exchange, which has been spread by e-mail and read by thousands of people, sparked an intense cyber-debate about who had written the response.
It appeared to be signed by an employee of the investment banking arm of US bank JP Morgan Chase.
But a company spokesman told the New York Times that the individual concerned had not written the posting.
His signature had appeared beneath the reply because he had forwarded an e-mail message with a link to the posting to friends, it added.
One financial journalist said the real identity of the responder was unlikely to emerge if he actually worked on Wall Street.
"In the age of ultra-sensitivity to sexual harassment, people might think that this guy's response about women being depreciating assets is not exactly how they want their firm to be perceived by the public," said John Carney, editor of DealBroker.com.
There is a response from the OP now circulating:
To the gentleman who called me a depreciating asset - 25 (Financial District)
Reply to: pers-445962092@craigslist.org
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 yo ur 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 de termining 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 underwate r 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.
I would say that her "trader boyfriend" must not be supplying her with the funds she demands or must be seriously lacking in other departments. This is evident in that she posted her, rather desperate proposition in the first place.
She should also be informed that a trader, from an investment banker's standpoint, is merely a cog in the machinery that is Wall Street. "IBs" make use of these "cogs" to facilitate the vertical movement of the companies that are brought to market by the investment bankers. Take away the investment bankers and you have no product, remove the trader and replace him with a very fast computer, and the industry continues to thrive. Possibly in an improved fashion.
Investment bankers rely on the efficiency of the market whereas traders rely on its inefficiencies, which are quickly being corrected due the high speed of today's computers.
Post a Comment