Category: International Finance

25 Year-Old Beauty Seeks Rich Banker

This was posted on Craigslist last year:

‘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 an 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’.

An Investment Banker’s Response:

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 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’.

Atheists and the Stock Market – Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Taleb’s exposition of the Ludic fallacy:

“We love the tangible, the confirmation, the palpable, the real, the visible, the concrete, the known, the seen, the vivid, the visual, the social, the embedded, the emotional laden, the salient, the stereotypical, the moving, the theatrical, the romanced, the cosmetic, the official, the scholarly-sounding verbiage, the pompous Gaussian economist, the mathematicized crap, the pomp, the Academie Francaise, Harvard Business School, the Nobel Prize, dark business suits with white shirts and Ferragamo ties, the moving discourse, and the lurid. Most of all we favor the narrated.

Alas, we are not manufactured, in our current edition of the human race, to understand abstract matters — we need context. Randomness and uncertainty are abstractions. We respect what has happened, ignoring what could have happened. In other words, we are naturally shallow and superficial — and we do not know it. This is not a psychological problem; it comes from the main property of information. The dark side of the moon is harder to see; beaming light on it costs energy. In the same way, beaming light on the unseen is costly in both computational and mental effort.”

John Thain

Thain behaviour
FT
Published: January 23 2009 22:03 | Last updated: January 23 2009 22:03

What is it that bankers don’t get? Unable to own up to a collective failure, some still display a sense of entitlement that bears no relation to their current status as wards of the state supported by the taxpayer. Step forward John Thain.

Formerly of Goldman Sachs, he was feted just months ago for securing the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, just as Lehman Brothers crumbled into dust. BofA even paid a 70 per cent premium. Some deal. Some salvation.

It now emerges that Mr Thain brought forward about $4bn in discretionary bonuses, paying them out in the narrow window after the sale of Merrill was agreed but days before the deal was actually closed.

This wheeze went down just as Merrill headed into record $21.5bn operating losses in the fourth quarter and BofA started seeking additional taxpayers’ funds from the troubled asset relief programme to digest its acquisition.

These bonuses, moreover, came in a year when Merrill’s total operating loss was $41.2bn. Bonuses equivalent to 10 per cent of the profits would be excessive, but 10 per cent of the losses? Furthermore, reports that Mr Thain spent $1.22m doing up his office, including $1,400 on a parchment rubbish bin, after his arrival at Merrill last year will serve to feed popular perceptions that the greed and insensitivity of investment bankers knows few limits.

Whether or not the bonuses were legal – and it seems they were – outside the parallel universe of investment bankers they are seen as looting. Bankers played a very big part in setting fire to the world economy – and reaped large rewards for their recklessness. They are being supported with public money because the economy cannot work without banks, not because bankers should be a protected species.

There may be no tumbrils rolling down Wall Street or through the City of London but a backlash is building. It would be a pity if this translates into regulation more stifling than that required to restrain more foolish risk-taking. But if bankers behave like this, it certainly will.

Citibank

When Travelers chief executive Sandy Weill acquired Citibank for US$70bn in April 1998 he effectively forced a rewrite of the rules of financial regulation. The US system was set up in the 1930s to prevent a repeat of the crash that led to the Great Depression.

The Glass-Steagall Act kept investment banks on Wall Street separate from commercial and retail lenders on main street, so traders couldn’t bet bank deposits. It was effectively repealed during the dying days of the Clinton Presidency in November 1999.

The Citibank takeover, which brought together legendary bond trading house Salomon, acquired by Travelers in 1997, with one of America’s largest main street lenders, forced this issue out into the open.

It heralded a wave of similar deals, combining both sides of the banking business. Most notably in September 2000 Chase Manhattan bought JP Morgan for US$33bn shortly after it had snapped up UK investment bank Robert Fleming.

Soon afterwards inventive investment bankers made the most of the low interest rates put in place after the terrorist atrocities of September 11 2001 to create debt instruments that led ultimately to the current debacle.
Continue reading “Citibank” →

Ted Williams

Ted Williams was the most robust batter in baseball history. Williams discarded the strike zone and ignored umpire calls, instead creating his own personal batting zone. This was an area divided into 77 sub-sectors each the size of a baseball.

Through many trials, Williams determined that the probability distribution of him getting a hit was best in only nine of those zones. Using tremendous discipline in his set-up, he would only swing the bat if a pitch was in one of those nine zones. The results are recorded in baseball’s Hall of Fame.

If there was ever a time in market history when we all need to be Ted Williams, it’s now.