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.