Retorts to the $500k Email Surface on CL
By BankersBall on Oct 11, 2007 in Cube Life, Emails & Diversions, Girlfriend!
The $500k email may take the cake as the most-forwarded around banker email EVER. It’s gotten the attention of the mainstream press at ABC News, where they bothered to go interview bankers on Wall Street in between — get this — mouthfuls of Chipotle. Here’s “Kevin”, speaking about an unfortunate JPMorgan banker whose email signature caused a case of bigtime mistaken identity…
“I feel terrible for the kid,” said 30-year-old banker Kevin, who was downing a quick burrito at Chipotle around the corner from the New York Stock Exchange Tuesday. “He got the e-mail just like the rest of us.”
Meanwhile, Kevin’s older colleague “David” reminisced about the old days when gold digging was honest:
“Back in the day, they’d go to the World Trade Center and hang out at Moran’s,” said David, 37. “They’d come in three or four at a time and buzz the whole crowd. All the traders had a certain look, and they’d start to introduce themselves.”
Back over on Craigslist, a lady (dating a trader, no less) has fired back (full text below). Here’s an snippet:
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.
Ouch! Another — in typical banker fashion — calls the anon Wall Street Guy out for not being dorky enough. All of this banker action on CL seems to have put some ideas in another person’s head (”m4m”/ “strictly platonic”). So who isn’t looking for a banker on CL?
——————————————————-
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 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.
On Oct 12, 2007, harvey said:
1) what kind of banker leaves his desk for lunch?
2) people who excessively use “indeed,” “despite,” “therefore,” and “thus” are trying to compensate for inferior IQ.
On Oct 12, 2007, matt said:
wow, she is trying WAY too hard to sound smart
On Oct 12, 2007, Anonymous said:
i agree. i hate it when people try to fluff up their prose with ajectives such as “ever-vanishing.” clearly is a trader and never written anything cohesive in a business context.
On Oct 12, 2007, jeff lebowski said:
totally agree. i hate it when people try to fluff up their prose with hyphenated ajectives like “ever-vanishing.” clearly she is a trader (or maybe works in marketing), and has never written anything cohesive in a business context.
On Oct 12, 2007, Anon said:
Bottom Line Analysis
For Women: Money does not buy happiness. Boo Hoo!!!
For Men: Money does buy pussy. Yipee Skippey!!
On Oct 12, 2007, James said:
Apparently the responding woman confirms the old adage that she’s a whore; it’s just the price that’s up for negotiation. Exhibit A that an iron-clad, bulletproof prenup is required for those of us who are fortunate enough to be successful when dealing with the “fairer” sex.
On Oct 12, 2007, anon said:
indeed
On Oct 12, 2007, ops said:
…and she has a boyfriend? was he a part of her original offer? i wonder how much of that response he wrote for her
On Oct 13, 2007, Elvis said:
this applies to both men and women: Life is empty without true love - find some one who you really care/love - money can’t buy the happiness.
On Oct 14, 2007, BigLaw said:
This woman sucks. Whoever she is, she probably had someone who obviously doesn’t know how to write clearly to write it out for her.
On Oct 14, 2007, 6655321 said:
Is this woman actually suggesting that make-up covered and silicone-injected 40yo women are as hot as natural 20yo women?
What a fool.
Wake up, you’re only as good as your last wrinkle
On Oct 15, 2007, john said:
this is not the orginal author. either some imposter, or the girl flirted with some tool who then wrote it for her (who no doubt thought he could get some action)
On Oct 15, 2007, scottay said:
she should post a pic. that would end the discussion of whether she’s right or not. full body length too.
On Oct 15, 2007, Anonymous said:
that response was stupid
On Oct 15, 2007, Haha said:
Wtf is that girl talking about?
On Oct 16, 2007, Yaaar said:
I’ll bet that girl lies on her back and doesn’t make a peep during sex.
On Oct 16, 2007, anon said:
verbal diarhea…guys, in all likelihood, she is just some fat nasty douche bag…those are the kinds of women who usually frequent craigslist anyway.
On Oct 16, 2007, idiots said:
clearly both these responces stem from bankers. As they are idiotic and appears to be written at 4 in the morning. Please stick with your powerpoints.
On Oct 16, 2007, BigLaw said:
I have to say a second time, this response was stupid.
On Oct 18, 2007, SHA said:
It’s such a classic, all the guys have to “support” each other and be negative about the girl. I read both posts and as much as He had arguments, she has strong arguments, so please forget your egos and accept a cat as a cat!
On Oct 18, 2007, Mr Right said:
the most intelligent messages take but a sentence to convey… think about it.
ps. im drunk
pps, wtf is mr ‘a cat is a cat’ on about. no need for irreleveant metaphors.
On Oct 19, 2007, SHA said:
Mr Right,
sober up and you may just be right. Until then, use your hands just to hold that bottle and keep you away from talking!
On Dec 14, 2007, 5150 said:
It’s like she copied and pasted out of wikipedia or investopedia.com. In a clearly ineffective attempt to make herself look intelligent she says “perhaps I should indeed “make my own money” except for the fact that the effort/reward ratio is far too high for my liking”. Considering she clearly spent days if not weeks writing this while simultaneously stewing over the initial response, she should consider taking her own advice and do something more efficient (i.e. get a life and contribute to society somehow instead of becoming another Paris Hilton (who is useless)) than writing Craigslist posts which will surely lead to her being ridiculed further.
On Dec 17, 2007, Silent Dave said:
No way, SHA. Girls don’t talk during sex (or the ball gag is loose!). If they stray from the script, you’ve paid too much…
or to lil?
On Dec 20, 2007, Anonymous said:
Ball gag? Like any one of you ibankers know how to truly dominate, or use a sub. women. I would not be surprised if you enjoy being gagged, and objectified. You’re all pussies.
On Dec 21, 2007, Bye's birdie said:
I think you guys are missing the point.
The guy’s post was funny. This girl’s is not. I demand to be entertained.
On Dec 27, 2007, JMBC said:
Weak. Think she found an associate level banking FEMALE friend, some-wet-behind-the-ears MBA, or some baggage laiden M&A lawyer to write this. Can just picture it now-the two scrolling through her texts trying to use advanced-sounding finance speak. Garbage.
And to the loser who calls “I bankers” (such a rookie term) pussies…Why the hatred? Sour grapes, perhaps? Couldn’t even get one to “hook up” with you for a one nighter? You must be a sorry troll.
On Dec 27, 2007, JMBC said:
TO SHA:
“It’s such a classic, all the guys have to “support” each other and be negative about the girl. I read both posts and as much as He had arguments, she has strong arguments, so please forget your egos and accept a cat as a cat!”
What the fuck ever are you talking about? Strong aruments? We are expected to believe that this twit, who only a few months ago, wanted so badly to meet investment bankers and the such (who earn over 500k), suddenly learned all this financial lingo and shot back with sound arguments? C’mon.
Wouldn’t be surprised if she used all her pole dancing money to pay some tormented out of work poet to write this.
On Dec 27, 2007, too many jokers said:
“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.”
Ah… a few weeks before you were desperately seeking a boyfriend who was a “trader”, investment banker, doctor, or lawyer. But wait! Suddenly that is no longer an issue. Why??? Because not only did you find a boyfriend since your pathetic posting, but you found what you always wanted. A “trader.” Oooooh. Wow. And to boot he lives on Central Park West!!! Waaaah! You honey, are so cool; you have it all. Furthermore you and the new bo are kickin back, enjoying the good times while laughing at this poor “ever-vanishing hairline” fool. (Fool being tongue and check of course-the guy basically made a complete mockery of you and your sorry endeavor. Nice try with your absurdly pretentious comeback.)
Or maybe this Central Park West “trader” was the 200-250k guy you spoke so graciously about in your pursuit of the 500k man.
On Mar 3, 2008, Liv said:
Perhaps this guy would be a good match - he does sound professional.
http://london.craigslist.co.uk/lab/590392600.html