In my opinion finance has never really been part of pop culture. In fact, the stereotypical "finance geek" has been the paradigm of un-cool in the world. Sure, there is the occaisional film about the finance world (Wall Street, Boiler Room, Trading Places), but those are really financial world cult classics. The average person doesn't really care much for them. Recently, however, I have come across a strange phenomenon. Wall Street is really becoming part of main street.
Why did I come to this conclusion? It's a long weekend, and I was watching a new pop-culture phenomenon over lunch. I watched an episodes of this new show "Gossip Girl" online over lunch (don't ask). While I probably won't be watching another episode, it did provide me with some amusing insights into pop culture.
Normal people don't use the term "done" in normal conversation other than "I'd like my steak well done." These kids were regularly using "done" as a phrase in itself to communicate something being agreed upon. I think this clearly came from the trader's lexicon: "Bid fifty ten year notes." "Done." Normal people don't talk like that. Only market players talk like that. Apparently though, the new breed of teens out there are. Interesting, no? Maybe I'm extrapolating too much about pop culture from one episode of some teen show, but I don't think I'm extrapolating too much. Media does define language, afterall.
I suppose this progression is not too surprising with how much press Wall Street is getting lately. Hedge funds and investment banks are becoming part of everyday conversation. They're constantly in the news, and while they always stood as an illustration of wealth/greed they now stand as the glorified exemplars of wealth creation. Everyone thinks of bankers/traders and associates them with wealth and excitement. Well. . . maybe not so much excitement but some form of living the dream life. It's like investment types are starting to gain rock-star status.
Showing posts with label Off Topic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Off Topic. Show all posts
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Monday, July 9, 2007
A Sad Moment
Sorry for the sparse postings last week. I took a bit of a vacation and couldn't peel myself away long enough to blog.
Anyway, it's worth your time to get an update of the news in the morning. This sort of thing used to be almost required of every intern and new associate out there. Nowadays, it seems, the ubiquity of easy media (i.e. the internet) seems to be making people lazy. The tone of the morning news sets the tone of the markets for the day. It's a good way to not only get the opinion of the masses, but every once in a while it keys you into something that you might have otherwise missed. You should find some way to get your news. RSS feeds, podcasts, newspapers, anything will do, but do be sure to get your morning dose of news. It really does help.
This morning I had a sad moment on my way to work. I listen to the WSJ and NYT podcasts on the way to work in the morning. I find it to be a great way to catch up with a lot of the news that I may miss during the day or overnight (I walk to work, so I can't really read the paper on the way in). The NYT Tech Talk podcast had a special on the iPhone. They claimed that the iPhone release was our generation's lunar landing. That somehow the ubiquity of the release paralleled the ubiquity of people watching the lunar landing. . . that's just sad. I disagree completely that those are even vaguely comparable. The lunar landing was a huge step in human discovery and exploration. The iPhone is a toy. It's like saying beanie babies were a huge turning point in American history. How depressing.
Anyway, it's worth your time to get an update of the news in the morning. This sort of thing used to be almost required of every intern and new associate out there. Nowadays, it seems, the ubiquity of easy media (i.e. the internet) seems to be making people lazy. The tone of the morning news sets the tone of the markets for the day. It's a good way to not only get the opinion of the masses, but every once in a while it keys you into something that you might have otherwise missed. You should find some way to get your news. RSS feeds, podcasts, newspapers, anything will do, but do be sure to get your morning dose of news. It really does help.
This morning I had a sad moment on my way to work. I listen to the WSJ and NYT podcasts on the way to work in the morning. I find it to be a great way to catch up with a lot of the news that I may miss during the day or overnight (I walk to work, so I can't really read the paper on the way in). The NYT Tech Talk podcast had a special on the iPhone. They claimed that the iPhone release was our generation's lunar landing. That somehow the ubiquity of the release paralleled the ubiquity of people watching the lunar landing. . . that's just sad. I disagree completely that those are even vaguely comparable. The lunar landing was a huge step in human discovery and exploration. The iPhone is a toy. It's like saying beanie babies were a huge turning point in American history. How depressing.
Friday, June 29, 2007
How Annoying. . .
So I noticed a rather sudden and significant drop in my readership this week. At first I thought it was just noise, but it persisted for a few days. I then realized my facebook account had been disabled, and I assume a fair number of you found this site through facebook. It seemed to be the perfect place to advertise since it's mostly college students (and college students then look for jobs). Anyway, it would be nice if I could gain back some of that readership, so if you guys could help spread the word of this blog, that'd be helpful. Readership numbers keep me engaged (and much like other things in life, I like seeing the little numbers tick up).
Cheers,
QT
Cheers,
QT
Monday, June 25, 2007
Risk vs Reward
I was reminded today that everything should be looked at in a risk-reward trade-off. As soon as you forget this basic rule, you start taking on unnecessary risk. In reality, your mind should subtley be judging every word you speak and every action you take in terms of the risks you take and the rewards offered. I had forgotten this simple fact and taken on some unnecessary risks that a friend kindly reminded me to avoid.
Risks come in all flavours. There is, of course, the simple financial risk taken by people every day in the markets, but there are many other forms. Operational risk effects the ability of an entity to perform it's daily routines. Reputation risk effects how people will view you in the future. Career risk effects how you might be viewed in the office. Personal risks effect your personal life (perhaps whether or not you score that hot date). Risks come in all forms, and throughout life you should be analyzing the risks involved in your life. I know when I take the time to think about it, I take on a lot more risk every day than I normally realize.
The NYC subways now have an ad campaign that states something along the lines of "find the upside of risk." You should never be afraid to take risk, for with no risk comes no reward, but take constant calculated risks and make sure you're never blindsided.
Risks come in all flavours. There is, of course, the simple financial risk taken by people every day in the markets, but there are many other forms. Operational risk effects the ability of an entity to perform it's daily routines. Reputation risk effects how people will view you in the future. Career risk effects how you might be viewed in the office. Personal risks effect your personal life (perhaps whether or not you score that hot date). Risks come in all forms, and throughout life you should be analyzing the risks involved in your life. I know when I take the time to think about it, I take on a lot more risk every day than I normally realize.
The NYC subways now have an ad campaign that states something along the lines of "find the upside of risk." You should never be afraid to take risk, for with no risk comes no reward, but take constant calculated risks and make sure you're never blindsided.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
This made me smile
A rather observant private equity guy just started a blog. I know I'll be reading it.
http://strikershank.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Economics of Dating
So I was at the bar with a couple of friends this weekend and had a rather amusing discussion. And by interesting I mean filled with machismo and vulgarity (you have been warned). Also, if you are a lady reading this, I think it's worth reading all the way through it to see the big picture (this actually advocates that men should be spending a lot of money on women). Look, this is meant to be for entertainment. It's also known to be VERY politically incorrect, but try to view this as a way of trying to measure things from an economic angle. It's hard to put a price on some things, so I use the only proxies for prices possible. No it's not tasteful, it's Wall Street.
The discussion at hand was how much a man spends on a girlfriend (or a prospective girlfriend or a prospective one-night stand) over time. What's a fair way to gauge how much a guy "should" spend on a girl? Well, here's how I think an economist would look at it:
What are the positive things you get out of it? Well, men obviously value sex. There's something about emotional support (although no girlfriend of mine has ever really been much emotional support. . . kidding. . .sorta. . .). Finally, there is the companionship (who really wants to go see a movie alone?). Let's value each of these.
First off, the sex. Market price for sex can be found on craigslist. I assume a "full service" massage is sex. If I'm wrong, please let me know (but don't let me know why you know) . I'm seeing it at about $200/hour. That sounds reasonable. Let's say sex goes at about $200/hr.
Second, the emotional support. Psychiatrists can give you all the emotional support you need for $130/hour (I actually called a therapist to ask for his fee just now, that was awkward).
Last, the companionship I'm actually going to mark-to-market as free. While it does have a dollar value, you can usually find some sort of companion for your movies, dinners, etc unless you're really a loser.
So if you have a full fledged girlfriend with whom you have sex for, say, four hours a week and divulge your emotional distress for two hours a week, you should be willing to pay $1060 per week. Wow, that's a lot. If we price it for a one night stand, we can just price the sex at $200/hr. Let's say it's a short one night stand, and a man should be willing to drop at least $200 fair value on drinks or whatever date expenditures.
The girl we were with protested that the sex was being priced at prostitution levels. Well, that's just dumb. I'm sitting here advocating that men ought to be willing to spend some $1060/week on a girl (that's a LOT higher than average wages in the US), and this girl is telling me that she finds that offensive. I bet you anything she doesn't complain when her boyfriend buys her gifts, dinner and drinks. In any case, the prostitution charges being offensive thing is a weak argument (she later went and slept with my friend that night).
The best argument, in my opinion, is that women get a lot out of it too. Well, an attractive woman has no trouble getting sex (hell, an unattractive woman has no trouble getting sex. . .). That' s for certain. So even if there is a market for male prostitution, it's a redundant market. Let's look at the therapy part. First off, there are a lot of men who are willing to be personal therapists for free (or for the enjoyment of being seen with an attractive woman, or for the glimmer of hope that the woman may some day actually become his girlfriend). So I'd argue that the mark-to-market of therapy for a woman is relatively low as well.
For argument's sake, let's let the woman's therapy be the same price--$130/hr. Now I'm going to argue for gender equality, I'm all for that. Well, even if we go for gender equality, let's face it, women require more emotional support than men. If you disagrees, please feel free to comment (rationally). So let's try to make for gender equality. That means the amount per week spent by men at fair value ($1060) should be equal to the fair value of what the men bring to the "relationship." So if that's to be monetized as therapy, we can price it at 8.15 hours. So a relationship with four hours of sex and two hours of the man whining per week should also have eight hours of the woman whining per week. Does that sound reasonable?
Now I've been pricing off of an attractive women. Of course an attractive woman is going to be able to more readily get free sex and therapy from men, so they can either whine more or demand more money be spent on them. In addition attractive women would be able to charge more if they were to prostitute themselves (hypothetical, please), again this means she can whine more or demand more money. So it is not surprising if attractive women cost more to date or just happen to be higher maintenance emotionally.
If we assume an unattractive woman, then the price moves the other way. She can not demand as much in dating costs and she can not be as high maintenance emotionally.
Now I haven't taken into account what happens when you have an ugly guy. I'm not sure if prostitutes or therapists can charge more for services with an ugly guy, but maybe they can. The prostitutes aren't technically working legally anyway, so I guess they wouldn't be effected by discrimination laws, at the very least.
Clearly, this is not how actual relationships work. Not only am I missing a lot of the value that comes out of a relationship, but I am simplifying everything for argument's sake. Men and women do not court on a monetary fair-value basis, but it's interesting. If you ever observe that really attractive women tend to be higher maintenance, well, there may well be a good economic reason for it.
I hope you enjoyed this economic analysis of dating. Remember, it was a line of thought that was fleshed out from two very drunk traders and one female banker (who gave very little input). It does not reflect in any way how I think of dating in general, but I enjoy thinking through these sorts of things from a "purely rational" perspective.
The discussion at hand was how much a man spends on a girlfriend (or a prospective girlfriend or a prospective one-night stand) over time. What's a fair way to gauge how much a guy "should" spend on a girl? Well, here's how I think an economist would look at it:
What are the positive things you get out of it? Well, men obviously value sex. There's something about emotional support (although no girlfriend of mine has ever really been much emotional support. . . kidding. . .sorta. . .). Finally, there is the companionship (who really wants to go see a movie alone?). Let's value each of these.
First off, the sex. Market price for sex can be found on craigslist. I assume a "full service" massage is sex. If I'm wrong, please let me know (but don't let me know why you know) . I'm seeing it at about $200/hour. That sounds reasonable. Let's say sex goes at about $200/hr.
Second, the emotional support. Psychiatrists can give you all the emotional support you need for $130/hour (I actually called a therapist to ask for his fee just now, that was awkward).
Last, the companionship I'm actually going to mark-to-market as free. While it does have a dollar value, you can usually find some sort of companion for your movies, dinners, etc unless you're really a loser.
So if you have a full fledged girlfriend with whom you have sex for, say, four hours a week and divulge your emotional distress for two hours a week, you should be willing to pay $1060 per week. Wow, that's a lot. If we price it for a one night stand, we can just price the sex at $200/hr. Let's say it's a short one night stand, and a man should be willing to drop at least $200 fair value on drinks or whatever date expenditures.
The girl we were with protested that the sex was being priced at prostitution levels. Well, that's just dumb. I'm sitting here advocating that men ought to be willing to spend some $1060/week on a girl (that's a LOT higher than average wages in the US), and this girl is telling me that she finds that offensive. I bet you anything she doesn't complain when her boyfriend buys her gifts, dinner and drinks. In any case, the prostitution charges being offensive thing is a weak argument (she later went and slept with my friend that night).
The best argument, in my opinion, is that women get a lot out of it too. Well, an attractive woman has no trouble getting sex (hell, an unattractive woman has no trouble getting sex. . .). That' s for certain. So even if there is a market for male prostitution, it's a redundant market. Let's look at the therapy part. First off, there are a lot of men who are willing to be personal therapists for free (or for the enjoyment of being seen with an attractive woman, or for the glimmer of hope that the woman may some day actually become his girlfriend). So I'd argue that the mark-to-market of therapy for a woman is relatively low as well.
For argument's sake, let's let the woman's therapy be the same price--$130/hr. Now I'm going to argue for gender equality, I'm all for that. Well, even if we go for gender equality, let's face it, women require more emotional support than men. If you disagrees, please feel free to comment (rationally). So let's try to make for gender equality. That means the amount per week spent by men at fair value ($1060) should be equal to the fair value of what the men bring to the "relationship." So if that's to be monetized as therapy, we can price it at 8.15 hours. So a relationship with four hours of sex and two hours of the man whining per week should also have eight hours of the woman whining per week. Does that sound reasonable?
Now I've been pricing off of an attractive women. Of course an attractive woman is going to be able to more readily get free sex and therapy from men, so they can either whine more or demand more money be spent on them. In addition attractive women would be able to charge more if they were to prostitute themselves (hypothetical, please), again this means she can whine more or demand more money. So it is not surprising if attractive women cost more to date or just happen to be higher maintenance emotionally.
If we assume an unattractive woman, then the price moves the other way. She can not demand as much in dating costs and she can not be as high maintenance emotionally.
Now I haven't taken into account what happens when you have an ugly guy. I'm not sure if prostitutes or therapists can charge more for services with an ugly guy, but maybe they can. The prostitutes aren't technically working legally anyway, so I guess they wouldn't be effected by discrimination laws, at the very least.
Clearly, this is not how actual relationships work. Not only am I missing a lot of the value that comes out of a relationship, but I am simplifying everything for argument's sake. Men and women do not court on a monetary fair-value basis, but it's interesting. If you ever observe that really attractive women tend to be higher maintenance, well, there may well be a good economic reason for it.
I hope you enjoyed this economic analysis of dating. Remember, it was a line of thought that was fleshed out from two very drunk traders and one female banker (who gave very little input). It does not reflect in any way how I think of dating in general, but I enjoy thinking through these sorts of things from a "purely rational" perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
