This is my father's choice,
O what a world of vile ill favour'd faults
Looks handsome in three hundred pounds a year!
- Shakespeare, The Merry Wives of
Windsor 111,4

That was then, back in the day when £300 was quite a bit of money, and not 'monkey money' as we like to say nowadays. Now it would work out to be about J$36,000, which by today's standards is not much, but could go a far way in the era of Shakespeare.

A woman would overlook all the vile, ill-favoured faults of a man if he had a fat purse. Well, that holds true even to this day, and there is an ad that appeared in the New York Times that really piqued my interest, both from a man/woman perspective, and from a fiscal point of view.

Because of the financial component, I passed it on to Owen James, knowing that his acute sense of business and economic matters would assess the situation and put things in proper perspective.

As I anticipated, Owen quickly shot back a concise analytical assessment of the situation of the woman's beauty versus the economic viability of trade and commitment with a man's wealth and liquidity ratio scenario perspective. But let me rewind and share with you where all this is coming from, to wit, the ad that the young lady posted.

It's a bit long, so I'll break it down a bit. It's titled, 'What am I doing Wrong?' I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a spectacularly beautiful 25 year-old girl, articulate and classy, and I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half-a-million US a year, which is really middle class in New York. Where do you single rich guys hang out, what are you looking for in a mate, and why are some women, not as pretty as I am, living lavish lifestyles on the Upper East Side? Jobs I should look for? Lawyer, investment banker, doctor, and I am looking for marriage only.' Well, she made her case and presented her portfolio, suffering perhaps from delusions of grandeur, but it's the response that was a gem, and what Owen James should have on his Business Day, Your Wealth or Penny Wise TV programmes.

The response went; 'Dear seeker, I read your posting with great interest, and I qualify as a guy who fits your bill, that is, I make more than five hundred thousand a year, but here's how I see it. Your offer, from the perspective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. What you suggest is a simple trade, you bring your looks and I bring my money. 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 and I am an earning asset. Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next five years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold. It doesn't make good business sense to 'buy you', which is what you're asking, so I'd rather lease. I'm not being cruel, but it's just not good business sense. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades, I need an out. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage. I was taught early in my career about efficient markets, so I wonder why a girl as 'articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful' as you say you are, 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 'five hundred thousand man' hasn't found you, if only for a tryout. I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter some sort of lease agreement, let me know.'

Now this is where Owen James should come in and do a series of programmes on the efficacy and economic viability of entering into a business deal such as this. But I have been saying this for years, how women try to use their looks and snare men, and also how men use their money to catch women. At times I wonder who is the predator and who is the prey? But as the man said, her looks will fade and his money will appreciate.

Every mother should let her daughter know that beauty alone is not the only thing that they should bring to the party, and every father should tell his son that to get a woman, using only money is a terrible economic decision. As the man said, as the money goes, so will she. And as the old- timers used to say, a fool and his money are soon parted.

It's so pathetic to see these men of worth, power and age, traipsing around town, appearing on the social pages with these beautiful young women on their arms. She the trophy wife, he the unregulated financial scheme. Every time I see photographs of these newlyweds, she so pretty, he so old, I know that he's loaded.

Just recently I had to do a double take when I saw one such photo, as I actually thought that the groom was the father of the bride. But guess what, that man will always come out the loser in that arrangement, for her looks will diminish and his money will appreciate. Of course, I'm not talking about those situations where true love exists, but who can seriously tell me that a woman of 25 truly loves a man of 65, unless he's loaded?! Nothing is wrong with leasing, but this marriage thing can spell financial disaster, property sharing, family discord and much rancour. All in all, an emotional/financial meltdown that no bailout can help.

The very same way that people should take time before they enter into any financial agreement, is the same way that they should assess the situation where all that the woman brings to the round table is her looks. Men of wealth always assess the cost-benefit analysis, the returns on their investment, the growth potential, against the portfolio of the other person entering the trade agreement. Maybe that's why many beautiful women end up marrying wealthy men, but eventually get dumped anyway. As one told me years ago, "He simply traded me in for a newer model."
It's a harsh, cruel world, both the romantic and the financial. Banks that stood a hundred years, suddenly are falling, men can't tell if a woman really loves them for who they are, or only for their wealth, and everyone is asking, 'What's in it for me?' She with her spectacular beauty, as the girl in the letter wrote, only wants a man who earns a great wad of cash per year, and he with his money wants something to show for it, a great house, fabulous cars, lavish clothes and a beautiful woman on his arm.

At least I admire her honesty, for there are many pretty women out there who aren't as forthright as her. They come with talk of love, with money never entering the picture, and the wealthy man gets duped into believing that her passion is for him and not his pension. The truth is, she has all to gain and he has all to lose, if he's not smart. With her great looks she can only marry one rich man, but with all his wealth, he can acquire many beautiful women.

Money matures, and that's good for an investor, but as a woman matures, that's bad for her. Shallow is as shallow does, and if love is not a part of the equation, then there can be no foundation. I have personally seen cases where women marry men, thinking that they have money, and when they found out that it was not so, they left faster than you could say financial flop.

That lady who wrote that letter is not alone, as there are so many women who attempt to get through life on their looks alone. So many have said that they'd rather be pretty than smart, and many have also told me what economic bracket of men they want to marry. "He has to be financially stable, and can keep me in the manner to which I want to become accustomed."

So the only difference between them and that lady who wrote, is the figure that she expressed, half-million US per year or more. I applaud those women, pretty or not, who bring other assets to the table. These women have ambition, pride, high self-esteem and can offer as much as they want in return. It's so wonderful to hear the term, 'She has not only beauty but brains.'

When a man marries a beautiful woman and he's asked, "So what does she do?" will his answer be, "Oh, she's so beautiful...that's all she needs." So the lady who wrote that letter, and others like her had better wise up. Beautiful women are a dime a dozen, as ugly people aren't being made anymore. So if you want to be an appreciating asset and not just a depreciating piece of ass, you'd better bring more than just your good looks.

I have asked Owen James to do a series of programmes on this topic, so look out for them. The working title could be, 'The financial viability of a using your wealth to marry a beautiful woman: what are the risks?' The guests could be former beauty queens, investment bankers, past and present ministers of finance, CEOs of leading financial institutions and executive directors of our leading model agencies.

Compound interest or diminishing returns, the choice is yours, and remember, there's no bailout if you take this risk and it fails.

More time.

seido1@hotamil.com

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'

Cheeky's World