Is that an example of quant reversion-to-the-mean thinking, with the inevitable mugging at the end of the run? (But thank you for the sentiment. I have no doubt that surf's soirée will make for a fine evening.)
Try to at least be somewhat objective in your statements. If they are successful traders, then the volatility due to the financial crisis is generating tremendous profits, hence more cash to spend. But then, those traders are usually frugal and don't waste money on overpriced luxury items. Trader Monthly catered to the yuppie institutional trader demographic. Guys that simply had high paying positions, but never realized why it even existed, deluding themselves that they were special. Hence, overleveraged, spent more than they earned, thought they were all that and did not realize the value of money. Once the mortgage derivative scam was up, they were out the door, with no new high paying position to grab and no skills to make money, let alone trade. I don't consider that successful traders, or even successful at all. More like fools who were lucky enough to get together with money in the first place. We all know the rest.
Not a fan of Patek either. Look like stuff my grandfather wore. More like this-- http://www.audemarspiguet.com/ Royal Oak Offshore
<i>it was targeted for the winners and /or high salary institurional trader types</i> --->Plus one more category: Broke-ass big dreamers. There's nothing wrong with that- I used to be one. <i> What I, personally, regard as superfluous spending is paying more for something that has no incremental value other than "show," without actually being better than a lower priced item in one way or another.</i> --->There's a quick three letter word to perfectly describe that type of item: BMW.