Burt Reynolds is an idiot. He was notably ungracious about the renewed attention he received for "Boogie Nights" (almost 20 years ago now), and completely failed to capitalize on it in career terms. He has long seemed like he was nursing a grudge.
And for what, exactly? I don't get these stars who act so hard done by. Steven Seagal is another example; he won't act in Sly Stallone's enormously profitable "Expendables" franchise because of feuds that date back decades, but he will appear in pitiful straight-to-video productions. It doesn't make sense.
When Reynolds was married to Anderson he made the entire cast of his television show Evening Shade accomplices by flying in his then-current girlfriend whenever his wife was away.
I'm strange (or, to put it another way, I'm an economist). So I immediately asked myself, "How much would you have to have had in 1993 to wind up with $154,520 today, if you'd invested it prudently,--say, in a mutual fund that mimicked the SP500?"
I also asked myself, "If you'd had $154,520 in 1993, and invested it prudently--say, in a mutual fund that mimicked the S&P 500, how much would you have today?"
Finally, I asked myself "If you'd had the actual amount of the alleged settlement--$309,000--in 1993, and invested it prudently--say, in a mutual fund that mimicked the S&P 500, how much would you have today?"
The answer to the first question is, "If you'd had $38,000 in 1993, you could have turned it into $154,000 now."
The answer to the second question is, "If you'd had $154,000 in 1993, you could have turned it into about $625,000 now."
The answer to the third question is, of course, twice as much as the answer to the second question--$1,250,000.
Burt got away with murder here. And/or Loni really needed some fast cash.
Oddly enough, I sorta did. In 1987, I moved from Illinois State University to Indiana University Northwest (not exactly voluntarily; I was denied tenure at ISU.) I was able to roll my ISU pension balance over (which I did, because the state of Illinois was not actually fully-funding things, but they had to let people withdraw what they were being promised--which made things worse for everyone else). Two weeks after I rolled it into a Fidelity IRA, the stock market dropped by 25% in ONE day. However, it recovered. And while I could not retire on that, it's helping.
(Incidentally, the pictures I had to identify to pose this said "Identify all the images with donuts." One was a bagel. But I had to click it to post this.)
What I don't get is why he had to pay her anything. She was a working actress making good money and had future potential. Alimony in cases like this is bogus.
9 comments:
Burt Reynolds is an idiot. He was notably ungracious about the renewed attention he received for "Boogie Nights" (almost 20 years ago now), and completely failed to capitalize on it in career terms. He has long seemed like he was nursing a grudge.
And for what, exactly? I don't get these stars who act so hard done by. Steven Seagal is another example; he won't act in Sly Stallone's enormously profitable "Expendables" franchise because of feuds that date back decades, but he will appear in pitiful straight-to-video productions. It doesn't make sense.
When Reynolds was married to Anderson he made the entire cast of his television show Evening Shade accomplices by flying in his then-current girlfriend whenever his wife was away.
The man is and always has been slime.
Jeff
I'm strange (or, to put it another way, I'm an economist). So I immediately asked myself, "How much would you have to have had in 1993 to wind up with $154,520 today, if you'd invested it prudently,--say, in a mutual fund that mimicked the SP500?"
I also asked myself, "If you'd had $154,520 in 1993, and invested it prudently--say, in a mutual fund that mimicked the S&P 500, how much would you have today?"
Finally, I asked myself "If you'd had the actual amount of the alleged settlement--$309,000--in 1993, and invested it prudently--say, in a mutual fund that mimicked the S&P 500, how much would you have today?"
The answer to the first question is, "If you'd had $38,000 in 1993, you could have turned it into $154,000 now."
The answer to the second question is, "If you'd had $154,000 in 1993, you could have turned it into about $625,000 now."
The answer to the third question is, of course, twice as much as the answer to the second question--$1,250,000.
Burt got away with murder here. And/or Loni really needed some fast cash.
I wish I'd had $154,000 in 1993 and some prudent advice.
Oddly enough, I sorta did. In 1987, I moved from Illinois State University to Indiana University Northwest (not exactly voluntarily; I was denied tenure at ISU.) I was able to roll my ISU pension balance over (which I did, because the state of Illinois was not actually fully-funding things, but they had to let people withdraw what they were being promised--which made things worse for everyone else). Two weeks after I rolled it into a Fidelity IRA, the stock market dropped by 25% in ONE day. However, it recovered. And while I could not retire on that, it's helping.
(Incidentally, the pictures I had to identify to pose this said "Identify all the images with donuts." One was a bagel. But I had to click it to post this.)
I thought we'd gotten past all that weird stuff to identify.
Shows up about 1 time in 10. Maybe I should just ignore it?
I'd ignore it and try to post just to test it.
What I don't get is why he had to pay her anything. She was a working actress making good money and had future potential. Alimony in cases like this is bogus.
Post a Comment