I enjoyed reading this analysis. What I find distressing is the lack of basic editing. I'm not a professional writer but even I can see numerous and obvious editing oversights. And I encounter this absence of very basic editing in electronic journalism everywhere. Any english teacher I ever had would have had plenty of opportunities to exercise their red pencil on this story. But I did like the story.
Dear Alan, Paul, and Suzanne—you're right! The editing on this piece should be better. Based on your suggestions, I downloaded Grammarly to copyedit this essay and for my future pieces as well (which of course I should've been doing all along). Alan, I apologize for causing you distress, but I thank you for taking the time to point out the essay was stress-inducing. Paul, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on the cause of my editorial faults; I think you successfully identified the cause, but still... I should have held myself to a higher standard. Suzanne, I make no promises about the length of future essays, though I certainly appreciate the merit of your concern. Thanks to all for your editing suggestions and your generous comments about the piece despite its glaring grammatical deficiencies.
Yes, if I were at my PC instead of on my phone, I’d run this through Grammarly and Microsoft Editor and send the author a redline so he could fix the typos. But I must say, the ones I saw were evidence of thoughtful but incomplete revision—the kind those tools catch for me after slaving over a piece for many hours trying to get everything exactly right but exhausting myself to the point where, without a human editor to check me, I’d be subject to the same faults. Having said that, this is a strong dissent to the conventional wisdom and extremely valuable in that regard. Liar’s Poker changed my life when I read it early in my career, so I might be biased, but Lewis has a voice and experience that deserves more respect than he was given by the knee-jerk reviews. I suspect some of the anger comes from the point that SBF fooled or at least did not attract scrutiny from some of those who are now attacking Lewis. Humans feel better when we can blame others for our own mistakes. Whether falling for the SBF mystique was the result of his malice, his incompetence, or his victim’s cognitive shortcomings, or some combination thereof, the temptation is to blame Lewis as the messenger rather than examine our own weaknesses.
I got here as a recommendation and have a lot of admiration for how knowledgeable and thoughtful this storyteller is. I liked following his mind. And how too long this is in 2023 and we are us, where I wonder if editing would have let this be shorter. Maybe you and Paul Wilkinson could redo it as an English lesson for us all. I sometimes do that when friends send me things -- and I've lost some of them that way.
The pile-on struck me as being a rather rapid consensus, which either meant the book was rubbish, or that something wrong with the picture.
Unlike books about Elizabeth Holmes, for example, which were eagerly written and consumed after her gross and knowing fraud finally saw the light, Lewis was researching and writing the SBF book when everything was intact. Should he have torn up the manuscript and written another book, with the business collapse as the starting point? Written the all-knowing and all wise in hindsight book? Should he have declared guilt of any of the people involved right before and during SBFs trial? Really??? Other people have no doubt been writing those books since last year. Lewis wrote the prequel.
Your perspective makes a great deal more sense and has more veracity than any other commentary I've read. Although one reviewer acknowledged that it's an excellent and rollicking good read, equivalent in quality to his previous books. Obviously a lot of people just don't like what he said or how he said it. It's his book, he gets to choose.
Imagine having unprecedented access to Bernie Madoff prior to, during his downfall and then writing this book. That’s why people with understanding of the level of fraud and crypto/ finance are so upset. He might not have set out to write that book- but it become the only book that should have been written given the circumstances. And it’s a shame he couldn’t come to that realization.
@Matthew I see what you're saying. My concern with this argument is that yes, it would be nice to have someone with ML's storytelling ability who also happens to be a crypto savant... but is that really realistic to expect? Weren't there tons of people who, by definition, knew a lot about crypto and had unprecedented access to SBF (e.g., employees, investors, etc)? It would sure be nice to have world-class domain knowledge as a writer, but that's not a realistic expectation for what it means to be a journalism. That's why it's important to judge the writer based on the claims she purports to make, not the claims you want to them to make.
Also, re: Madoff... I'm not a domain expert on fraud, either. But it seems like what constitutes fraud in an unregulated market vs regulated market is a very different thing. And I think making the Madoff comparison without acknowledging that difference is verging on disingenuous—is it not?
Appreciate the response, Cody. Crypto can be confusing. But that isn't the issue here. People seem to throw their hands up when it comes to SBF because it's a "complicated subject" they also tend to give SBF the benefit of the doubt, ex: your point about not being a savant or it being an unregulated market. "who really knows what happened"
To be clear, I am not an expert. But what SBF engaged in was clearly a massive level of fraud that had nothing to do with crypto other than that he owned a crypto trading platform.
What SBF/FTX engaged in was this: Took around 8 billion of users' funds (which they clearly state in their terms is segregated and not used by FTX for any purposes) and lent them to Alameda (their trading firm (a casino/odds maker essentially) They used those funds to buy influence, personal purchases, etc. What makes this even more frustrating is the effective altruism he espoused, but in a text post-collapse admitted it was a front and part of his image crafting. None of this is hard to parse or unpack and with even a small amount of digging one comes to the very obvious conclusion that it's just straight-up fraud. All his co-conspirators are admitting the same. Which was why it felt lazy, and damaging for someone like ML to ignore the obvious. And it feels the same when anyone says "yea but crypto is complicated"
This kid wasn't a genius, he didn't get in over his head. He knowingly stole billions and hid behind this image of a nerdy do-gooder, and somehow it still getting a pass from some. I encourage you to do a minimal amount of research and I think you'd come to the same conclusion. ML whiffed biggggly.
John Ray (helmed the takeover of failed Enron) the CEO who came in to replace SBF on FTX collapse “This is just old fashion embezzlement, taking money from others and using it for your own purposes,” he said. “This is not sophisticated at all.”
Public opinion ultimately won't matter. SBF will get multiple life sentences.
That is a helpful comparison. The evidence of malice in the Madoff case—as I recall, found in a safe with information obviously organized to perpetrate the fraud after a whistleblower was too long ignored—will be interesting to compare with evidence of malice in the SBF case.
Madoff was turned in by his own sons, in the end, as soon as they became aware of the monumental fraud, perpetuated over decade. One of those sins later suicided, such was the burden of what his father had done
Modoff purposefully built a pyramid scheme, it wasn't lack of risk management or stupidity.
Evidence in a safe? There was an entire floor of workers running a shadow operation, all of it scrupulously documented. The evidence was rather larger than a safe or an Excel spreadsheet.
Thanks for the reminder. That was a long time ago. Fortunately, I'd forgotten the details, but perhaps the first thing I'd read back then stuck with me. The evidence you cite, too, will be interesting to compare with what's in the SBF case. As for Madoff, I'd say some of his victims no doubt wish their own risk management systems had been calibrated to pick up on the fact that what Madoff was offering was TGTBT. Clearly, few or none of them were stupid. However, they were human, which is, itself, a considerable risk factor that can almost always -- maybe just always -- be better managed.
The human factor is almost impossible to manage, and certainly not from the investor side. A business can only manage their business, not their investors.
From what I have read, fairly superficially, the evidence includes SBFs not at all a girlfriend, carefully maintained Excel spreadsheets. Along with her assertion that SBF instructed her to commit all of the crimes in question. (A statement that went unchallenged by his team??!! Alleged crimes? Allegedly directed?? The courts must be a bit different in America!)
I haven't heard much about the testimony of his other previously close friends. I don't know what they've bought to the story.
Impossible for others to manage. But lots of investors say no to lots of TGTBT things every day. And businesses already have at least duties not to negligently let their investors invest foolishly and in many cases affirmative duties to act as fiduciaries. SBF certainly did lots of stupid, awful things. Playing video games while feeding public demand to get close to billionaires is just one trivial one that should have been a red flag of the potential of much more serious problems. How he got away with what he did for so long is one big question. If he testifies and how his defense team attempts to create reasonable doubt about his intentions will be fascinating to watch. So will the jury’s verdict. Sounds like we should know within a month.
Businesses have an outright obligation to not to commit fraud, to not run their business in a criminal manner!! That's a given.
Madoff operated for decades. Holmes was a fraud for decades. Lots of rich and smart people invested huge sums of money in both. Madoff and Holmes were entirely knowing about their own criminality. People trusted Madoff with their money, because they did in fact make money, they benefited from the fraud - only the investors left standing at the end lost their fortunes, while others before them made fortunes. Maybe that's the part people forget when they wonder how he got away with it.
Holmes, on the other hand, was so unconvincing in her Jobs turtle neck and mimicry that I still don't grasp how anyone was suckered by her performance and ludicrous empty box.
SBF? How did he get away with it for so long? He didn't. He was on top of the world for a few short years and it fell apart swiftly.
Was he young, inexperienced, and sloppy, or deliberately criminal? A jury will likely go with the latter, based purely on his not girlfriend's eager use of Excel.
Even the charging and legal process is playing out swiftly.
The trial is pretty loaded, regardless of truth, which way do you think it will go? And will all of his former friends get suspended sentences?
This is close to my own read. One thing is that I worked for years with young techies from elite schools. They are prone to being technically brilliant but incredibly naive (as well as infamously bad at understanding people). The incompetence SBF showed was breathtaking but not unprecedented. I think he should go to jail, but the people who thought he was a genius on the way up have some culpability
As do the posse of people who have plead guilty and made deals to save themselves, and have given their "impartial" evidence against SBF. (Small joke.)
How does his defense team still not have a strategy?! I'm not even a lawyer, yet could come up with a strategy on the back of an envelope.
Christopher, thanks for generous words—as well as the editing pointer. Taking your comment (and others) into consideration, I downloaded Grammarly, re-edited this essay, and will do a better job on future ones. Genuinely helpful feedback! Thanks.
Seems to me the heart of the issue is whether you believe (and it is still a matter of belief at this point), crypto is finance or tulips. If finance, you want to demonstrate that professionalism can make crypto work, thus, SBF was just a goofball. If tulips, you want to demonstrate that crypto facilitates fraud, thus, SBF shows how easy it is to do. Lewis wants crypto to be finance. Most of us are awake to crypto as, at best, a tulip for the foolish to buy and, at worst, something you have to buy to trade to some anonymous Russian for a code to unlock your hacked computer. Simple.
A key issue for so many people seems to be that the book isn't about crypto, because it's NOT a book about crypto. They should go and read the many books that are about crypto.
It's much like expecting a book about Holmes to be a book about the science of blood.
Good comparison. Tulips can be pretty and nice to look at and are worth the value of that, but their price should be limited by the substitution effect—there are plenty of other reasonably priced pretty things to look at. Crypto tech has a value, too, but in a working market, no specific tech should give early investors too much of a free lunch in the absence of hype—whether that hype is innocent, negligent, or malicious. People fell for crypto hype just like we fell for tulip hype. The more things change…
Surely whatever the "real" story is behind SBF''s intentions, if it is not simply a case of criminal intent, it is also not simply a case of incompetence. It could, of course, be some measure of both, but in any case it seems clear that whatever intentions were at play, they were accompanied at all points by an overwhelming degree of hubris. And when you freely play with other people's money to the tune of billions of dollars and maintain no regard for the security of those funds, it matters little whether you seek to defraud or are simply incompetent. Your hubris and the actions that hubris leads you to, (again with no regard for the people your actions are impacting), make you a very bad guy.
I'm not entirely up on this story, but I know his parents were involved and their investment outcome could serve as a litmus to decide on malice or incompetence.
The distinction between defrauded and knowingly defrauded is a bizarre obfuscation. There is no such thing as unknowingly defrauded. Either it’s fraud or it isn’t. In this case it’s pretty clear that it was fraud.
I agree with a version of this! I'm not an expert on the legal side of fraud. But in terms of guilt, like... he definitely defrauded people. Whether or not he intended to do so is merely a human-interest story. However, I am a human and therefore am mainly interested in that part of it.
This is hands down the best review of Going Infinite that I've come across. Good on you for saying something you believe when almost all other commentators are—rather angrily or at least mockingly—saying the opposite.
I'm curious if your take changed much after reading Zeke Faux's book, learning the verdict in SBF's trial or hearing about any of the other developments in the case since you published this article. (I don't suppose you went to Michael Lewis's talk in London yesterday about the book?)
I enjoyed reading this analysis. What I find distressing is the lack of basic editing. I'm not a professional writer but even I can see numerous and obvious editing oversights. And I encounter this absence of very basic editing in electronic journalism everywhere. Any english teacher I ever had would have had plenty of opportunities to exercise their red pencil on this story. But I did like the story.
Dear Alan, Paul, and Suzanne—you're right! The editing on this piece should be better. Based on your suggestions, I downloaded Grammarly to copyedit this essay and for my future pieces as well (which of course I should've been doing all along). Alan, I apologize for causing you distress, but I thank you for taking the time to point out the essay was stress-inducing. Paul, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on the cause of my editorial faults; I think you successfully identified the cause, but still... I should have held myself to a higher standard. Suzanne, I make no promises about the length of future essays, though I certainly appreciate the merit of your concern. Thanks to all for your editing suggestions and your generous comments about the piece despite its glaring grammatical deficiencies.
Yes, if I were at my PC instead of on my phone, I’d run this through Grammarly and Microsoft Editor and send the author a redline so he could fix the typos. But I must say, the ones I saw were evidence of thoughtful but incomplete revision—the kind those tools catch for me after slaving over a piece for many hours trying to get everything exactly right but exhausting myself to the point where, without a human editor to check me, I’d be subject to the same faults. Having said that, this is a strong dissent to the conventional wisdom and extremely valuable in that regard. Liar’s Poker changed my life when I read it early in my career, so I might be biased, but Lewis has a voice and experience that deserves more respect than he was given by the knee-jerk reviews. I suspect some of the anger comes from the point that SBF fooled or at least did not attract scrutiny from some of those who are now attacking Lewis. Humans feel better when we can blame others for our own mistakes. Whether falling for the SBF mystique was the result of his malice, his incompetence, or his victim’s cognitive shortcomings, or some combination thereof, the temptation is to blame Lewis as the messenger rather than examine our own weaknesses.
I got here as a recommendation and have a lot of admiration for how knowledgeable and thoughtful this storyteller is. I liked following his mind. And how too long this is in 2023 and we are us, where I wonder if editing would have let this be shorter. Maybe you and Paul Wilkinson could redo it as an English lesson for us all. I sometimes do that when friends send me things -- and I've lost some of them that way.
Finally an intelligent reading of Lewis’ book. And moderate. And smart and I think accurate
There seems to be a posse out to get SBF and Lewis and that is totally suspicious. Totally
I've read of the book, but not the book.
The pile-on struck me as being a rather rapid consensus, which either meant the book was rubbish, or that something wrong with the picture.
Unlike books about Elizabeth Holmes, for example, which were eagerly written and consumed after her gross and knowing fraud finally saw the light, Lewis was researching and writing the SBF book when everything was intact. Should he have torn up the manuscript and written another book, with the business collapse as the starting point? Written the all-knowing and all wise in hindsight book? Should he have declared guilt of any of the people involved right before and during SBFs trial? Really??? Other people have no doubt been writing those books since last year. Lewis wrote the prequel.
Your perspective makes a great deal more sense and has more veracity than any other commentary I've read. Although one reviewer acknowledged that it's an excellent and rollicking good read, equivalent in quality to his previous books. Obviously a lot of people just don't like what he said or how he said it. It's his book, he gets to choose.
Cody,
Quite welcome. Your work was readable, and the few poor word choices (perhaps via A.I.) didn't deter my learning.
One example, if I remember right, was the word "investment" when it should have been "investing".
No big deal, but was a few rain drops on your otherwise sunny day.😊
I listened to this on audio, while walking the dog. I had no problem with the structure, the language, the logic, or any apparent typos.
Thanks, Caz!
Imagine having unprecedented access to Bernie Madoff prior to, during his downfall and then writing this book. That’s why people with understanding of the level of fraud and crypto/ finance are so upset. He might not have set out to write that book- but it become the only book that should have been written given the circumstances. And it’s a shame he couldn’t come to that realization.
@Matthew I see what you're saying. My concern with this argument is that yes, it would be nice to have someone with ML's storytelling ability who also happens to be a crypto savant... but is that really realistic to expect? Weren't there tons of people who, by definition, knew a lot about crypto and had unprecedented access to SBF (e.g., employees, investors, etc)? It would sure be nice to have world-class domain knowledge as a writer, but that's not a realistic expectation for what it means to be a journalism. That's why it's important to judge the writer based on the claims she purports to make, not the claims you want to them to make.
Also, re: Madoff... I'm not a domain expert on fraud, either. But it seems like what constitutes fraud in an unregulated market vs regulated market is a very different thing. And I think making the Madoff comparison without acknowledging that difference is verging on disingenuous—is it not?
Appreciate the response, Cody. Crypto can be confusing. But that isn't the issue here. People seem to throw their hands up when it comes to SBF because it's a "complicated subject" they also tend to give SBF the benefit of the doubt, ex: your point about not being a savant or it being an unregulated market. "who really knows what happened"
To be clear, I am not an expert. But what SBF engaged in was clearly a massive level of fraud that had nothing to do with crypto other than that he owned a crypto trading platform.
What SBF/FTX engaged in was this: Took around 8 billion of users' funds (which they clearly state in their terms is segregated and not used by FTX for any purposes) and lent them to Alameda (their trading firm (a casino/odds maker essentially) They used those funds to buy influence, personal purchases, etc. What makes this even more frustrating is the effective altruism he espoused, but in a text post-collapse admitted it was a front and part of his image crafting. None of this is hard to parse or unpack and with even a small amount of digging one comes to the very obvious conclusion that it's just straight-up fraud. All his co-conspirators are admitting the same. Which was why it felt lazy, and damaging for someone like ML to ignore the obvious. And it feels the same when anyone says "yea but crypto is complicated"
This kid wasn't a genius, he didn't get in over his head. He knowingly stole billions and hid behind this image of a nerdy do-gooder, and somehow it still getting a pass from some. I encourage you to do a minimal amount of research and I think you'd come to the same conclusion. ML whiffed biggggly.
John Ray (helmed the takeover of failed Enron) the CEO who came in to replace SBF on FTX collapse “This is just old fashion embezzlement, taking money from others and using it for your own purposes,” he said. “This is not sophisticated at all.”
Public opinion ultimately won't matter. SBF will get multiple life sentences.
That is a helpful comparison. The evidence of malice in the Madoff case—as I recall, found in a safe with information obviously organized to perpetrate the fraud after a whistleblower was too long ignored—will be interesting to compare with evidence of malice in the SBF case.
Madoff was turned in by his own sons, in the end, as soon as they became aware of the monumental fraud, perpetuated over decade. One of those sins later suicided, such was the burden of what his father had done
Modoff purposefully built a pyramid scheme, it wasn't lack of risk management or stupidity.
Evidence in a safe? There was an entire floor of workers running a shadow operation, all of it scrupulously documented. The evidence was rather larger than a safe or an Excel spreadsheet.
Thanks for the reminder. That was a long time ago. Fortunately, I'd forgotten the details, but perhaps the first thing I'd read back then stuck with me. The evidence you cite, too, will be interesting to compare with what's in the SBF case. As for Madoff, I'd say some of his victims no doubt wish their own risk management systems had been calibrated to pick up on the fact that what Madoff was offering was TGTBT. Clearly, few or none of them were stupid. However, they were human, which is, itself, a considerable risk factor that can almost always -- maybe just always -- be better managed.
The human factor is almost impossible to manage, and certainly not from the investor side. A business can only manage their business, not their investors.
From what I have read, fairly superficially, the evidence includes SBFs not at all a girlfriend, carefully maintained Excel spreadsheets. Along with her assertion that SBF instructed her to commit all of the crimes in question. (A statement that went unchallenged by his team??!! Alleged crimes? Allegedly directed?? The courts must be a bit different in America!)
I haven't heard much about the testimony of his other previously close friends. I don't know what they've bought to the story.
Impossible for others to manage. But lots of investors say no to lots of TGTBT things every day. And businesses already have at least duties not to negligently let their investors invest foolishly and in many cases affirmative duties to act as fiduciaries. SBF certainly did lots of stupid, awful things. Playing video games while feeding public demand to get close to billionaires is just one trivial one that should have been a red flag of the potential of much more serious problems. How he got away with what he did for so long is one big question. If he testifies and how his defense team attempts to create reasonable doubt about his intentions will be fascinating to watch. So will the jury’s verdict. Sounds like we should know within a month.
Businesses have an outright obligation to not to commit fraud, to not run their business in a criminal manner!! That's a given.
Madoff operated for decades. Holmes was a fraud for decades. Lots of rich and smart people invested huge sums of money in both. Madoff and Holmes were entirely knowing about their own criminality. People trusted Madoff with their money, because they did in fact make money, they benefited from the fraud - only the investors left standing at the end lost their fortunes, while others before them made fortunes. Maybe that's the part people forget when they wonder how he got away with it.
Holmes, on the other hand, was so unconvincing in her Jobs turtle neck and mimicry that I still don't grasp how anyone was suckered by her performance and ludicrous empty box.
SBF? How did he get away with it for so long? He didn't. He was on top of the world for a few short years and it fell apart swiftly.
Was he young, inexperienced, and sloppy, or deliberately criminal? A jury will likely go with the latter, based purely on his not girlfriend's eager use of Excel.
Even the charging and legal process is playing out swiftly.
The trial is pretty loaded, regardless of truth, which way do you think it will go? And will all of his former friends get suspended sentences?
This is close to my own read. One thing is that I worked for years with young techies from elite schools. They are prone to being technically brilliant but incredibly naive (as well as infamously bad at understanding people). The incompetence SBF showed was breathtaking but not unprecedented. I think he should go to jail, but the people who thought he was a genius on the way up have some culpability
As do the posse of people who have plead guilty and made deals to save themselves, and have given their "impartial" evidence against SBF. (Small joke.)
How does his defense team still not have a strategy?! I'm not even a lawyer, yet could come up with a strategy on the back of an envelope.
Not surprised at everyone's reaction. Self delusion is vital for every wealthaholics journey into the abyss. This hits too close to home.
Excellent point of view about the expectations of the reader, that is, what they want versus the work that the writer produces.
The latter may be top notch, but if it veers off expectations it will be panned.
Thanks.
BTW - you need have someone edit your work, there are many word choice issues. 😉
Christopher, thanks for generous words—as well as the editing pointer. Taking your comment (and others) into consideration, I downloaded Grammarly, re-edited this essay, and will do a better job on future ones. Genuinely helpful feedback! Thanks.
Lewis is basically attempting to waffle on his prior error of judgement. He’s a good wordsmith covering his mistakes.
Seems to me the heart of the issue is whether you believe (and it is still a matter of belief at this point), crypto is finance or tulips. If finance, you want to demonstrate that professionalism can make crypto work, thus, SBF was just a goofball. If tulips, you want to demonstrate that crypto facilitates fraud, thus, SBF shows how easy it is to do. Lewis wants crypto to be finance. Most of us are awake to crypto as, at best, a tulip for the foolish to buy and, at worst, something you have to buy to trade to some anonymous Russian for a code to unlock your hacked computer. Simple.
A key issue for so many people seems to be that the book isn't about crypto, because it's NOT a book about crypto. They should go and read the many books that are about crypto.
It's much like expecting a book about Holmes to be a book about the science of blood.
Yes, Tulips it is..
Good comparison. Tulips can be pretty and nice to look at and are worth the value of that, but their price should be limited by the substitution effect—there are plenty of other reasonably priced pretty things to look at. Crypto tech has a value, too, but in a working market, no specific tech should give early investors too much of a free lunch in the absence of hype—whether that hype is innocent, negligent, or malicious. People fell for crypto hype just like we fell for tulip hype. The more things change…
Surely whatever the "real" story is behind SBF''s intentions, if it is not simply a case of criminal intent, it is also not simply a case of incompetence. It could, of course, be some measure of both, but in any case it seems clear that whatever intentions were at play, they were accompanied at all points by an overwhelming degree of hubris. And when you freely play with other people's money to the tune of billions of dollars and maintain no regard for the security of those funds, it matters little whether you seek to defraud or are simply incompetent. Your hubris and the actions that hubris leads you to, (again with no regard for the people your actions are impacting), make you a very bad guy.
I'm not entirely up on this story, but I know his parents were involved and their investment outcome could serve as a litmus to decide on malice or incompetence.
The distinction between defrauded and knowingly defrauded is a bizarre obfuscation. There is no such thing as unknowingly defrauded. Either it’s fraud or it isn’t. In this case it’s pretty clear that it was fraud.
I agree with a version of this! I'm not an expert on the legal side of fraud. But in terms of guilt, like... he definitely defrauded people. Whether or not he intended to do so is merely a human-interest story. However, I am a human and therefore am mainly interested in that part of it.
Well, Zaphod's just this guy, you know...
This is hands down the best review of Going Infinite that I've come across. Good on you for saying something you believe when almost all other commentators are—rather angrily or at least mockingly—saying the opposite.
I'm curious if your take changed much after reading Zeke Faux's book, learning the verdict in SBF's trial or hearing about any of the other developments in the case since you published this article. (I don't suppose you went to Michael Lewis's talk in London yesterday about the book?)