Michael Lewis on “Going Infinite” | Judging Sam: The Trial of Sam Bankman-Fried

"Sam is a genius" He doesn't seem like a genius. He never said anything particularly remarkable, and his mismanagement of risk was monumental. You can't trade with billions of customer deposits, that's a given.

So I listened to the entire podcast. I tried to give Lewis the benefit of the doubt. But I just can't. It's incredible how enamored Lewis still is with SBF. It's obvious in his tone and his little chuckles about how amusing SBF was to him. Lewis almost sounds like he's been hypnotized. I mean, he's still championing SBF like he's some sort of misunderstood genius. It's so strange. SBF is the biggest corporate criminal the world's ever seen, and him and his crooked, grifting family deserve to rot in jail. I don't understand how a brilliant writer like Lewis had the wool pulled over his eyes so thoroughly, that he never bothered to alter the narrative of his book. He'd had months to reassess the direction of the book, or shelve it altogether, but it's like he was determined to stick with his initial impression of SPF. He's even giving odds on his acquittal. Why? I'm baffled.

Michael Lewis writes a book so that Michael Lewis can sell a book.

Ive never been to the Bahamas and i lost my childrens financial future here, this is beyond words and utterly depressing on so many levels

I have never been this disappointed by a writer that I loved reading so much. Michael Lewis is supposed to be the perfect man to write the criminal that SBF is. I read all of his books, loved the way ML exposed scandals. This is exact opposite.

Sounds bipolar, I don't think Michael is trying to cover anything up. Simply saying it how he saw it. I think there are a lot of people on the top like this and there are things to learn.

2:32 into this and there's already a twisted truth, if not lie about SBF and his abilities.

Hi Mike, loved all your books ever since lions poker up to the big short. This one though looks like you were taken in by your subject like everyone else. By the way, what ultimately happened to your friends $30 million? Can’t resist asking. Sorry.

Michael Lewis, have you never met another Gen-zer? It is super ‘hip’ to be a famous philanthropist. Especially if you buy friends like Tom Brady, hang out at congress etc. That is fun, not altruistic. PS even for a math nerd there are a variety of ways ti maximize mathematical impact other than spending your money on penthouses now and donating money in … 70 years or whatever. A) not recklessly spending money in luxuries, B) taking into account discounted cash flow … just to name two of many possible mathematical approaches. You are conned beyond belief if you think these math nerds only had altruism in mind. Well… it’s a very malleable and convenient type if altruism, put it that way. There is nothing special or unusual about wanting to donate money and say you care for humanity. Effective Altruism is meh plan, rather short-sighted and simplistic… attractive to naive young people. Especially if you get to live a luxurious life and then donate money at the very end. Acting altruistic makes you much cooler for gen-z than spending money on suits. It’s not altruistic to wear shorts and have uncombed hair—that is cool and gets you lots of attention. There is nothing unusual about enjoying being ‘odd’ by living in a multi-million dollar home and wearing T-shirts rather than expensive suits or whatever you , Michael Lewis, personally think would make him ‘like other people who steal money for personal use.” It’s fun and gets attention to have some unique characteristics—not a sign of ‘being honest.’ Sam enjoyed having a unique look and demeanor. FTX and Alameda had perfect risk management on other people’s money when customers used margin on FTX. So they did know how risk management works, and the importance of having it. they just didn’t use risk management when it came to Alameda, when the risk was to other people’s money for Alameda’s benefit. I don’t think Sam is evil. But he lived a privileged life with Stanford professors including a tax lawyer and ‘ethics’ expert. He worked at Jane St. He knew right from wrong in the banking/financial industry but was enjoying himself being a bigshot. He was having a blast!!!! How you have managed to misunderstand this situation and be charmed and amused speaks to your lack of understanding of the modern world and modern young people. Time for you to retire. I don’t think Sam is evil but he knew he was being irresponsible with other people’s money in order to enjoy himself. I am frankly even more disturbed more though by his parents contributing to their son spending time in jail … and stealing money from others. As for you —glad you find lots of people losing hard-earned money so amusing that you giggled through this whole interview, other interviews i’ve heard from you this week, and presumably throughout the book, which based in hearing your interviews is so off base there is no need to read. Lots of the people who held funds on FTX are regular, mostly young people, not institutional investors. Ha ha ha, gosh Sam is a vegan you say… even though he liked chicken. What is your point? Have you never met the hundreds of millions of other vegans, most of whom have never stolen money? Giving up chicken does not mitigate stealing/ being criminally negligent with other people’s money. The fact this whole thing tickles your funnybone so much is disturbing . TBH it seems like something is wrong with you. You’ve lost perspective somehow. Maybe time for you to retire or at least re-group. Akso, examine your own thoughts about so wildly mis-judging Sam at first that you advised your friend to invest. A little phenomenon called ‘cognitive dissonance’ would suggest that incident is so horrific your mind is unable to process it and instead, seeks to justify that error by continuing to find SBF sympathetic and giggle-worthy.

Used to love Michael Lewis’s writing. There are only two possible explanations for his vehement defense of SBF: a billion dollar advance from SBF, or being too lazy to rewrite the book once it became clear that it was horribly inaccurate. I’m hoping it’s the former, because it could mean that he may still care enough about his writing that we may get another good book in the future.

I didn't hear one word about why he was a supposed genius? What did he do to actually show he was a genius trader? It seems he scammed all the way up.

Michael I bought your book and I will never read it! You got conned by a sociopath, 8 billion lost, real people, real pain. You said you have the real facts, you have Sam's facts. The government and insiders have the real facts. You think he was a dupe in this story, he orchestrated it all and loved the attention. Tom Brady adored 50 million dollars not this grifter. The entire family was in on the grift. I lost all respect for you Michael. He didn't earn to give. He stole from innocent people. He spent on himself, his family or anyone else that could serve his selfish needs. It is easy to take risks with other people's money. I was shocked when you said this wasn't intentional on 60 minutes. I hope you write a follow up after the real facts come out in the trial. It seems your book should be in the fiction section. I heard you echo Sam's big lie of the 8 billion being an accounting error. 8 billion dollars being sent to Alameda without his knowledge, what a joke. Lastly, he went to congress and sold them on his sophisticated risk engine. In all the interviews after the collapse, he said his lack of risk management was the issue. Michael, you can do better, this isn't what I expected after being such a fan of your work.

Mr Lewis in your former best selling books you speak about the main characters with appreciation awe delight joy. Did you have the Michal Lewis fun living and writing about SBF?

I'm disappointed in Lewis.

Michael Lewis is an impressive investigative journalist and writer.