Michael Lewis, author of The Big Short, has painted an interesting picture of Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) in his soon-to-be released book on the former FTX CEO.
In an excerpt of Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon published in the Washington Post on Oct. 1, Lewis described several interactions Bankman-Fried had with the media and influential figures prior to the downfall of FTX and his criminal charges in the United States. According to the author, he would frequently play video games in the background of online interviews — his League of Legends exploits are well reported — often giving little attention to people including Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour.
“Sam didn’t want to seem rude,” said Lewis on SBF’s talk with Wintour. “It was just that he needed to be playing this other game at the same time as whatever game he had going in real life. His new social role as the world’s most interesting new child billionaire required him to do all kinds of dumb stuff. He needed something, other than what he was expected to be thinking about, to occupy his mind.”
At one point, Sam Bankman-Fried was worth $22.5 billion. No one but Mark Zuckerberg had become richer faster.
Lewis added that Natalie Tien, who moved into the role of FTX’s head of public relations and SBF’s “personal scheduler”, said the former CEO cancelled many highly publicized appearances — often at the last minute — for seemingly no reason at all. The Wintour interview reportedly led to FTX’s sponsorship and Bankman-Fried as a special guest at the Met Gala, which he ended up snubbing.
“Sam treated everything on his schedule as optional,” said the book. “The schedule was less a plan than a theory. When people asked Sam for his time, they assumed they’d posed a yes or no question […] All he had done, when he said yes, was to assign some non-zero probability to the proposed use of his time. The dial would swing wildly as he calculated and recalculated the expected value of each commitment, right up until the moment he honored it or didn’t.”
Other in-person showings by Bankman-Fried included testifying before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee in December 2021 and meeting with Senator Mitch McConnell. The appearances marked some of the rare times SBF appeared in public wearing a suit as opposed to his usual T-shirt and shorts — though social media users pointed to footage of the then CEO’s shoes slipped on without being tied at the hearing.
It’s unclear what other information will become available once the book is released on Oct. 3, the same day jury selection begins for SBF’s criminal trial in New York. Amid the expected court proceedings, a slew of podcasts, news features, books, and other media have been released detailing aspects of Bankman-Fried’s life before and after the downfall of FTX. A 60 Minutes interview with Lewis revealed SBF had plans to pay off former U.S. President Donald Trump not to run for the office again based on the threat to elections and democracy as a whole.
On Oct. 4, Bankman-Fried will appear in a New York courtroom for the first day of his trial, scheduled to run through November. He will face 7 charges related to fraud at FTX and Alameda Research, for which he has pleaded not guilty.
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.