What do you think?
Rate this book
Payback: The Conspiracy to Destroy Michael Milken and His Financial Revolution
A law professor and economist charges that Michael Milkin, Drexel Burnham, and other Wall Street wheeler-dealers, whose strategies actually helped to reform the market, were wrongfully prosecuted by a nervous corporate establishment. 40,000 first printing. $40,000 ad/promo.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 1995
1 person is currently reading
43 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 14, 2024
A CONTROVERSIAL DEFENSE OF MICHAEL MILKEN AND THE "JUNK BONDS" MATTER
At the time this book was published in 1995, Daniel Fischel was a professor of law and business at the University of Chicago Law School. He wrote in the Preface, "The many existing books about the Wall Street and savings and loan scandals during the 1980s have been written by journalists... My perspective in this book is different, and so are my sources... I have relied very little on interviews except as background..."
He argues that in the public relations war against Michael Milken, "There was another force at work---envy... Nobody could make that much money without being a crook." (Pg. 41) He was "despised by the Wall Street and business establishment he displaced." (Pg. 158) But he asks, "what laws were broken? Restructuring companies, borrowing money, selling off assets, renegotiating labor agreements, and firing corporate executives, no matter how distasteful to some, was not illegal." (Pg. 41)
He admits that Ivan Boesky "carried considerable baggage as a witness... he freely admitted lying on numerous occasions and violating prison rules... he repeatedly weakened his credibility by saying he couldn't remember." (Pg. 89) Furthermore, "Megasuccessful corporations are never very sympathetic defendants." (Pg. 141) He characterized those who lost money as "losers in the marketplace." (Pg. 300)
He characterizes the portrayal of the high-yield bond market as a Ponzi scheme as "ludicrous"; "There is nothing suspicious about sophisticated institutional investors being involved in one another's deals." (Pg. 285) He also portrays John Garamendi's involvement as politically-motivated: "(he) wanted to run for governor as the man who purged the insurance industry of evil junk bonds." (Pg. 294-295) His ultimate conclusion is that "The so-called Wall Street and savings and loan scandals of the 1980s wouldn't have occurred if the government hadn't intervened." (Pg. 305)
This is a highly opinionated, yet thought-provoking treatment of the matter, and is different from the most commonly-presented versions.
At the time this book was published in 1995, Daniel Fischel was a professor of law and business at the University of Chicago Law School. He wrote in the Preface, "The many existing books about the Wall Street and savings and loan scandals during the 1980s have been written by journalists... My perspective in this book is different, and so are my sources... I have relied very little on interviews except as background..."
He argues that in the public relations war against Michael Milken, "There was another force at work---envy... Nobody could make that much money without being a crook." (Pg. 41) He was "despised by the Wall Street and business establishment he displaced." (Pg. 158) But he asks, "what laws were broken? Restructuring companies, borrowing money, selling off assets, renegotiating labor agreements, and firing corporate executives, no matter how distasteful to some, was not illegal." (Pg. 41)
He admits that Ivan Boesky "carried considerable baggage as a witness... he freely admitted lying on numerous occasions and violating prison rules... he repeatedly weakened his credibility by saying he couldn't remember." (Pg. 89) Furthermore, "Megasuccessful corporations are never very sympathetic defendants." (Pg. 141) He characterized those who lost money as "losers in the marketplace." (Pg. 300)
He characterizes the portrayal of the high-yield bond market as a Ponzi scheme as "ludicrous"; "There is nothing suspicious about sophisticated institutional investors being involved in one another's deals." (Pg. 285) He also portrays John Garamendi's involvement as politically-motivated: "(he) wanted to run for governor as the man who purged the insurance industry of evil junk bonds." (Pg. 294-295) His ultimate conclusion is that "The so-called Wall Street and savings and loan scandals of the 1980s wouldn't have occurred if the government hadn't intervened." (Pg. 305)
This is a highly opinionated, yet thought-provoking treatment of the matter, and is different from the most commonly-presented versions.
May 23, 2023
Review pending
September 24, 2007
The book tries to defend Milken's practices while defaming his accusers. I found it boring but maybe because I didn't believe the author's case that Milken was a naive nerd who just wanted to give the small players a shot at the big time.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews