Newsweek on Bailout Nation
Newsweek covers the McGraw Hill issue; I should have an announcement on the book later this week.
Here’s what the print edition of Newsweek has to say
To most publishers, it would’ve been a touch of golden luck: a manuscript about the worst economic crisis in decades, written by a financial insider and finished months before rivals had even a rough draft ready. Instead, Wall Street investor Barry Ritholtz’s “Bailout Nation: How Easy Money Corrupted Wall Street and Shook the World Economy” appears to have become a parable for the same corporate shenanigans that it catalogs. In early 2008, McGraw-Hill paid a five-figure advance to Ritholtz, a frequent CNBC guest and author of “The Big Picture,” a popular finance blog. When Congress passed its $700 billion bailout bill, McGraw-Hill’s contract with Ritholtz looked prescient. The imprint started taking pre-orders and set a March release date. Then, in early February, it dropped the book.
Ritholtz claims that he and McGraw-Hill butted heads over scathing passages about bond-rating agencies, which accepted large fees from investment banks while giving sterling ratings to subprime mortgages, helping the banks sell them at premium prices. In his original draft, Ritholtz dubbed this “payola” and called the rating agencies “pimps.” His wrath extended to Standard & Poor’s, a rating agency owned by the same company as McGraw-Hill. According to the author, when his editors took issue with his tone, he agreed to water it down but insisted on criticizing the agencies. Soon after, the book was dropped.
That’s when the blogosphere exploded with claims of undue influence on the part of S&P. But Mary Skafidas, a McGraw-Hill spokesperson, says the company dropped the book because it couldn’t corroborate “a number of assertions covering a wide range of public figures and public entities.” That explanation “raises some red flags,” says Ron Hogan, senior editor at Galleycat, a blog that covers the publishing industry, because most publishers “don’t have super-rigorous fact-checking departments.” Ritholtz says that he turned over nearly 90 pages of additional sources, and that the notion that his facts couldn’t be verified is “ridiculous.”
The idea of corporate entanglements causing the book’s demise is rich with irony—after all, S&P is already accused of being too cozy with the banks whose bonds it rates. But Ritholtz isn’t too upset: he says rivals are offering better advances than the one he’s returning to McGraw-Hill. (emphasis added)
Its essentially accurate, though I can take issue with some small nuances.
>
Source:
Another Banking Casualty
Barrett Sheridan
NEWSWEEK, Mar 2, 2009
http://www.newsweek.com/id/185848
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
They did you a huge favor. Your sales are going to be 3X
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I expect the publicity might help somewhat, but not as much as you are suggesting. Perhaps the book will garner more mainstream reviews, but I doubt the sales will see that much of a bump.
Given the pre-sales at McGraw Hill were in the neighborhood of 20,000 — and we had yet to hit the 2 week prior to publication date where a lot more pre-sales take place — I was conservatively estimating sales might be in the 30-50k range. With a little luck, and a few good reviews, it could have seen 65-75,ooo att he top end.
After the entire McGH kerfuffle, perhaps you can tag another 10-20k onto those numbers — but its hard to imagine much more than that.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Pimps [and whores], indeed.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Barry,
Sorry. Unrelated question: Do W. Buffett’s recent heavy sales suggest he sees some large prey? Could he pull some major purchase, like a huge Well’s preferred issue? (Save the country, Warren!) Bill Gates also seems to be selling more Microsoft lately, though doubt he has the same kind of firepower.
Any thoughts?
-Andy R.
(And of course McGraw was jerking you around. Best of luck; I too am sure the book will do better than you expect.)
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
OMG.
Barry, I TOLD you that McGraw Hill sucks.
You give me hope that honesty actually pays off. Please don’t stop trying just because of this.
There is no reason that these ratings agency crooks should get off the hook.
Everyone involved with stamping these AAA ratings on banker’s garbage should be publicly exposed and maximally ridiculed.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Barry, as you well know, any press is good press in your case. Although the writer probably butchered a quote or two of yours or got a fact wrong, I doubt it really matters…the only time that I have ever been accurately quoted myself was when I emailed the reporter a quote…hard to screw that up.
Still eager to get a copy of the book…maybe you should self-publish through Lulu.com and tell the man to stick it!!!
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
BR, truth be told, your the only truth. Save love.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Better Idea: ask’em if they’ll just pay you one qudrillion of the federal deficit in 2020….Major Tom, to ground control…
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
BR, you’re waaaaay too honest and blunt for the likes or taste of any of the entrenched interests. The fact that you get along with nasim taleb (from your recent lunch post) just proves that.
whatever you end up doing, just don’t stop this blog !! I like my common sense straight up and unfiltered.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Barry,
Just would like some insight on your thought process here. You had to know that McGraw Hill owned S&P and that you were asking them to put out a book trashing their own company. You clearly saw this as a possibility so you demanded final authority over editing in writing…but you had to know this was going to happen, no?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Eh. Hard to feel much like for a company that keeps ripping off my kids for their textbooks.
Screw ‘em.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Just wait until you end up on Oprah’s book club…..
Anyways, you might just beat “THE BLACK SWAN” and end up on Times’ business best seller list
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Surprised you returned the Advance. if, as you said, the contract gave you final editing rights, then it is they who, either for this reason or the excuse they used, surely it is THEY who broke the contract. As a lawyer, I’m sure you reviwed all the boiler plate in detail to cover such a likely outcome? In such circumstances, is it normal to have to return the advance in the publishing world?
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
“In such circumstances, is it normal to have to return the advance in the publishing world?”
_______
I suspect it’s not. BR probably took the high road.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Imagine how many comments you’d be getting from “Mary Skafidas” if you were at the old blog site.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:58 pm
This may seem silly, but at this day and age cannot you do without a traditional publisher?
cannot you just sell most copies in Electronic formats (and audio) right off this blog, in addition to amazon? and then contract a Printer to print the xxx number of hard copies for whom ever still buys those?
There are a lot of Printers out there looking for work these days, and many of them are used to doing catalog runs of much smaller numbers than you would need.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
The answer to most of your questions are here
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/about-bailout-nation/
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
“Ritholtz says that he turned over nearly 90 pages of additional sources, and that the notion that his facts couldn’t be verified is “ridiculous.””
BR,
that you Timestamp, under your own Name, by itself, has long made you one of the Best.
the assertion made by that PR Flack is, really, beyond the pale..
I’ve long wondered whether any, of that ilk, can, even, lie straight in bed..
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Sorry to hear about your book being “shelved”. Stick to your guns. Don’t water down your ideals or morals just to earn a pass. Hang in there. Someone else will come along and offer to publish your book.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Next time make the advance non-refundable (as an incentive to keep them honest of course. People need accountability these days you know. Especially in the financial world). If you have a problem with keeping the money you can always split it among your blog comment section contributors. We won’t mind
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 am
“The answer to most of your questions are here”
But not the contractual resolution. I understand that this is private but, as a lawyer myself, it sounds like you settled.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:11 am
“But not the contractual resolution. I understand that this is private but, as a lawyer myself, it sounds like you settled”
But I’m with you 100%. As I have posted previously I have a grave concern that with the vested interests and lobbying power, the Ratings Agencies issue is in danger of getting swept under the carpet. Payola is totally the correct word, but I can understand how the lawyers didn’t like that. I think the Ratings issue was one of the more egregious parts of this stinking pile of donky **** and MUST be resolved. I also thing the publicity will help your sales more than you expect.
Signed copies ata special rate for BP regular posters?