Hedge Fund King John Paulson Disappointed By His Bio

Although the book is based on extensive interviews with Paulson, Paulson is releasing a statement that disses the book, calling it a disappointment. The statement goes on:

“It contains numerous inaccuracies and fails to capture the essence of the credit bubble. The writing style is indicative of a gossip tabloid rather than respected financial journalism. Unfortunately, the opportunity to create a meaningful documentation of an important time in financial history was lost.”

Now, it is not totally surprising that the subject of a book would be disappointed. That is the nature of biography writing. But Paulson’s criticism seems to run deeper, and is even more surprising given that the book is largely laudatory to Paulson, describing how a “renegade” made financial history.

My main problem is that Paulson does not specify the “numerous inaccuracies.” If he is serious about this criticism, he should detail the instances so the writer has a chance to defend his work. Providing further details would also help readers judge whether the alleged inaccuracies are minor mistakes or major lapses in reporting or judgement.