Skip to main content

Death Benefit (2011)








Not long ago I read the novel DEATH BENEFIT by Robin Cook.

The set up is this: after the financial crisis of 2008, two newly unemployed bankers started LifeDeals Inc.  Their business plan? selling annuities to people with known illnesses, and given their database about the medical facts along with the tendency of many humans to be excessively optimistic about their own longevity, they could do so on terms profitable to themselves. 

The two principals of LifeDeals are distinguished as characters: Russell is the quant and computer geek, Edmund the hale alpha male.

The key to the plot is that LDI is heavily dependent on its settlements with patients with diabetes. Thus, a breakthrough in research into the regeneration of the pancreas using stem cells could destroy it.

Another business entity that enters into the plot is called Big Skies. This seems to be a multi-strategy hedge fund, and it is shorting LDI in the credit derivatives market (in other words, betting that LDI will be forced to default.)

Big Skies is led by one Gloria Croft. (The name sounds like the video game heroine Lara Croft.)  She is the one who gets to make indignant speeches about how crooks selling inherently flawed products created the crisis of 2007-08 and ought to be in prison. In her view, Russell and Edmund are of that number.

SPOILER ALERT: If you have any thought of reading the book, and want to be surprised, stop reading here.

-------------------------------------

Anyway, Gloria Croft apparently has discovered, through studying patent applications, that there is a lot of promising activity  at Columbia University regarding the regeneration of the pancreas.  It will mean devastation for the two men she despises, and lucrative vindication for her.

After laying out this exposition, Cook shifts his focus mostly to the campus of Columbia, where the real protagonists of the novel reside, study, and work in labs. The guy doing the ground-breaking work on the pancreas mysteriously dies. A beautiful woman assistant of his decides to personally investigate the cause of death.

The culprit behind it all turns out to be -- not too much of a shocker here, Mr. Cook -- Edmund of LDI. The subsidiary villains are members of the Albanian mob.

Gloria Croft drops out of the action when that action turns to Columbia.   She's mentioned much later, in passing, as one of the victims of the Albania contractors.

I think it is heartening in a way that Gloria Croft is portrayed so positively. The hedge fund industry should be happy. A short seller serving as even a subsidiary protagonist of such pulp?

It would have been better had she survived to the end and been showered in money as a result of her accurate prognostication and the subsequent investment decision. But, hey, it is something.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more