Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. It wasn't very complex, he made a bunch of basic mistakes that nobody with even a passing familiarity with finance should have made, and to say that he should have done better is an understatement of almost comical proportions. I just also think that these things were (at least initially) due to absurd levels of hubris and incompetence rather than outright malicious intent. The guy thought his shit didn't st…
It is complex, but that doesn't mean it's not malicious. Let's use a simpler example. Sam runs a horse racing operation and allows you to place bets on horses. Before the race begins, Sam collects $1,000,000 from various people placing bets on the race. During the race, Sam runs across the street to the casino and puts the $1,000,000 he's holding on black at the roulette table. If he wins the bet, Sam plans to take t…
I simply think that he started from an a priori belief that a) he is brilliant, and therefore b) ideas he comes up with are similarly brilliant, thus c) this idea is brilliant.
It wasn't.
That said, I don't think it should matter whether or not he came into this plan with an intent to defraud or if he mistakenly thought this was a foolproof investment strategy. The man is guilty as all hell and ought to face consequences for the outcome regardless of intent. I just think it's amazing to watch him continually try and explain how brilliant and complicated this idea was and how a few small mistakes brought him down while it's actually pretty simple to understand at a high level what happened and this outcome was virtually guaranteed from the start.