We undertake the seminal comprehensive definition and defense of the fraud-created-the-market theory, and show why critics' concerns regarding the presumption are unfounded Properly understood, the fraud-createdthe- market theory is about materiality-fraud is so material, without it, securities never would have made it to market. In this regard, we show that a presumption of reliance in the newly issued-securities context and the primary market is consistent with the Supreme Court's collapsing the elements of securities fraud into a single inquiry whether the omission or misrepresentation was material. We build upon Professor Donald C. Langevoort's fresh interpretation of Basic's fraud-on-the-market presumption and his interpretation of Stoneridge to show that the fraudcreated- the-market presumption is grounded in the Court's jurisprudence. We also find support for a judicially crafted presumption in the context of new issues in the securities laws themselves and in the common-law bases for presumptions. Relying on scholarship both old and new, we support judicial recognition of the fraud-created-the-market theory, specifically in cases involving bonds, in which the primary market may be informationally efficient, and cases involving manipulative conduct, in which market efficiency is irrelevant. The need for an answer to whether federal courts should adopt the fraud-created-the-market theory is pressing. The fraudcreated- the-market theory will play an increasingly important role in actions against those involved in fraud relating to the issuance of subprime mortgage-backed securities.