That's the discussion I WOULD like to see on HN, rather than "omg $81B net loss".
replyMy understanding is the opposite - Anthropic issued debt / liabilities tied to their company valuation, their company valuation skyrocketed, so the value of their liabilities also skyrocketed, resulting in a large accounting loss.
But finance is not my wheelhouse, so I would love to hear this from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
You are correct. Matt Levine discussed this in more detail in his last column (scroll down to the Anthropic section): https://wallhop.io/https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newslet...
replyYes, it is analogous to selling covered calls on stock. It’s $72B in “lost profits” that they would have had had they held onto it instead of selling it.
replyInclusion of SAFEs makes this IMHO the most plausible explanation.
replyI do not expect to find that Anthropic invested enough in the SAFEs of other companies to lose $80B on their investments.
They agreed to pay some employees in their own shares to be delivered some time later. They recorded that expense then as a liability. The value of the shares increased because the company became more valuable, and therefore that liability needs to be revalued by 72 billion.
replyIt's a nice problem to have and is pretty much an accounting artifact coming from the fact that they are paying in different currencies (USD and shares)
You won't hear Ed Zitron talk about that
replyNo, that's the result of their own (private) shares being worth more (which they owe to 3rd parties).
replyIt's a good problem to have.
Yes, let’s all just take wild guesses at what this means instead of just looking it up.
reply[dead]
reply