Wait what does THAT mean? They got a huge inflow of money, and since they couldn't spend it all, they... bought bonds? And the value of those bonds dropped to nearly nothing?

Because that's worse than losing money, that's incompetently giving it away.

That's the discussion I WOULD like to see on HN, rather than "omg $81B net loss".

My 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.

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.

It'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)

No, that's the result of their own (private) shares being worth more (which they owe to 3rd parties).

It's a good problem to have.

Yes, let’s all just take wild guesses at what this means instead of just looking it up.

[dead]