The SEC would beg to differ with your first para. I imagine that "protect" involves "adjudication":

"Founded to help our country respond to the Great Depression, we’re the agency that protects investors from misconduct, promotes fairness & efficiency in the securities markets, and facilitates capital formation for those looking to hire, innovate, and grow."

▲

kasey_junk 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Note what that explicitly doesn’t say. Any decisions about good or bad investments.

▲

JacobAsmuth 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Unless you're accusing Anthropic of misconduct in their financial reporting obligations I fail to see the connection.

▲

eqvinox 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I would certainly consider their "non-cancelable spending commitments" misconduct in their financial reporting obligations. The law doesn't seem to be on my side on that though. I don't have enough hubris to claim the law is wrong, but I don't think I'll retract my position either.

▲

bix6 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You mean like making up non-standard ARR calculations and not including your Q3 results in your initial S1 draft? Or you know hiding things in footnotes in the S1 so people don’t see the full math on your obligations?

	▲	Manuel_D an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This wasn't hidden in the footnotes of the S1. It was quite clearly explained on page 3, under "Select Defined Terms": https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2130357/000162828026... > “Run-Rate Revenue” is an operating metric that refers to the estimated annualized value of our revenue-generating activity as of a measurement date, calculated as the sum of (i) our consumption-based fees during the trailing 28-day period ended on the measurement date, multiplied by 13, and (ii) our aggregate monthly subscription fees as of the measurement date, multiplied by 12. For purposes of calculating Run-Rate Revenue, consumption-based fees and subscription-based fees are derived from customer usage and active subscriptions.
	▲	jobs_throwaway 17 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		~All companies provide non-GAAP numbers alongside the standard ones, and amended S-1s are also extremely common. Neither of those is remotely indicative of anything nefarious
	▲	losvedir an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's totally normal for companies to release their own take on the numbers alongside GAAP ones.
	▲	jeremyjh an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They report GAAP earnings, and explain why it is not the best method to understand their current performance. Do you think it is more meaningful to investors to use their convertible notes mark-to-market accounting and worry about a loss that represents "paying their investors what their shares are worth"? Adjusted revenue figures are reported all the time for many different reasons, there is absolutely nothing special about this and I've not heard ANY financial analyst explain why GAAP is a better number here. You are salivating over a total nothing-burger. Also, if you didn't hear, their Q3 results were spectacular and were included in an amendment today. I'm not an Anthropic fan-boy and I won't be buying their offering but you've picked just about the two least relevant things in this offering to complain about. The reasons to be skeptical of this offering is what is described in the TFA: Anthropic is committed to spending 900 billion on compute over the next decade and if they can only profitably employ 80% of that it will utterly ruin them. Dario is putting all the chips on number 12. If he is right though - and inference usage explode by 1000x Anthropic has so much scarce compute locked up that they will do very, very well.