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

eqvinox 41 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.

	▲	czinck 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Can you explain your objection more? They have several sections of their S-1 dedicated to this, and it's been public knowledge for a while (the other big IPO this year had it as a pro), so I'm not sure what you mean by "misconduct in their financial reporting obligations"

▲

stingraycharles 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s astonishing how many people here claim to be financial experts and interpret the Anthropic IPO in a way that makes them look evil.

▲

bix6 2 hours 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 2 hours 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.

▲

what 7 minutes ago | parent [-]

> annualized revenue

> trailing 28 days multiplied by 13

I’m not aware of a year that has 13 months of 28 days? Why would you ever calculate it this way?

▲

lgfrbcsgo a few seconds ago | parent | next [-]

The year has 52 weeks. 28 days is 4 weeks. 13*4=52

▲

adgjlsfhk1 4 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

28*13=364. Months are different sizes so month*12 would be an over-estimate

	▲	what 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Don’t be stupid. They don’t use the same calculation for subscriptions, there they do 12 months. Only for consumption spending they come up with 13 months of 28 days.

▲

jobs_throwaway an hour 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

▲

bananamogul 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Anyone who doesn’t read footnotes in prospectuses, quarterly reports, etc. has no business investing, full stop.

Footnotes are not some minor FYIs. In financial literature, they’re just a formatting choice. They’re fully part of the document.

▲

losvedir 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's totally normal for companies to release their own take on the numbers alongside GAAP ones.

▲

jeremyjh 2 hours 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.