4 ms·

Okay, but printing those quotes without context is a choice. When biggest financial fraudster since Bernie Madoff tries to give a roundabout non-incriminating a

Okay, but printing those quotes without context is a choice. When biggest financial fraudster since Bernie Madoff tries to give a roundabout non-incriminating answer, the thing to do is print it and also say that what actually happened is FTX "loaned" customer assets to a hedge fund — also operated by himself! — in return for essentially nothing. Not take him at his word that $10B missing was just a whoopsie that happened because he wasn't paying close attention. As for the case being open… I mean, what is the point of a newspaper if they're just going to reprint whatever the authorities say happened? What about the absolutely bonkers balance sheet that FTX released, for example? Matt Levine did a good job breaking it down [1], because that's the job of a journalist: to make otherwise-inaccessible information available to laypeople. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-14/ftx-s-balance-sheet-was-bad https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-14/ftx-s-...

tootie 4y ago
There's tons of context in the article. It lists everything they did wrong. That Bloomberg piece is very much an opinion column and says so at the top.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  It's simply untrue that there is context. Let's just take one example: > Alameda had accumulated a large “margin position” on FTX, essentially meaning it had borrowed funds from the exchange, Mr. Bankman-Fried said. “It was substantially larger than I had thought it was,” he said. “And in fact the downside risk was very significant.” He said the size of the position was in the billions of dollars but declined to provide further details. We know the size of the positions! The Financial Times reported on Friday (as news) that FTX held $900M in assets against $9B in liabilities [1]. And that was before the balance sheet was released! Why is it important to run this quote? Why allow him to spin the story like this? Why let him present it as a mistake? Why not include actual numbers? These are all choices the NYT is making that frame SBF in a positive light. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/f05fe9f8-ca0a-48d5-8ef2-7a4d813af558 https://www.ft.com/content/f05fe9f8-ca0a-48d5-8ef2-7a4d813af...
  - tootie 4y ago
    It's later in the article as is a link to additional details reported by the WSJ and specific accusations on which FTX directors had personal knowledge. "the company used FTX customer funds to make the payments. Besides her and Mr. Bankman-Fried, she said, two other people knew about the arrangement: Mr. Singh and Mr. Wang. "The meeting was previously reported by The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Singh did not respond to a request for comment, and Mr. Wang could not be reached. According to a person familiar with FTX’s finances, the exchange lent as much as $10 billion to Alameda."
jmull 4y ago
Just to point out: you're comparing a news story to an opinion column. I'm just calling for some critical thinking here! I get it, everyone's angry. But you don't have to let it turn your brain off.

tootie 4y ago

There's tons of context in the article. It lists everything they did wrong. That Bloomberg piece is very much an opinion column and says so at the top.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
It's simply untrue that there is context. Let's just take one example: > Alameda had accumulated a large “margin position” on FTX, essentially meaning it had borrowed funds from the exchange, Mr. Bankman-Fried said. “It was substantially larger than I had thought it was,” he said. “And in fact the downside risk was very significant.” He said the size of the position was in the billions of dollars but declined to provide further details. We know the size of the positions! The Financial Times reported on Friday (as news) that FTX held $900M in assets against $9B in liabilities [1]. And that was before the balance sheet was released! Why is it important to run this quote? Why allow him to spin the story like this? Why let him present it as a mistake? Why not include actual numbers? These are all choices the NYT is making that frame SBF in a positive light. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/f05fe9f8-ca0a-48d5-8ef2-7a4d813af558 https://www.ft.com/content/f05fe9f8-ca0a-48d5-8ef2-7a4d813af...
- tootie 4y ago
  It's later in the article as is a link to additional details reported by the WSJ and specific accusations on which FTX directors had personal knowledge. "the company used FTX customer funds to make the payments. Besides her and Mr. Bankman-Fried, she said, two other people knew about the arrangement: Mr. Singh and Mr. Wang. "The meeting was previously reported by The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Singh did not respond to a request for comment, and Mr. Wang could not be reached. According to a person familiar with FTX’s finances, the exchange lent as much as $10 billion to Alameda."

jmull 4y ago

Just to point out: you're comparing a news story to an opinion column. I'm just calling for some critical thinking here! I get it, everyone's angry. But you don't have to let it turn your brain off.