3 ms·

Because the money is gone without anything to show for it, after (allegedly) spending lots of it on... not TV show stuff. You don't see a problem with that? Did

Because the money is gone without anything to show for it, after (allegedly) spending lots of it on... not TV show stuff. You don't see a problem with that? Did we read the same article? I don't know about you, but if someone gave me $55m to make a TV show, I'd like to think I wouldn't blow $6m of that betting on the stock market. If even one of these allegations are true (and honestly I don't really see a reason to doubt them), this is a hilariously brazen misappropriation of funds. Obviously we haven't seen the contract/deal he signed with Netflix, but I highly doubt it has language like "you can spend this money we're giving you on literally anything you want, including /r/WallStreetBets behavior".

Terretta 3y ago
> I don't know about you, but if someone gave me $55m to make a TV show, I'd like to think I wouldn't blow $6m of that betting on the stock market. The article does claim he lost that, but then claims he made more back. It claims Netflix transferred him $11M, he tried played markets and lost then speculated crypto and more than doubled the money, then bought toys, and was still up: Netflix wired Mr. Rinsch’s production company $11 million... Rinsch transferred $10.5 million of the $11 million to his personal brokerage account at Charles Schwab... lost $5.9 million in a matter of weeks [then later] transferred more than $4 million from his Schwab account to an account on the Kraken exchange and bought Dogecoin ... this one paid off: ... a balance of nearly $27 million... At this point, he's up. Then the spending spree "tab came to $8.7 million", but that still leaves more than the $11M.
- chris_wot 3y ago
  And? That’s not why Netflix gave him the money. They could have done that themselves.
  - Terretta 3y ago
    And, he didn't "blow" it. He speculated, and came out ahead overall. Not saying that was a good idea or appropriate, but from the bank account point of view, the production balance ended up ahead.
    - chris_wot 3y ago
      But did it? Netflix probably wanted to make more money on this, and wanted to get audience growth. They have people they can absolutely use this to do this all by themselves, but they didn’t because that wasn’t what they wanted to do.
- fastball 3y ago
  Making more back doesn't really change the misappropriation. Martin Shkreli went to prison for doing effectively the same exact thing.
  - Terretta 3y ago
    Completely agree doesn't change misappropriation. But his misappropriation came out ahead, instead of "blowing it". So in the end, probably no lesson was learned.
    - fastball 3y ago
      He blew 6m on the stock market. He made more back on Dogecoin (which isn't on the stock market).
- astura 3y ago
  Doesn't matter if he's up or down - that wasn't his money to gamble with.

Terretta 3y ago

> I don't know about you, but if someone gave me $55m to make a TV show, I'd like to think I wouldn't blow $6m of that betting on the stock market. The article does claim he lost that, but then claims he made more back. It claims Netflix transferred him $11M, he tried played markets and lost then speculated crypto and more than doubled the money, then bought toys, and was still up: Netflix wired Mr. Rinsch’s production company $11 million... Rinsch transferred $10.5 million of the $11 million to his personal brokerage account at Charles Schwab... lost $5.9 million in a matter of weeks [then later] transferred more than $4 million from his Schwab account to an account on the Kraken exchange and bought Dogecoin ... this one paid off: ... a balance of nearly $27 million... At this point, he's up. Then the spending spree "tab came to $8.7 million", but that still leaves more than the $11M.

chris_wot 3y ago
And? That’s not why Netflix gave him the money. They could have done that themselves.
- Terretta 3y ago
  And, he didn't "blow" it. He speculated, and came out ahead overall. Not saying that was a good idea or appropriate, but from the bank account point of view, the production balance ended up ahead.
  - chris_wot 3y ago
    But did it? Netflix probably wanted to make more money on this, and wanted to get audience growth. They have people they can absolutely use this to do this all by themselves, but they didn’t because that wasn’t what they wanted to do.
fastball 3y ago
Making more back doesn't really change the misappropriation. Martin Shkreli went to prison for doing effectively the same exact thing.
- Terretta 3y ago
  Completely agree doesn't change misappropriation. But his misappropriation came out ahead, instead of "blowing it". So in the end, probably no lesson was learned.
  - fastball 3y ago
    He blew 6m on the stock market. He made more back on Dogecoin (which isn't on the stock market).
astura 3y ago
Doesn't matter if he's up or down - that wasn't his money to gamble with.