4 ms·

During sentencing, SBF attempted to argue that creditors had experienced "zero harm" as even then it was apparent FTX would be able to pay them back. John Ray h

During sentencing, SBF attempted to argue that creditors had experienced "zero harm" as even then it was apparent FTX would be able to pay them back. John Ray himself rebutted that argument: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/415/united-states-v-bankman-fried/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/415/united-sta.... > And even taking into account the potential for achieving anticipated recovery levels, which is by no means assured, customers still will never be in the same position they would have been had they not crossed paths with Mr. Bankman-Fried and his so-called brand of “altruism.” The opportunity cost is real and cannot be ignored.

KoolKat23 2y ago
I'm not arguing that, it doesn't change the fact that a crime occured. I'm just saying the title is not misleading. They mentioned it is bankrupt and by definition creditor rights are curtailed.
- sobellian 2y ago
  To the common man, "made money" and "experienced economic harm" would contradict each other. In that way the title misleads.
  - KoolKat23 2y ago
    They mentioned it is bankrupt and by definition creditor rights are curtailed.
    - sobellian 2y ago
      Okay? I don't see how that makes it any less misleading. Compared to a universe where FTX did not go bankrupt, the creditors have much less money.
      - KoolKat23 2y ago
        They have made more money than they invested. It is by definition a return on investment, not the return or timescale they envisaged but a return nonetheless i.e >100%. Effectively they invested $100, that investment dropped to $0 (while funds were locked away during bankruptcy), and now they're worth $119. The headline is only notable as usually creditors do not get 100% of their initial capital back during a bankruptcy, nevermind over 100%.
        sobellian 2y ago
        In an attempt to stop talking in circles, it seems we primarily disagree on the definition of "to make money" and whether it should consider opportunity cost + time value of money. The CNBC headline doesn't say return, it uses the aforementioned idiom. IMO it absolutely should in this case, especially since the creditors demonstrated their desire to invest in the opportunity being considered, but I don't really care enough to argue about it over the Internet.

KoolKat23 2y ago

I'm not arguing that, it doesn't change the fact that a crime occured. I'm just saying the title is not misleading. They mentioned it is bankrupt and by definition creditor rights are curtailed.

sobellian 2y ago
To the common man, "made money" and "experienced economic harm" would contradict each other. In that way the title misleads.
- KoolKat23 2y ago
  They mentioned it is bankrupt and by definition creditor rights are curtailed.
  - sobellian 2y ago
    Okay? I don't see how that makes it any less misleading. Compared to a universe where FTX did not go bankrupt, the creditors have much less money.
    - KoolKat23 2y ago
      They have made more money than they invested. It is by definition a return on investment, not the return or timescale they envisaged but a return nonetheless i.e >100%. Effectively they invested $100, that investment dropped to $0 (while funds were locked away during bankruptcy), and now they're worth $119. The headline is only notable as usually creditors do not get 100% of their initial capital back during a bankruptcy, nevermind over 100%.
      - sobellian 2y ago
        In an attempt to stop talking in circles, it seems we primarily disagree on the definition of "to make money" and whether it should consider opportunity cost + time value of money. The CNBC headline doesn't say return, it uses the aforementioned idiom. IMO it absolutely should in this case, especially since the creditors demonstrated their desire to invest in the opportunity being considered, but I don't really care enough to argue about it over the Internet.