3 ms·
To the common man, "made money" and "experienced economic harm" would contradict each other. In that way the title misleads.
by 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 agoThey mentioned it is bankrupt and by definition creditor rights are curtailed.
- sobellian 2y agoOkay? 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 agoThey 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 agoIn 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.