The Big Picture Brief, home

Geopolitics & money, explained calmly

Explainer · Money and power

Did Anthropic ‘hide’ $108 billion? What its IPO filing actually says

AI company Anthropic has filed to go public. A viral claim that it “hid” $108 billion doesn’t survive the filing.

S-1 $108.6B FAIR VALUE $6.2B PRINCIPAL SAME NOTES, TWO NUMBERS
Sketch illustration

What happened

What happened (fact)

On 26 October (14:00 Paris time), Anthropic filed a Form S-1 with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. An S-1 is the document a company must file before an IPO (initial public offering), its first sale of shares to the public. This one is a preliminary prospectus (the document for would-be investors): the price range and share count are blank.

Quarterly revenue rose about 31-fold, from $376 million in Q1 2025 to $11,555 million in Q2 2026 (S-1, p. 158; our arithmetic). Q2 brought the first operating profit in that run: $974 million, about 8% of revenue, after $1.3 billion of pay in shares.

How can a profitable quarter show a $66 billion loss?

What happened (fact)

Operating income is revenue minus running costs. Net loss is the bottom line after everything else.

Anthropic’s Q2 bottom line included two large non-cash items, paper entries with no money going out (S-1, p. 158):

  • $59.6 billion from a change in the fair value (today’s estimated market value) of its convertible notes, which rose as Anthropic’s own valuation rose. The line also covers two related contract types, which contributed nothing this year (S-1, pp. 160, F-33).
  • $8.4 billion of “other expense”, which the filing says came mainly from valuing, and then revaluing, the assets and liabilities under its note purchase agreements (S-1, p. 161).

Together they total $68.0 billion; offset by the operating profit and $762 million of interest income, that gives the $66.3 billion net loss (our arithmetic).

Why does a rising valuation create a loss? Convertible notes are loans that can turn into shares. As Anthropic became worth more, so did those shares, and accounting records the increase as a loss. A lower IPO price would change the figures.

Cash tells another story: in the six months to June, the net loss was $80.7 billion, but operations brought in $3.9 billion of cash (S-1, p. F-13).

The “$108 billion” claim

What happened (fact)

At 20:38 Paris time on 26 October, the X account @rdd147 claimed Anthropic “hid all their expenses” in $108 billion of convertible notes. It is the earliest such post we found, and it had 954,191 views by 08:27 on 27 October.

The filing contradicts it. The $108.6 billion is the notes’ fair value on the balance sheet (the list of what a company owns and owes) at 30 June 2026. The principal, the face amount Anthropic would owe if the notes were simply repaid, is $6.2 billion, all owed to Amazon. Amazon paid cash for the notes: one batch of $3.4 billion of principal brought in $2.8 billion. Amazon, the only noteholder and a cloud supplier, is an interested party; at the IPO its notes become non-voting shares (S-1, p. 164). Nothing is hidden.

Gromen, founder of the research firm FFTT, quote-posted it twice, at 21:09 and 21:16. About an hour and a half later he replied: “It is not; I was wrong”, and later backed analyst Jack Farley’s point about the $6.2 billion principal. His retraction replies drew about 1,000 views or fewer each.

The jobs worry

What Gromen thinks (his view)

Earlier that evening, Gromen likened China’s entry into the World Trade Organization to an early AI jobs shock, though that shock was about trade, not AI. He argued markets underrate how hard the next wave of AI could hit office jobs: if it is even a fifth as disruptive, almost every market price is wrong. That’s a forecast.

What happened (fact)

His “fell 30%” is close. US manufacturing jobs fell 27.2% from December 2001, the month China joined, to the February 2010 low (BLS; our arithmetic), a span that includes the 2008–09 recession. Research credits China with part: about a quarter for 1990–2007 (Autor, Dorn and Hanson, 2013). Others stress automation, though that method is contested. By September 2026 (preliminary), jobs were 10.6% above that low.

What Calacanis thinks (his view)

On 27 October, All-In podcast co-host Jason Calacanis read Microsoft’s new voluntary buyout offer as proof of how efficient “Super Intelligence” is making organisations, which he calls good. He guesses 6,000 take it and expects revenue per employee to “double from 900k to $2M”.

What happened (fact)

About 60,000 Microsoft employees are eligible, Microsoft confirmed to TechCrunch and GeekWire; its memo gives no number. Eligible isn’t leaving. In fiscal 2026 (the year to June), Microsoft had $331.8 billion of revenue and about 223,000 staff: about $1.49 million per employee (our arithmetic), so his 900k matches fiscal 2022 ($198.3 billion and about 221,000 staff). Microsoft is also a computing supplier: Anthropic has committed to spend at least $44.9 billion with it from November 2026 to May 2033, “regardless of actual usage” (S-1, p. 171).

What each source thinks (views, not facts)

Four Lenses

01

What Gromen thinks

his view; X, 26 October

AI could hit office work the way the China trade shock hit factories, and markets aren’t pricing it in.

02

What Dalio thinks

his view; Substack, 13 October; on AI funding generally, not Anthropic

Borrowing and share sales to fund AI spending are pushing down free cash flow (cash left after investment), which he calls the classic first stage of a squeeze. Rising funding costs raise the returns AI investment must earn.

03

What Pape thinks

No published view on this story that we found.

04

What Multipolarity thinks

No published view on this story that we found.

Counterpoint (research)

Studies differ on how much factory job loss came from China rather than automation and recessions.

Where they agree (our inference)

Gromen and Dalio both treat the AI boom as a source of risk, not only growth.

Where they differ

Gromen focuses on jobs, Dalio on funding. Beyond the four, Calacanis sees AI’s effect on work as a gain, not a risk.

What to watch next

What happened (scheduled dates)

  • The amended S-1the price range, share count and likely Q3 2026 figures.
  • Early December 2026Microsoft staff decide; leavers go on 31 December.
  • The next two BLS jobs reports will revise September’s manufacturing figure.

What this means for your wallet

01

Gas and groceries

No link to pump or food prices.

02

Mortgage rates

No sourced link to this story.

03

Savings

The lesson is reading numbers: check operating profit and cash flow beside a headline loss.

04

Jobs and pay

The AI-jobs worry is a forecast; Microsoft’s offer is voluntary.

Glossary

IPO and S-1 filing
an IPO is a private company’s first sale of shares to the public; the S-1 is the filing that discloses its finances and risks to US regulators.
Convertible notes
loans that can turn into shares later.
Fair value
an estimate of what something would sell for today.
Principal
the face amount of a loan, before interest or revaluation. It can differ from the cash actually received.

Reflection Point

When a company’s results show both, which tells you more?

In Q2 2026, Anthropic reported a $974 million operating profit and a $66.3 billion net loss (S-1).

Reply or vote in our poll; we’ll share how readers who voted split next issue.

Educational only: not financial advice, and not a recommendation to buy, sell or avoid Anthropic shares in its IPO or any other investment. The filing is preliminary, and figures can change.

Sources and notesShow / hide

Primary (filings and data)

  1. Anthropic, PBC, Form S-1 (preliminary prospectus), filed 26 Oct 2026; EDGAR acceptance 14:00 Paris time. Figures from pp. 58, 147–151, 157–158, 160–161, 164–165, 169, 171, F-6, F-13, F-31, F-33, F-40–F-42. Filing index: sec.gov · Prospectus: sec.gov
  2. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, manufacturing employment, series CES3000000001 (seasonally adjusted; Sep 2026 preliminary): data.bls.gov · same series on FRED (MANEMP): fred.stlouisfed.org
  3. Microsoft, “Introducing a Voluntary Exit Offer”, Official Microsoft Blog, 26 Oct 2026: blogs.microsoft.com
  4. Microsoft 10-K filings, FY2022 and FY2026 (headcount and revenue): sec.gov · sec.gov

Reporting (secondhand figures credited to the outlet)

  1. TechCrunch, 26 Oct 2026 (about 60,000 eligible, confirmed by Microsoft): techcrunch.com
  2. GeekWire, 26 Oct 2026 (60,000 confirmed; expected take-up smaller than the spring offer): geekwire.com

Research (China shock)

  1. Autor, Dorn & Hanson, “The China Syndrome”, American Economic Review, 2013: aeaweb.org
  2. Acemoglu, Autor, Dorn, Hanson & Price, Journal of Labor Economics, 2016: nber.org
  3. Pierce & Schott, American Economic Review, 2016: aeaweb.org
  4. Hicks & Devaraj, Ball State CBER, 2015 (method contested; see Slaper, 2019): nist.gov · journals.sagepub.com

The Four Lenses

  1. Luke Gromen: see the posts below.
  2. Ray Dalio, “The Numbers Behind the Bond Bear Market (with a Look at Equities)”, Substack, 13 Oct 2026 (free; on AI funding generally; paraphrased): raydalio.substack.com
  3. Robert Pape and Multipolarity: no published view on this story found.

The posts discussed (each cited separately)

  1. Social Capital (Chamath Palihapitiya’s firm), S-1 thread, X, 26 Oct 2026, 16:28 Paris. Interested party. Its own disclaimer says it is not investment advice: x.com
  2. Chamath Palihapitiya, quote post, X, 26 Oct 2026, 17:35 Paris (opinion): x.com
  3. Luke Gromen, AI-jobs post, X, 26 Oct 2026, 20:12 Paris: x.com
  4. Luke Gromen, quote posts of the “$108B” claim, X, 26 Oct 2026, 21:09 and 21:16 Paris: x.com · x.com
  5. Luke Gromen, “I stand corrected”, X reply, 26 Oct 2026, 22:35 Paris: x.com
  6. Luke Gromen, “It is not; I was wrong”, X reply, 26 Oct 2026, 22:46 Paris: x.com
  7. Luke Gromen, agreeing with Farley, X reply, 26 Oct 2026, 23:41 Paris: x.com
  8. Jack Farley, reply on the $6.2B principal, X, 26 Oct 2026, 23:36 Paris: x.com
  9. Jason Calacanis, Microsoft buyout post, X, 27 Oct 2026, 05:17 Paris (opinion and forecast): x.com
  10. Context only: the viral “$108B” post by @rdd147, the earliest such post we found, X, 26 Oct 2026, 20:38 Paris (954,191 views at 08:27 Paris on 27 Oct; contradicted by the filing): x.com

Every fact is dated and linked; views are labelled as views. Read how we work. Spotted an error? Tell us at [email protected].