• Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 months ago

    Look at their 10Q. The majority of their loss was from revaluation of derivative liabilities. If anyone with more Equity Research experience cares to look at p. 14 and care to explain further.

    It seems like bullshit to me

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m no money scientist, but is that the thing where they decide it’s worth more? So they can sell it for more money, the thing Trump has been known to do? That thing?

      • Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m not familiar with the mechanics, but the specific derivative valuation method was listed at Level 3 which is used for transactions that rely on unobservable factors to evaluate value.

        Level 1 derivatives are like interest rate swaps where there is a liquid exchange market that can easily be valued.

        Level 2 derivatives are like Futures contracts where the terms may be more bespoke, but value can be derived from an established market.

        Level 3 derivatives I’ve seen described in textbooks as marked to magic lol. Meaning there is no liquid market to mark the value to.

        Somehow, they categorized an instrument that was used to fund the SPAC as a Level 3 derivative. That on surface sounds incorrect for an option or debt conversion of a publicly traded stock.

        This should trigger an audit or something by the regulator, but again, my area of expertise is in Corp Finance, not Treasury.