1075
Anthropic logged net loss of over $80 billion in first half of 2026 (www.reuters.com)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
327 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 2 days ago (22 children)

Is there a way to access this without having to pay for/have an account?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 2 days ago

    Anthropic logged net loss of over $80 billion in first half of 2026, WSJ reports October 20, 2026 3:41 PM EDT Updated 51 mins ago

    Oct 20 (Reuters) - Anthropic reported a net loss of more than $80 billion in the first half of the year and signaled it could spend as much as $750 billion in ​the coming years to secure more computing capacity, the Wall Street ‌Journal reported on Tuesday.

    The loss, up from $13 billion a year earlier, was driven by $72 billion in accounting charges tied to changes in the value of financial instruments Anthropic issued to raise money, the ​report said, citing a draft prospectus for its IPO.

    The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

    The figures show the hefty costs ​of the AI race even as investors look harder at whether the money ⁠companies are pouring into chips and data centers will pay off.

    Anthropic's revenue jumped ​to $16.3 billion in the six months ended June 30 from $1.1 billion a year ago, while AI ​infrastructure spending nearly quadrupled to almost $9 billion, the Journal said.

    Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment and Reuters could not immediately verify the report.

    ANTHROPIC'S IPO VALUATION UNDER SCRUTINY

    Reuters reported first ​in September that Anthropic posted a net loss of $42 billion in 2025, as part of a ​series of exclusives from its IPO prospectus. The company has benefited from the popularity of Claude Code, ‌its ⁠coding assistant that developers use to write software and build apps.

    But some current investors and prospective investors who attended Anthropic's investor day last week are weighing a lower valuation for the AI company after its latest financial disclosures, four people familiar ​with the matter had ​told Reuters.

    The investors ⁠who attended the event in San Francisco discussed a valuation of around $1.5 trillion, three of the people had said, a significant step ​down from the roughly $2 trillion valuation previously expected for the November share ​sale.

    Anthropic told ⁠investors at the meeting that its third-quarter revenue jumped 45% to $16.8 billion from the previous quarter, and that it was profitable on an adjusted basis during the quarter.

    A cooler reception ⁠for Anthropic's ​IPO could weigh on the wider AI market, ​whose near-term prospects investors see as hinging largely on the share sale's success, ahead of rival OpenAI's potential listing ​next year.

    Reporting by Aditya Soni and Jaspreet Singh in Bengaluru; Editing by Sahal Muhammed

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 days ago (12 children)

    The full article isn't very long like a handful of paragraphs. TL;DR they lost $72 billion in Q3 despite revenue going up a lot. Same year same quarter was just $13 billion in net loss

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (11 children)

    they lost $72 billion in Q3 despite revenue going up a lot.

    Despite? More like because. If compute is subsidized, every extra compute adds to the loss.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago (9 children)

    72 billion was a paper loss. 8 billion loss is still a lot though!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    Can you elaborate on that a bit more, I figured thats what this was trying to say

    The loss, up from $13 billion a year earlier, was driven by $72 billion in accounting charges tied to changes in the value of financial instruments Anthropic issued to raise money, the ​report said, citing a draft prospectus for its IPO.

    But I didn't really understand it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 days ago

    Pre-IPO investors fund the company but it isnt like they give all the money upfront. They do it in pieces and can increase or decrease as targets are reached, failed, or pivoted. This keeps the investors less likely to lose money. As debts and losses are shown the value of the company dropped and how much money is on tap for the future decreases. In this case 72B of funding was "lost". This is paper money because they only had it on paper they didnt have the gold in hand.

    Essentially their potential value to their current investors dropped 72B.

    The reported net loss is real as they used more money than they made.

    Neither factor is going to bankrupt or close the company considering they still have a bunch on hand and their investors still seem to think theres a possibility of profit (just less than before).

    That's my non-expert understanding anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago*

    It's not 72 billion dollars lost related to the business.

    The money didn't exist and wasn't spent.

    It's not clear what the instrument was exactly (I would need to look it up myself, not an accountant). But there are a range of charges that aren't actually related to profitability of a business. Value of instruments could be tied to a capital raise earlier. EG if they promised a percent of the company as part of a raise, and Anthropic is worth a lot more now. Their liability increases (the percent they owe is worth more now) and they book as a loss.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago (5 children)

    The paper loss is still critically important though.

    "Oh don't worry about that 64 billion. That's just something or other the accountants dreamed up. You know what those buzz-harshing assholes are like."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    It's not as important as you might think. Counter intuitively it's tied to success as a risky start up. Or arguably they should have got better terms during one of their raises - but hindsight and all that.

    For the record I wouldn't by them for 1.5 trillion dollars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (3 children)

    Its important to the people deciding whether to give them more money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    As a selling point that they can deliver incredible ROI?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    Well, no. In this case it's an indicator that their funding model has costs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    They do a raise and give an investor 10% of the company (or more accurately a claim), the company receives 10 billion dollars (valuing the company at 100 billion)

    A year later the company is worth 1 trillion dollars. That investor's claim is now worth 100 billion dollars. And then the 90 billion is booked as a liability and so a loss. If they IPO, that 10% gets converted to shares. The liability is gone.

    Good for the investor. The startup needed the cash, so good for them. I'm sure they aren't crying that their company is valued at a trillion dollars.

    Should it be worth that much? That's different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Thanks for this. The wallhop link posted by another user was a shitty summary.

    I tried to paste the original link to archive.ph but got an error.

    Can you fill me in/link me to the site you use to get around paywalls?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •