Here’s the apology letter Sam Bankman-Fried sent to FTX employees: ‘When sh—y things happen to us, we all tend to make irrational decisions’
Sam Bankman-Fried, co-founder and CEO of FTX, in Hong Kong, China, on Tuesday, May 11, 2021.
Lam Yik | Bloomberg | Getty Images
FTX’s ex-CEO Sam Bankman-Fried blamed his “irrational decisions” on “sh—y” circumstances in a letter obtained by CNBC that was sent to employees of the bankrupt crypto exchange.
Bankman-Fried said he “froze up in the face of pressure and leaks” as his crypto empire quickly lost investor confidence and customers rapidly withdrew billions of dollars from the platform.
related investing news
“I lost track of the most important things in the commotion of company growth. I care deeply about you all, and you were my family, and I’m sorry,” continued the letter.
“It’s too little too late,” a current FTX employee told CNBC. “I’ve never seen an empathetic version of Sam, so I can’t imagine he’ll change his tune now.”
Bankman-Fried did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Bankman-Fried post-mortem to employees outlines the ex-CEO’s take on the events that led to FTX’s ultimate downfall, along with an approximated accounting. The crypto exchange went from a $32 billion valuation to filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in about a week.
Even as Bankman-Fried accepted blame for the course of events, he still appeared convinced that he was close to saving his crypto empire in the final hours before it entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
“We likely could have raised significant funding; potential interest in billions of dollars of funding came in roughly eight minutes after I signed the Chapter 11 docs,” wrote Bankman-Fried.
“Between those funds, the billions of dollars of collateral the company still held, and the interest we’d received from other parties, I think that we probably could have returned large value to customers and saved the business,” continued the letter.
Read the full letter from Bankman-Fried below.
I feel deeply sorry about what happened. I regret what happened to all of you. And I regret what happened to customers. You gave everything you could for FTX, and stood by the company—and me.
I didn’t mean for any of this to happen, and I would give anything to be able to go back and do things over again. You were my family. I’ve lost that, and our old home is an empty warehouse of monitors. When I turn around, there’s no one left to talk to. I disappointed all of you, and when things broke down I failed to communicate. I froze up in the face of pressure and leaks and the Binance LOI and said nothing. I lost track of the most important things in the commotion of company growth. I care deeply about you all, and you were my family, and I’m sorry.
I was CEO, and so it was my duty to make sure that, ultimately, the right things happened at FTX. I wish that I had been more careful.
I want to give you a better description of what happened—one I should have written out as best I understood it much earlier.
Piecing things together recently, making approximations—I don’t have full data access right now to get precise answers—and marking everything to market, regardless of liquidity, I believe that the events that led to the breakdown this month included:
1) A crash in markets this spring that led to a roughly 50% reduction in the value of collateral;
a. ~$60b collateral, ~$2b liabilities -> ~$30b collateral, ~$2b liabilities
2) Most of the credit in the industry drying up at once;
a. ~$25b collateral, ~$8b liabilities
3) A concentrated, hyper-correlated crash in November that led to another roughly 50% reduction in the value of collateral over a very short period of time, during which there was very little market bid-side liquidity;
a. ~$17b collateral, ~8b liabilities
4) A run on the bank triggered by the same attacks in November;
a. ~$9b collateral
5) As we frantically put everything together, it became clear that the position was larger than its display on admin/users, because of old fiat deposits before FTX had bank accounts:
a. ~$9b collateral, ~$8b liabilities
I never intended this to happen. I did not realize the full extent of the margin position, nor did I realize the magnitude of the risk posed by a hyper-correlated crash. The loans and secondary sales were generally used to reinvest in the business—including buying out Binance—and not for large amounts of personal consumption.
I deeply regret my oversight failure. In retrospect, I wish that we had done many many things differently. To name a few:
a) being substantially more skeptical of large margin positions
b) examining stress test scenarios involving hyper-correlated crashes and simultaneous runs on the bank
c) being more careful about the fiat processes on FTX
d) having a continuous monitor of total deliverable assets, total customer positions, and other core risk metrics
e) Putting in more controls around margin management.
And none of this changes the fact that this all sucks for you guys, and it’s not your fault, and I’m really sorry about that. I’m going to do what I can to make it up to you guys—and to the customers—even if that takes the rest of my life. But I’m worried that even then I won’t be able to.
I also want to acknowledge those of you who gave me what I now believe to be the right advice about pathways forward for FTX following the crash. You were right, of course: I believe that a month earlier FTX had been a thriving, profitable, innovative business. Which means that FTX still had value, and that value could have gone towards helping to make everyone more whole. We likely could have raised significant funding; potential interest in billions of dollars of funding came in roughly eight minutes after I signed the Chapter 11 docs. Between those funds, the billions of dollars of collateral the company still held, and the interest we’d received from other parties, I think that we probably could have returned large value to customers and saved the business.
There would have had to be changes, of course: way more transparency, and way more controls in place, including oversight of myself. But FTX was something really special, and you all helped make it that. Nothing that happened was your fault. We had to make very hard calls very quickly. I have been in that position before, and should have known that when shitty things happen to us, we all tend to make irrational decisions. An extreme amount of coordinated pressure came, out of desperation, to file for bankruptcy for all of FTX—even entities that were solvent—and despite other jurisdictions’ claims. I understand that pressure and empathize with it; a lot of people had been thrust into challenging circumstances that generally were not their fault. I reluctantly gave in to that pressure, even though I should have known better; I wish I had listened to those of you who saw and still see value in the platform, which was and is my belief as well.
Maybe there still is a chance to save the company. I believe that there are billions of dollars of genuine interest from new investors that could go to making customers whole. But I can’t promise you that anything will happen, because it’s not my choice. In the meantime, I’m excited to see some positive steps being taken, like LedgerX being turned back on.
I’m incredibly thankful for all that you guys have done for FTX over the years, and I’ll never forget that.
Democratic lawmakers accuse big oil companies of ‘greenwashing’
Gas prices are displayed at an Exxon gas station on July 29, 2022 in Houston, Texas. Exxon and Chevron posted record high earnings during the second quarter of 2022 as energy stocks have faltered in recent months.
Brandon Bell | Getty Images
A pair of Democratic lawmakers on Friday accused the largest oil companies in the United States of “greenwashing” their public image and not doing enough to decarbonize fast enough to meet climate change targets.
Carolyn B. Maloney, chair of the U.S. House of Representatives’ main investigative committee, the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Ro Khanna, a member of the same committee and the chair of the Oversight Environmental Subcommittee, sent a 31-page letter on Friday to the rest of the members of the committee with the latest findings from their ongoing investigation into the fossil fuel industry.
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and causes global warming. The Oversight Committee began its investigation into what it calls a “climate disinformation” campaign in Sept. 2021 and held a hearing with top executives from oil and gas giants on Oct. 28 of that year.
The letter is the latest installment in the committee’s bid to demonstrate that oil companies are not trying to reduce their CO2 emissions quickly enough, while obscuring their lack of participation.
“These documents demonstrate how the fossil fuel industry ‘greenwashed’ its public image with promises and actions that oil and gas executives knew would not meaningfully reduce emissions, even as the industry moved aggressively to lock in continued fossil fuel production for decades to come — actions that could doom global efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change,” the letter reads.
These efforts are particularly offensive, Maloney and Khanna said, because of the amount of money the biggest oil companies are making right now.
“The fossil fuel industry’s failure to make meaningful investments in a long-term transition to cleaner energy is particularly outrageous in light of the enormous profits these companies are raking in at the expense of consumers — including nearly $100 billion in combined profits for Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP in just the last two quarters,” the letter reads.
The letter also details ways in which the oil companies have made insufficient efforts to decarbonize their businesses, and points to internal documents that show how the companies are continuing to invest in fossil fuel production and increase output.
“Each of the companies has publicly pledged to reach ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,” the letter reads. “However, experts have found that not one of the net zero pledges from BP, Shell, Exxon, or Chevron are aligned with the pace and scope of cuts necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and avert catastrophic climate change.”
The letter also points to documents that show how the industry is pushing natural gas as a long-term climate solution.
“In 2021, natural gas contributed to 34% of U.S. energy-related emissions and 22% of emissions globally,” the letter reads. “Documents obtained by the Committee show fossil fuel companies and lobbying groups seek to publicly position natural gas as a clean source of energy and part of the transition to renewables, even as the industry is privately planning for expanded natural gas production over the long term.”
Burning natural gas results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than burning coal or other kinds of fossil fuels for the same amount of energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, but it still releases greenhouse gas emissions. Burning natural gas produces about 117 pounds of carbon dioxide per million British thermal units (a measure of heat). That’s compared with 200 pounds for coal and 160 pounds for fuel oil.
Equally critically, the production of natural gas results in leaks of methane all throughout the production process and methane is a greenhouse gas, too. It’s a different greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but still contributes to global warming.
The oil companies targeted in this investigation categorically deny the allegations made by the House Committee.
“The Committee’s fourteen month investigation, which included several hours of executive testimony and nearly a half-million pages of documents, failed on all fronts to uncover evidence of a climate disinformation campaign,” Curtis Smith, the media lead for Shell North America, told CNBC. “In fact, the handful of subpoenaed documents the Committee chose to highlight from Shell are evidence of the company’s extensive efforts to set aggressive targets, transform its portfolio and meaningfully participate in the ongoing energy transition.”
Exxon claims the House Committee lawmakers have been disingenuous in their representation of the oil company’s engagement.
“Our CEO has testified under oath on this subject during two all-day Congressional hearings before two separate committees, we’ve been in regular communication with the committee for over a year, and have provided staff with more than one million pages of documents, including board materials and internal communications,” Todd Spitler, corporate media relations senior advisor for Exxon, told CNBC.
“The House Oversight Committee report has sought to misrepresent ExxonMobil’s position on climate science, and its support for effective policy solutions, by recasting well intended, internal policy debates as an attempted company disinformation campaign. If specific members of the committee are so certain they’re right, why did they have to take so many things out of context to prove their point?”
The industry trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, says it is focused on both providing secure sources of energy and addressing climate change at the same time.
“Our industry is focused on continuing to produce affordable, reliable energy while tackling the climate challenge, and any allegations to the contrary are false. The U.S. natural gas and oil industry has contributed to the significant progress the U.S. has made in reducing America’s CO2 emissions to near generational lows with the increased use of natural gas,” Megan Bloomgren, senior vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, told CNBC.
The API also pointed to the industry’s focus on developing carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) and hydrogen technologies.
“We are poised to be a leader in the next generation of low carbon technologies, including CCUS and Hydrogen — technologies widely recognized to be critical to meet the world’s emissions reduction targets. API will continue to work with policymakers on both sides of the aisle for policies that support industry innovation and further the progress we’ve made on emissions reductions,” Bloomgren said.
Chevron declined to comment. In June, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth wrote an open letter to President Joe Biden saying that the oil company had produced the highest volume of oil and gas in its 143-year history in 2021. And Wirth pointed out that carbon emissions associated with segments of its oil and gas production was lower than global averages.
“At roughly 15 kg of CO2-equivalent per barrel, Chevron’s Permian Basin carbon intensity is some two-thirds lower than the global industry average. U.S. Gulf of Mexico production has carbon intensity just a fraction of the global industry average,” Wirth wrote. In the letter Wirth also said the oil company was investing $10 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, scale carbon capture and hydrogen technologies, and grow its renewable liquid fuels production.
BP did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
GM’s Ultium battery plant votes overwhelmingly to unionize with UAW
GM’s first Ultium battery plant in Lordstown, Ohio has voted to join the United Auto Workers, with 98% of workers voting in favor of union representation.
Ultium is GM’s battery joint venture with LG Energy. GM will establish at least four factories in the US to build the batteries for their upcoming EVs. Just today, GM announced an additional $275 million investment in the second plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee.
The Lordstown/Warren plant in Ohio is already up and running, though, and producing batteries for GM’s current and upcoming EVs. The Hummer EV already uses Ultium batteries, and the Ultium-powered Equinox, Blazer, Silverado and Cadillac Lyriq are all expected in the next year. GM’s other current EV, the Chevy Bolt – which we just named Electrek’s EV of the year – does not use Ultium cells as it came out before Ultium was developed.
While US companies have largely relied on foreign-supplied batteries until now, the recently-passed Inflation Reduction Act included measures to encourage onshoring of US EV production, which has led several companies to announce battery factories in the US. An early draft of the bill included an additional tax credit for union-built EVs, but that credit didn’t make it to the final bill.
Labor has been experiencing somewhat of a renaissance in the US in the past year or two, as COVID-related supply disruptions and general levels of discontent among the populace have led workers to demand better treatment from employers. Several industries have seen surges in unionization efforts, which have also been aided by pro-union comments from President Joe Biden.
But US battery production has heretofore mainly been non-unionized, as the largest US battery producer, Tesla, does not have a union either for battery manufacturing or for auto production. There have been a few spurts of unionization efforts at Tesla’s plants, though they met retaliation from Tesla CEO Elon Musk and were not successful.
So today’s union vote at GM’s first battery plant was closely watched, as it could set the tone not only for GM’s electrification efforts, but labor in the US battery supply industry as a whole. A positive vote was expected, though perhaps not as near-unanimous as today’s 98% result.
UAW is eyeing battery factories as the industry transitions to electric vehicles, which have fewer parts and take less labor to build than traditional gas vehicles. This would lead to fewer workers required to build cars, though targeting battery workers could help buoy union membership.
The UAW released a short statement about the vote, stating:
Our entire union welcomes our latest members from Ultium. As the auto industry transitions to electric vehicles, new workers entering the auto sector at plants like Ultium are thinking about their value and worth. This vote shows that they want to be a part of maintaining the high standards and wages that UAW members have built in the auto industry.
Ray Curry, UAW President
One potential sticking point in today’s union deal relates to pay. Previously, GM has held the position that battery suppliers should command similar pay to other auto supply factories, around $20/hr, which is what Ultium hourly workers currently make. But mainline auto workers can be paid closer to $30/hour, and battery workers may argue that due to how integral the battery is to an EV, that they should be paid closer to final assembly line workers.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Podcast: Electrek Car of the Year, Tesla bringing back radar?, FSD failure, and more
This week on the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. This week, we discuss the Electrek Car of the Year, Tesla potentially brining back the radar, Tesla admitting failure to bring FSD to market, and more.
The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us to avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Sports1 year ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
Politics1 year ago
Yvette Cooper promoted and Lisa Nandy to shadow Gove on levelling up brief in Labour reshuffle
Politics1 year ago
Have the last few wobbly weeks seen a turning point for Johnson as PM?
Politics1 year ago
Govt minister says she ‘doesn’t believe’ Stanley Johnson inappropriately touched MP
Environment1 year ago
Sprinting Into An Integrated Cleantech Future
Business2 months ago
Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng insists government ‘protecting people across UK’ with mini-budget announcement
Business2 months ago
Liz Truss’s ‘favourite’ economist says chancellor ‘took his eye off ball’ and ‘overstepped the mark’ with mini-budget
Politics1 year ago
‘It’s going to be a great Christmas’: Defiant Javid defends not imposing stricter restrictions to combat new variant