Caroline claims she was able to track their finances well enough to (a) establish that they couldn’t afford to buy out Binance and (b) calculate a -$2.7bn NAV-excluding SamCoins for Alameda and recommend against $3bn of venture investments, both in 2021. I gave some links for that in OP. Then they calculated out how to repay lenders in June 2022, creating the spreadsheet that was central to the eventual guilty findings. So I don’t think they were completely clueless when it came to 10 figure numbers or the big picture more generally.
I suppose I consider it almost a given that they did not have good financial controls on ‘mere’ 7-8 figure sums, because at this scale and complexity that would be a full time job for a professional, probably multiple professionals. Per Going Infinite, VCs knew this and tried to push Sam to hire a CFO; he mocked them as quoted in OP and refused. So in the end all four people permitted to know the true state of things had substantial other responsibilities and no accounting background.
I could have been clearer about what is being counted as what, but such FTX-related assets are all counted as illiquid in this categorisation / hypothetical. I agree that assets appearing to exceed liabilities in itself doesn’t necessarily mean much, was covered in OP in the first section.
All I’m counting as liquid here is:
Roughly $1bn of the final SBF balance sheet
Mostly looking at $200m ‘USD in ledger prime’, $500m ‘locked USDT’, and $500m of HOOD shares.
The $5bn returned to customers during the bank run
Since this was successfully returned, it’s almost liquid-by-definition.
I would assume this was overwhelmingly USD / stablecoins / BTC / ETH, since those collectively made up almost all of the final liabilities (SBF balance sheet over on top left)
The $???bn returned to the lenders in June 2022
I speculated $10bn in prior comment, but again this is very much just a guess.
Anyway, it’s hard to put much weight on any of this because so much is uncertain, including the accuracy of that balance sheet.