We have an investment in OpenAI Global, LLC (“OpenAI”) and have made total funding commitments of $13 billion, of which $11.6 billion has been funded as of September 30, 2025. The investment is accounted for under the equity method of accounting, with our share of OpenAI’s income or loss recognized in other income (expense), net.

Current year net income and diluted EPS were negatively impacted by net losses from investments in OpenAI, which resulted in a decrease in net income and diluted EPS of $3.1 billion and $0.41, respectively. Prior year net income and diluted EPS were negatively impacted by net losses from investments in OpenAI, which resulted in a decrease in net income and diluted EPS of $523 million and $0.07, respectively.

Finally, there’s another SEC document containing relevant information from Tuesday’s announcement that OpenAI had finalized its transition into a for-profit (optimistic!) company, in which it was revealed that Microsoft is now the owner of a 27 percent stake in the AI upstart.

If Microsoft owns 27 percent of OpenAI, it stands to reason under equity accounting that it bears 27 percent of OpenAI’s losses. Microsoft’s admission that it shaved $3.1 billion off its net income to account for its share of OpenAI losses therefore suggests OpenAI lost about $11.5 billion during the quarter. Microsoft declined to comment beyond confirming that the $3.1 billion loss “this year” referred to Microsoft’s current fiscal year, which started July 1, not the calendar year. So that’s a quarterly loss, not a nine-month loss.

That’s a humongous number for OpenAI given it reportedly generated only $4.3 billion in revenue for the first half of the year, but a sum that won’t hurt Big Daddy Redmond too much given it earned $27.7 billion in net income in the last quarter alone.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/29/microsoft_earnings_q1_26_openai_loss/

Epstein helped make contacts between top Russian and Israeli officials to explore a negotiated settlement to replace Assad.

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-ehud-barak-putin-israel-russia-syria-war-depose-assad

In the mid 2000s, the 21 First Nations governments party to the Robinson Huron Treaty brought a lawsuit against Canada saying that the terms of that treaty were not being honoured.

The First Nations said the fact that the $4-per-person annuity had not increased since 1874 breached the treaty, because resource extraction projects operating on their land had been generating profits that far exceeded what their members received.

The judge on the trial ruled in favour of the First Nations, which resulted in a $10b CAD settlement.

Five per cent of that sum went to the lawyers from Nahwegahbow Corbiere Genoodmagejig/Barristers & Solicitors who argued the case on behalf of the First Nations.

Per their website, this law firm is owned, staffed and operated by Aboriginal people and is located in Anishinabek territory, which is covered by the Robinson Huron treaty.

This equates to about $510m CAD in fees. The legal firm took the case on partial contingency, meaning that they charged reduced rates for some of their staff in exchange for a percentage of any settlement, should the case be successful. Lawyers commonly operate purely/mostly on contingency in personal injury or employment law for example. In this case, the contingency was uncapped, meaning that the firm got 5% of any settlement, not 5% up to some maximum dollar figure. The firm donated half their percentage of the settlement (~$250m CAD) to various Indigenous community projects.

Subsequent to winning this settlement, two of the First Nations part of the original case (Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and Garden River First Nation) brought and successfully won a lawsuit over this amount of fees, and the judge ordered the fees reduced to $23m CAD from $510m CAD. The lower fee represents approximately $350/h of legal effort, as the case took ~65,000 hours.

“When we saw the legal fee of half a billion dollars, it just was so astronomical and know that there were 15 to 17 of the nations within the Robinson Huron Treaty territory that would get less than what that firm was getting,” [Chief Karen Bell] said in an interview with CBC.

In his ruling, [Judge] Myers criticized the lawyers for bringing their personal interests and the 21 First Nations’ interests into conflict by charging the high fee, discouraging the First Nations from getting outside legal advice on their fee, and pressuring them to approve it.

[Legal counsel for the law firm] Gover said the ruling “echoes centuries of paternalistic attitudes toward First Nations” and undermines the right of Indigenous leaders to make their own informed decisions. “The chiefs, elders and other trustees involved in this agreement were experienced negotiators who drove a hard bargain and were well aware of what they were doing over the entire course of this litigation,” he said.

I will finish on a koan: If the legal team claiming very high fees for winning an Indigenous rights case is Indigenous, is it still settler logic to have an opinion?