I'm a little confused on how this article comes up with $650 instead of $700.

From [Investopedia](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/09/when-exercise-options.asp). 

> 
> Consider the following example:
> 
> 
> XYZ is currently trading at $99.00  
>  You own one XYZ Oct 90 call
>  option  
>  The XYZ Oct 90 call option is priced at $9.50  
>  October
>  expiration arrives in two weeks  
>   
> 
>  1) Increased Risk Exercising this call option prior to expiration increases risk. More importantly, you gain nothing by taking on added
>  risk.
> 
> 
> When you own the call option, the most you can lose is the value of
>  the option, or $950. If the stock rallies, you still own the right to
>  pay $90 per share. It is not necessary to own the shares to profit
>  from a price increase and you lose nothing by continuing to hold the
>  call option. If you decide you want to own the shares (instead of the
>  call option) and exercise, you effectively sell your option at zero
>  and buy stock at $90 per share.
> 
> 
> Let's assume one week passes and the company makes an unexpected
>  announcement. The market does not like the news and the stock opens
>  for trading at $85 and sinks to $83. That's unfortunate. If you own
>  the call option, it has become almost worthless and your account has
>  dropped by $950. However, if you exercised the option and own stock,
>  your account value has decreased by $1,600, or the difference between
>  $9,900 and $8,300. This is an unacceptable loss because there was
>  never a chance to gain by exercising the call option and, although you
>  were unlucky, you lost an additional $650.
> 
> 
> 

Exercising the call option at $90 a share for 100 shares would cost me $9,000. If the stock is at $8,300 it means that I'm down $700

How did Investopedia come up with $650? Am I missing something?