Theranos Low on Cash After Settlement with Walgreens(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Theranos Low on Cash After Settlement with Walgreens
https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-low-on-cash-after-settlement-with-walgreens-1501624665
77 comments
A company has not only totally failed in the market but employed deception which lead to a lawsuit, my question is how do they have any money left at all? Isn't this such a miss that whatever was left should just be returned to investors and the company close down. Does anyone have a scenario where this company becomes viable?
In all sincerity: does Theranos have anything left?
This isn't 23andMe where a viable product got caught up in legal fights over reporting. As I understood it, the fraudulent component here was "everything at all worthwhile about the product". Are they just a shell at this point, trying to use the team and leftover money as a basis for a new project? Do they have some existing offering which isn't totally valueless? What's happening here?
This isn't 23andMe where a viable product got caught up in legal fights over reporting. As I understood it, the fraudulent component here was "everything at all worthwhile about the product". Are they just a shell at this point, trying to use the team and leftover money as a basis for a new project? Do they have some existing offering which isn't totally valueless? What's happening here?
The only thing that comes to mind is the sunk costs fallacy. Although it's hard to imagine Theranos ever becoming a success (and certainly, I won't be rooting for it), it might be harder for those who poured millions into the company to let go. That's my guess anyway.
Why stop operating when you can continue until bankruptcy and beyond? Serious question...if there's no reputation left to lose and everyone is still getting paid, what incentive do they have to stop?
If you're an investor, do you want to get some pennies back on the dollar, or do you want to get 0 pennies back on the dollar? If they liquidate they can take that cash and pay out something, at least to some class of investors.
I would imagine writing the whole thing off as a loss is better from a tax perspective.
I don't think it'd ever be better because you're always writing off the loss, the difference is the size of the loss. It's better to, e.g., get 10K back out of 100K investment and claim a 90K loss, versus getting back 0K with a 100K loss claimed. You're only getting back your taxes from that 10K difference in losses, versus getting the 10K back. The delta would always be there.
Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't understand this.
Scenario 1: I have $100 in gains this year. I owe $30 in taxes. I am left with $70. (Say $100 is 30% bracket)
Scenario 2: I have $100 in gains this year. I write off a $10 loss. (Say $90 is 25% bracket). I owe $22.5 in taxes. I am left with $67.5.
Is it the case that writing off the loss is better, if you can be bumped so far down the brackets that (gains - loss)(1-lower_tax_rate) > (gains) (1 - higher_tax_rate)?
Scenario 1: I have $100 in gains this year. I owe $30 in taxes. I am left with $70. (Say $100 is 30% bracket)
Scenario 2: I have $100 in gains this year. I write off a $10 loss. (Say $90 is 25% bracket). I owe $22.5 in taxes. I am left with $67.5.
Is it the case that writing off the loss is better, if you can be bumped so far down the brackets that (gains - loss)(1-lower_tax_rate) > (gains) (1 - higher_tax_rate)?
No, it's continuous with no edge effects like this because only income within a bracket is taxed at that bracket.
I thought your comment was true 6 months ago and said something similar. I don't think anyone can answer your question until we see the HN post with the title: "Theranos closes" and we read about the postmortem if one will exist.
> In all sincerity: does Theranos have anything left?
As I understand it, Holmes controls an outright majority of the voting rights, so the question is does Holmes have anything left to gain from Theranos operating.
As I understand it, Holmes controls an outright majority of the voting rights, so the question is does Holmes have anything left to gain from Theranos operating.
>Do they have some existing offering which isn't totally valueless
There's a lot of patents, via Holmes. Someone in the last Theranos thread also pointed out that whatever hardware does exist may have licensing value for other developers. The owners may be planning to part it out.
There's a lot of patents, via Holmes. Someone in the last Theranos thread also pointed out that whatever hardware does exist may have licensing value for other developers. The owners may be planning to part it out.
They're a zombie, but having a large cash reserve in one spot is capital, and capital keeps a business running, hunting for brains. Maybe they should reinvent themselves as a hedge fund.
No one would put money into a hedge fund run by holmes. Would you trust her with your money?
She stinks of fraud already. If she told me the fund was doing great, I would get suspicious that she was turning into the next bernie madoff.
She stinks of fraud already. If she told me the fund was doing great, I would get suspicious that she was turning into the next bernie madoff.
You would think so, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Meriwether
"A year after LTCM's collapse, in 1999, Meriwether founded JWM Partners LLC. (...) Meriwether opened his third hedge fund venture, named JM Advisors Management, also based in Greenwich, Connecticut, in 2010."
Meriwether blows up and is not a fraud. But then there's this guy:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jon-corzine-considers-launching...
Though in all fairness I don't know whether he pulled that one off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Meriwether
"A year after LTCM's collapse, in 1999, Meriwether founded JWM Partners LLC. (...) Meriwether opened his third hedge fund venture, named JM Advisors Management, also based in Greenwich, Connecticut, in 2010."
Meriwether blows up and is not a fraud. But then there's this guy:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jon-corzine-considers-launching...
Though in all fairness I don't know whether he pulled that one off.
I don't think equating LTCM with fraud is exactly right. They used an incredibly risky strategy and had their leverage blow up in a black swan event. A failure, but not fraud.
No you're right, it's fundamentally wrong to compare Meriwether with Corzine. But my kneejerk response was to the "entrust your money".
A black swan event caused by the phenomena that previously uncorrelated financial indicators temporarily become correlated under stress.
A few months after they blew up, their portfolio was profitable again.
A few months after they blew up, their portfolio was profitable again.
"Though in all fairness I don't know whether he pulled that one off."
He didn't. In fact, that was his 2nd attempt at raising a fund.. he tried in 2012 right after mf. And he's currently working on his third attempt to raise a fund. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-18/corzine-tries-launc...
If anything, that's a pretty good example of my point.. no one wants to give their money to a fraud.
He didn't. In fact, that was his 2nd attempt at raising a fund.. he tried in 2012 right after mf. And he's currently working on his third attempt to raise a fund. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-18/corzine-tries-launc...
If anything, that's a pretty good example of my point.. no one wants to give their money to a fraud.
My question is why isn't Elizabeth Holmes in prison? She is a disgrace.
And I was a huge fan of hers (I thought she would be a good role model for my daughter) before her crimes came to light.
And I was a huge fan of hers (I thought she would be a good role model for my daughter) before her crimes came to light.
In case you were in a coma 2008-2009, the US justice system likes to settle with corporations, but almost never actually tries to convict white collar criminals. Here is a whole book subtitled "Why the justice department fails to prosecute executives."
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XBZFQR2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
It is very well reviewed.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XBZFQR2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
It is very well reviewed.
Well, the book didn't get out of the first sentence for me.
> each a realm unto itself, run by a US Attorney who is almost untouchable by headquarters in faraway DC.
In fact, each US Attorney can be fired at will by the President. At will and not for cause. The Fed Chair can be fired but only for cause.
This leads to US Attorneys living in a very political world. They are politically appointed (Chris Christie), Senatorially confirmed (Jeff Sessions USAG) and politically removed (George W Bush). So defendants who are politically connected are not going to get prosecuted and that's that.
> each a realm unto itself, run by a US Attorney who is almost untouchable by headquarters in faraway DC.
In fact, each US Attorney can be fired at will by the President. At will and not for cause. The Fed Chair can be fired but only for cause.
This leads to US Attorneys living in a very political world. They are politically appointed (Chris Christie), Senatorially confirmed (Jeff Sessions USAG) and politically removed (George W Bush). So defendants who are politically connected are not going to get prosecuted and that's that.
When was GWB a US Attorney? Or are you referring to this[0]?
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_co...
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_co...
I've got a friend that puts much stock in the interviews that CEOs give on the financial TV networks. He keeps insisting that the CEOs on these shows rarely lie, because they would otherwise go to jail or otherwise get sued by their investors.
I'm not so sure...
I'm not so sure...
Which crimes?
[deleted]
I suspect that the lawsuit thought process from Walgreen's was, "We can get a huge judgement that will put you into bankruptcy where we fight everyone else for the scraps, or we settle for something more modest and leave you with just enough money to shut down."
Indeed, why isn't the entire board, and upper management in jail?
Have you looked at their board? It's basically the ultra-elite. How would you even go after James Mattis? It's kind of sad but a brilliant illustration of how much money can protect you. Theranos the company will fail but Theranos the people will be fine, except for the whistleblower that is.
Mattis resigned from the board in 2016.
He joined in 2013.. this story broke in oct 2015 in the wsj. And he resigned in December (along with other boards he was on) to join the trump admin.
So there's an open question about when he knew about this fraud. But clearly he didn't have a problem staying on even after it became public knowledge.
And there's also this:
In 2012, for instance, Holmes began talking to the Department of Defense about using Theranos’s technology on the battlefield in Afghanistan. But specialists at the D.O.D. soon uncovered that the technology wasn’t entirely accurate, and that it had not been vetted by the Food and Drug Administration. When the department notified the F.D.A. that something was amiss, according to The Washington Post, Holmes contacted Marine general James Mattis, who had initiated the pilot program. He immediately e-mailed his colleagues about moving the project forward. Mattis was later added to the company board when he retired from the service. (Mattis says he never tried to interfere with the F.D.A. but rather was “interested in rapidly having the company’s technologies tested legally and ethically.”)
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-the...
So he was told by the DOD that it didn't work after he initiated a pilot program for Theranos.. and continued to push it internally.
So there's an open question about when he knew about this fraud. But clearly he didn't have a problem staying on even after it became public knowledge.
And there's also this:
In 2012, for instance, Holmes began talking to the Department of Defense about using Theranos’s technology on the battlefield in Afghanistan. But specialists at the D.O.D. soon uncovered that the technology wasn’t entirely accurate, and that it had not been vetted by the Food and Drug Administration. When the department notified the F.D.A. that something was amiss, according to The Washington Post, Holmes contacted Marine general James Mattis, who had initiated the pilot program. He immediately e-mailed his colleagues about moving the project forward. Mattis was later added to the company board when he retired from the service. (Mattis says he never tried to interfere with the F.D.A. but rather was “interested in rapidly having the company’s technologies tested legally and ethically.”)
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-the...
So he was told by the DOD that it didn't work after he initiated a pilot program for Theranos.. and continued to push it internally.
Didn't they lie to the board about how/whether the tests worked? Doesn't get upper management off the hook, but I don't actually know how responsible boards are when they're being mislead.
Why would the board be in jail? They are the ones who invested and may be losing money. Who did they defraud?
Prison isn't a random card you can play to threaten people who you don't like, unless you want to go back to the USSR.
Prison isn't a random card you can play to threaten people who you don't like, unless you want to go back to the USSR.
The Board of Directors is charged with overseeing the conduct of the business.
Whilst I've only held board memberships in Australia I expect it's a concept that translates somewhat to other countries.
Board members can be held personally responsible for the misconduct of a company (criminally as well as civilly).
Whilst I've only held board memberships in Australia I expect it's a concept that translates somewhat to other countries.
Board members can be held personally responsible for the misconduct of a company (criminally as well as civilly).
[deleted]
because the board is stacked with billionaires, former senators and secretaries of state.
too big to jail
too big to jail
>> On April 21, 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported that an investor had alleged that Theranos Inc. had misled company directors about its practices concerning laboratory testing. According to a lawsuit filed by the investor, Theranos had used a shell company to secretly buy lab equipment to run fake demonstrations with.
The company lied to its own board of directors and investors. I don't think they are the ones who need to be jailed.
The company lied to its own board of directors and investors. I don't think they are the ones who need to be jailed.
>> *billionaires, former senators and secretaries of state*
dig deep.. see also the board and Ian Gibbons suicide..
The whole thing smacks of an outright fraud to skim funds from obamacare and elsewhere via pharmacy blood testing fees..
The whole thing smacks of an outright fraud to skim funds from obamacare and elsewhere via pharmacy blood testing fees..
"outright fraud to skim funds from obamacare"
You just described the business model of about 1/8th of all companies operating in the US healthcare business...
You just described the business model of about 1/8th of all companies operating in the US healthcare business...
Maybe if they have patents which become extremely relevant.
"The embattled Silicon Valley firm told investors in June that it had about $54 million left on hand. It was spending about $10 million a month then, but anticipated further reducing its burn rate.
Theranos in June was seeking to raise about $50 million from existing investors. The company declined to comment on whether it had succeeded in doing so, or on its current cash position. It isn’t clear when Theranos will make the payments to Walgreens."
Theranos in June was seeking to raise about $50 million from existing investors. The company declined to comment on whether it had succeeded in doing so, or on its current cash position. It isn’t clear when Theranos will make the payments to Walgreens."
Why would anyone give them money now?
Even if the technology was truly promising, and the company had a clear plan forward to develop and profit, I would not give them a cent so long as Holmes is connected to the company. She's far too much of a liability.
But she wears a black turtleneck, just like Steve Jobs.
Theranos seems to be an example of supreme hubris. Years from now, we will be reading amazing business school research into how a company, seemingly built on the ultimate vaporware, run by a woman who saw herself as the next Steve Jobs, collapsed due to the CEO's hubris. I think if it weren't for Holmes controlling interest she would have been let go a long time ago.
> Years from now, we will be reading amazing business school research
Serious question: Is there a decent future for business schools? Has anyone done a decent ROI calculation on them based on the financial and business results of the past 15/20 years? Are they currently on an upward trend? Downward? Stagnant?
The reason I'm asking is that from half a globe away (Eastern Europe) the MBA and business school hype seems to have died a little compared to 10 years ago, as in I don't get to see "this guy/lady graduated from Wharton School" all that often when reading business/financial profiles.
Serious question: Is there a decent future for business schools? Has anyone done a decent ROI calculation on them based on the financial and business results of the past 15/20 years? Are they currently on an upward trend? Downward? Stagnant?
The reason I'm asking is that from half a globe away (Eastern Europe) the MBA and business school hype seems to have died a little compared to 10 years ago, as in I don't get to see "this guy/lady graduated from Wharton School" all that often when reading business/financial profiles.
Is there a decent future for business schools?
Yes, as long as you understand their purpose. They exist as a form of class signalling. [0] Many of the older forms of nepotism/cronyism have been made illegal. Racial and IQ discrimination are also illegal. Therefore, business schools and law schools fill the gap. They exist to tell an employer that the applicant is either a member of their class or an ally.
[0] http://lesswrong.com/lw/did/what_is_signaling_really/
Yes, as long as you understand their purpose. They exist as a form of class signalling. [0] Many of the older forms of nepotism/cronyism have been made illegal. Racial and IQ discrimination are also illegal. Therefore, business schools and law schools fill the gap. They exist to tell an employer that the applicant is either a member of their class or an ally.
[0] http://lesswrong.com/lw/did/what_is_signaling_really/
I'm not a fan of floods of MBAs, but surely the degree serves some purpose other than class signalling. It seems like an exercise in typical engineer hubris to think <other field> is a trivial pursuit <engineer> could learn in a week.
Suppose you take a veteran engineer heading into management, and send him/her to get an MBA. Will they come back no better for it?
Suppose you take a veteran engineer heading into management, and send him/her to get an MBA. Will they come back no better for it?
> I'm not a fan of floods of MBAs, but surely the degree serves some purpose other than class signalling. It seems like an exercise in typical engineer hubris to think <other field> is a trivial pursuit <engineer> could learn in a week.
You won't find engineers saying that medical degrees are just BS.
Fact is, business degrees are thin on content. I know this because I studied engineering and went to a business school. Now of course any degree has some kind of content, but business content just has very little that would pass for being academic content. The core stuff like Porter's Five Forces and Taylorism is no different than what you'd "know" if you read some of those airport magazines now and again.
Imagine an engineering class where you just watched a Discovery show about how the Channel Tunnel was made. Yes, it's content, but nobody should be hired to build tunnels based on having seen that video of the French guy shaking hands with the British guy.
But that is how we hire executives. A guy who knows some things about the history of some industry, and can talk about it confidently.
> Suppose you take a veteran engineer heading into management, and send him/her to get an MBA. Will they come back no better for it?
They'll know something about the culture of management, which will be useful for duping someone into promoting him. Well actually I rather like the idea of having technically trained managers, so I'd cheer that on. But not because you'll know how to manage from studying management.
You won't find engineers saying that medical degrees are just BS.
Fact is, business degrees are thin on content. I know this because I studied engineering and went to a business school. Now of course any degree has some kind of content, but business content just has very little that would pass for being academic content. The core stuff like Porter's Five Forces and Taylorism is no different than what you'd "know" if you read some of those airport magazines now and again.
Imagine an engineering class where you just watched a Discovery show about how the Channel Tunnel was made. Yes, it's content, but nobody should be hired to build tunnels based on having seen that video of the French guy shaking hands with the British guy.
But that is how we hire executives. A guy who knows some things about the history of some industry, and can talk about it confidently.
> Suppose you take a veteran engineer heading into management, and send him/her to get an MBA. Will they come back no better for it?
They'll know something about the culture of management, which will be useful for duping someone into promoting him. Well actually I rather like the idea of having technically trained managers, so I'd cheer that on. But not because you'll know how to manage from studying management.
It's not that these degrees are required, it's that candidates are expected to have degrees from specific schools such as Harvard. That's what makes it class signalling. You could be a business genius but if you went to a low-tier state school you're not getting hired at the big Manhattan bank.
I love your skepticism about 'intellectual hubris'!
Business schools can serve a very productive education service when students take the finance/accounting tracks if they don't have those backgrounds. This allows people without those backgrounds to either transition into new careers or get the underlying knowledge they need to take on new responsibilities/roles in their existing careers.
A lot of work in both finance and accounting are 'complex' so daily practice require detailed knowledge. Even if they may not be 'sophisticated', (e.g. PhD level mathematics). Some areas, like derivatives, are both complex and sophisticated.
Sources: 1. My Mom got an MBA to change fields and then used her learned knowledge in finance+accounting constantly working for a state municipal agency. 2. Our CEO got an MBA to learn the knowledge he needed to move forward in his career/transition into different roles.
I agree with the other responses to you question that in some areas of the US (e.g. Silicon Valley, East Coast) a 'name brand' MBAs may be used as a signaling requirement for certain jobs or to advance in a career - more so than for eduction. This gets more silly when a personal already has the necessary skills! And part of the value these schools supply to their graduates a network of similarly interested business contacts.
So would the veteran engineer moving into management be helped... perhaps/but probably not. But can a person looking to change fields or areas benefit hugely by doing an MBA? Yes. Absolutely.
Business schools can serve a very productive education service when students take the finance/accounting tracks if they don't have those backgrounds. This allows people without those backgrounds to either transition into new careers or get the underlying knowledge they need to take on new responsibilities/roles in their existing careers.
A lot of work in both finance and accounting are 'complex' so daily practice require detailed knowledge. Even if they may not be 'sophisticated', (e.g. PhD level mathematics). Some areas, like derivatives, are both complex and sophisticated.
Sources: 1. My Mom got an MBA to change fields and then used her learned knowledge in finance+accounting constantly working for a state municipal agency. 2. Our CEO got an MBA to learn the knowledge he needed to move forward in his career/transition into different roles.
I agree with the other responses to you question that in some areas of the US (e.g. Silicon Valley, East Coast) a 'name brand' MBAs may be used as a signaling requirement for certain jobs or to advance in a career - more so than for eduction. This gets more silly when a personal already has the necessary skills! And part of the value these schools supply to their graduates a network of similarly interested business contacts.
So would the veteran engineer moving into management be helped... perhaps/but probably not. But can a person looking to change fields or areas benefit hugely by doing an MBA? Yes. Absolutely.
Since when is discrimination based on IQ illegal?
Since Griggs. [0] You can't do broad-based testing such as IQ or IQ-proxies (SAT or ACT). This is why companies have shifted to hiring based on degrees.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
How do the cops get away with it?
https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/court-oks-b...
The argument they cops used is that people who score to highly on the qualifying exams are likely to become bored with the work they do faster, leading to a lot of turnover and the costs that go with replacing them.
I'm seeing this claim everywhere recently. By any chance, did you see it fairly recently, maybe on a SlateStarCodex-related community?
As indicated in your link, IQ tests and diplomas are treated the same way by Griggs: they are okay when they are a reasonable measure of job performance and not okay when they're not.
As indicated in your link, IQ tests and diplomas are treated the same way by Griggs: they are okay when they are a reasonable measure of job performance and not okay when they're not.
The Economist has done this a few times in recent years:
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21601884-payback-tim... http://www.economist.com/whichmba/think-twice
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21601884-payback-tim... http://www.economist.com/whichmba/think-twice
That's a fair question and I don't know the answer to it. I study and work in public policy. Ergo I imagine that the study and analysis of business would come from b-schools. However, to try and answer your question, I've seen it mentioned here and in the news that the primary value of going to a business school is not the education, but the contacts you make.
The Financial Times did an interesting story about this recently: https://www.ft.com/content/36942668-8ca0-11e6-8cb7-e7ada1d12...
An MBA from a top school is worth the money and what you make of it.
Also the fact that she doesn't like getting stuck with a needle.
Now, nobody -likes- getting stuck with a needle, but it really isn't as terrible as many make it out to be (unless they miss the vein for an IV - over and over - but that's just up to incompetence or being unlucky).
Certainly not so bad as to perpetrate something of this magnitude.
That said, I tend to wonder if it is possible at all (that is, within the realm of what our technology currently allows for, or what can be done with potential near-future technology) to be able to do the kind of testing at all?
Basically - can you take a drop of blood, and analyse it in such a manner to do all the tests touted by Theranos (even if only in a lab setting and "by hand")? I know for some things it is possible (we all know of glucose testing for those with diabetes, and I've seen something similar for testing of LDL/HDL levels) - so can that be extrapolated to other things - and all with one drop?
I don't know - but I'd love to know. Personally, I don't mind having blood drawn for a test - what I don't like is having to go to a special center to have it done, or to have it done as a separate appointment or whatnot. It would be much more efficient if the doctor or nurse could just poke my finger, get a drop, and stick it in a hand-held machine or something and get an instant reading.
But so far, that seems like it's still in the realm of science fiction than possible science fact.
Now, nobody -likes- getting stuck with a needle, but it really isn't as terrible as many make it out to be (unless they miss the vein for an IV - over and over - but that's just up to incompetence or being unlucky).
Certainly not so bad as to perpetrate something of this magnitude.
That said, I tend to wonder if it is possible at all (that is, within the realm of what our technology currently allows for, or what can be done with potential near-future technology) to be able to do the kind of testing at all?
Basically - can you take a drop of blood, and analyse it in such a manner to do all the tests touted by Theranos (even if only in a lab setting and "by hand")? I know for some things it is possible (we all know of glucose testing for those with diabetes, and I've seen something similar for testing of LDL/HDL levels) - so can that be extrapolated to other things - and all with one drop?
I don't know - but I'd love to know. Personally, I don't mind having blood drawn for a test - what I don't like is having to go to a special center to have it done, or to have it done as a separate appointment or whatnot. It would be much more efficient if the doctor or nurse could just poke my finger, get a drop, and stick it in a hand-held machine or something and get an instant reading.
But so far, that seems like it's still in the realm of science fiction than possible science fact.
Related question: how is uBeam still alive?
Hubris? Yes, among other things, such as deception and fraud. I personally hope that besides that research, I'll also be reading reports on Holmes and other Theranos management thrown in jail.
... but dig a bit deeper and it seems like an outright fraud, and the ability to hype is not surprising considering the backroom players..
The fact that this company even still exists shows what kind of distorted and unsustainable market we have right now.
Non-paywalled Article (Vanity Fair): https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/theranos-walgreens-s...
It seems this whole thing was a "build hype now, invent the actual stuff later" policy taken to the extreme. Elizabeth Holmes has done a disservice to the tech community's reputation.
It seems this whole thing was a "build hype now, invent the actual stuff later" policy taken to the extreme. Elizabeth Holmes has done a disservice to the tech community's reputation.
No she hasn't. She just signaled to the world all the VC funds staffed by idiots that think they are the smartest peeps in the room. All the science and life-science funds passed on Theranos b/c they could smell the bullshit from Holmes a mile away.
No one in the life-sciences or science industry was harmed by Holmes lies. The only ones hurt were the patients, un-knowing employees, and the inept vc funds.
> No one in the life-sciences or science industry was harmed by Holmes lies. The only ones hurt were the patients, un-knowing employees, and the inept vc funds.
None of these things fall under the category of Tech Industry, much less its reputation, which is what I was speaking to. In the case of the patients, they were rarely direct customers of Theranos and their actual provider (like Walgreens) has the responsibility of arbitrage. Walgreens, of course, is doing so via suing Theranos.
For the VC funds, risk is a necessary condition to "sit at the table", so if Theranos bankrupts a VC, the blame rests only on the VC itself.
The only group I agree may have been hurt are the lower employees of Theranos. Sadly, that seems to be part of the new American status quo. $company plays fast and loose with the rules, and the grunts (or taxpayers) suffer the consequences.
None of these things fall under the category of Tech Industry, much less its reputation, which is what I was speaking to. In the case of the patients, they were rarely direct customers of Theranos and their actual provider (like Walgreens) has the responsibility of arbitrage. Walgreens, of course, is doing so via suing Theranos.
For the VC funds, risk is a necessary condition to "sit at the table", so if Theranos bankrupts a VC, the blame rests only on the VC itself.
The only group I agree may have been hurt are the lower employees of Theranos. Sadly, that seems to be part of the new American status quo. $company plays fast and loose with the rules, and the grunts (or taxpayers) suffer the consequences.
"Fake it until you make it" is commonly accepted strategy in the "start up" community..
It's interesting that at this point any institutional investor still has funds parked in Theranos. They must really think they know something that everyone else does not know.
it can mean a variety of things, including that they don't want to realize a loss on the current valuation.
That pretty much sums it up: https://medium.com/multiple-personalities-order/how-to-be-th...
These sentiments are essentially a rough paraphrasing of One Up on Wall Street (published 17 years ago) [0] with crass language added "for the fucking effect!"
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/762462.One_Up_On_Wall_St...
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/762462.One_Up_On_Wall_St...