Now you've read about the bonkers world of Elizabeth Holmes, own some Theranos history: Upstart's IT gear for sale Fancy owning a piece of Silicon Valley history? Hundreds of PCs, notebooks, and monitors used by infamous biotech cluster-fuck-up Theranos are set to be sold off following the $10bn-peak-valued biz's collapse. Liquid Technology, an IT salvaging and shifting outfit in Brooklyn, New York, says it will flog off a huge pile of …
...but some flash car salesman or hipster type I wonder how long all the feminist cheerleading liberals would have allowed themselves to have been fooled for. She took them for.the hook, line and whole bloody fishing boat
investment from the likes of ... the Waltons,
Really? From what I remember the Waltons were dirt poor. 29 of them living in a run-down farmhouse G'night Jim Boy, G'night Bobby-Sue, G'night Victoria-Wilhelm, G'night Great-Great-Great-Grandmaw
Names famous in politics and military, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Adm Gary Roughead, and James Mattis, for example.
It's actually, quite a long and very interesting list - see the wikipedia entry, which is too long to type here.
I knew as that list caused some interesting comments in the financial analyst world.
Why in any world were those particular people on that list of directors?
And why that super deep voice and always a turtleneck. I don't care, but that's weird. Why would you assume Elizabeth is a "chick" - at least biologically speaking? I don't care, actually - identify as you like, but be honest about it; boy, all those add up to hyper weird.
Money people don't usually like weird. Why'd they all go for this, what's still hidden from us?
Was it a way to get a ton of dna samples for someone? The possibilities for nutty conspiracy theories abound to say the very least. Lots of twists here.
Was there an adam's apple in there? Those crazy eyes...shared by some other pretty nutty public figures. Lots of very interesting issues here, yet almost no reporting on what raises anyone's eyebrows who takes the slightest effort in looking. What's going on?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos
By and large they look like the sort of party who you'd see being escorted around a lab trying to look interested but with glazed looks in their eyes and ears acting as a through duct to anything explained to them.
Been there, worn the lab coat, had the visitations.
I suspect that the chick image will be exploited to prevent people from noticing that a person without qualifications managed to raise huge sums and inflate the value of the company up to $9bn thanks to her family connections, all those big names do not pop out by chance.
Yes IRL Ms Holmes key product was her own bu***hit.
I think anyone looking to set up a similar venture should take note of her Board choices.
I'm sure they, or people with similar backgrounds, will fall for another scam.
Did she really want to be Bill Gates, or John DeLoren?
Wait. Those people were not there because they have no technical background and could be easily fooled. Those people were there because they are famous names and inspire trust. I had a look to the related articles, I could read that some famous people lost some money, but if you sum up the money they lost you get less than $500mn, how come the company was evaluated $9bn? How much did they actually raise? Who are ALL the investors who lost money? These are fundamental details, but wherever you read they have been glossed over.
"Those people were there because they are famous names and inspire trust."
If you see famous people lending their names to something they collectively know damn-all about (excepting, possibly, the one surgeon in there) you should at least consider they've been hood-winked and avoid the same. As I wrote in another comment, work in a lab with a high enough profile and you see these bigwigs being shown round and not understanding a thing they're seeing or being told; they'd be easy targets for any bullshitter.
The big names who should really inspire trust in a venture in this field would be an assortment of medical and chemical Nobel Laureates. There weren't any.
If you were thinking of making an investment there and didn't understand the nature of the business the list of directors should have been a warning, not a reason to trust.
Where did the other $8,500,000,000.00 go? Nowhere. Most of it never existed. The $9B figure is a fantasy the street calls "valuation" which is the sum of its capital (~$500M of borrowed cash plus some bits and baubles of lab gear) plus the value of Theranos' patent and other intellectual property.
When it become apparent the firm's intellectual property was a steaming mass of bullshit, its value dropped instantly. And given that the IP was used as collateral to secure loans, a lot of investors got screwed. I'm sure the big ones will be first in line though for whatever comes put of liquidation.
Never underestimate the vapor pressure of hot, fresh bullshit. We just saw about.$8.5B worth evaporate...
Sorry, but I don't buy it. I am fully aware that the market valuation was just a bubble as it happens with a lot of companies traded on the stock market right now.
But I still notice that nowhere it is written how much they actually raised and how many people beyond the few famous names fell for the scam.
"But I still notice that nowhere it is written how much they actually raised and how many people beyond the few famous names fell for the scam."
Fair enough, and I don't think the author of the article or anyone else knows. From here on out its BS all the way down. Defrauded investors are going to inflate their losses to shelter their assets from tax... Insurance firms will try to minimize their loss magnitude, unless they think their subrogation contractors have an easy win. The press will want big, sensational numbers. Former board members will lowball to reduce their apparent culpability.
At the end of the day all that will be left are some very happy lawyers, on all sides. I view lawyers as the friction force on society... in the end that's where all our money gets dissipated. Whatever money got offshored is gone forever, along with depreciation on all the equipment Theranos bought. And the taxpayer will definitely have to pay for justice.
This makes me sad and a little hostile.
Names famous in politics and military, Henry Kissinger, William Perry [huh? has he got a new gig since forcing the Japanese into opening up trade relations with the US, or am I thinking of Matthew, whom we are obviously Friends with?] ...
Henry Kissinger, oh how I'm missin' ya!</br>
And wishing you were heeya!</br>
[...]</br>
with your crinkly hair</br>
and your glassy stare</br>
and your Machiavellllllian scheeeemes</br>
(oh well)
You've got nicer legs than Hitler, </br>
And bigger t**s than Cher!
Those crazy eyes...
Image, young padawan, image. Leads to the dark side image does.
Look at that vid (or just the still) and you'll see a ring-light reflection in her eyes. That will dramatically lighten and intensify the eye colour to emphasise the Husky image. Note also the eye make up to further emphasise this, and that the eyelids appear to be unnaturally widely open when exposed to fairly intense light. Holmes like this image, she played on it, and for a while it worked. Now she's been caught out, but there's still a chance that in court she can the "poor little white girl, led astray" routine.
I hope she gets a good long stretch in a regular state prison.
"I hope she gets a good long stretch in a regular state prison."
Aye! And we know the probability of that, eh? If she gets sentenced to anything at all, we will probably end up subsidizing a holiday with sewing circles, peloton, and goat cheese pizza
Why we tolerate a justice system where some criminals get absolute shithole cells and others a nice hotel stay is beyond my comprehension. You'd this some "real" prisoners could make a case that they are denied their 14th amendment 'equal protection' protection or something...
Moore's law has actually slowed down in the past couple of years. If we are talking about desktops the difference in performance between two/three years old hardware and the current hardware is not so big. Furthermore monitors and other peripherals evolve at a slower pace. So, excluding tablets it's not sure that all the value is lost, but on the other hand by reading all the stories about the company you get the impression that the missing money wasn't spent on hardware.
Now that the gear has been sitting around for a couple of years, it likely doesn't have much value left in it
What about the dog? That will have been bought on company expenses or with Holmes ill-gotten gains. In fact two important points that Reg journalism has failed to investigate:
1) What happened to the dog? That's far more interesting than a bunch of gullible investors being fleeced.
2) Where do I go to bid for the dog as a company asset?
"Theranos company and everything connected to it was always a scam."
The odd thing here is running a big scam and not having a bolt-hole for when it's eventually discovered. Did she really believe she had something that worked? Was it simply rich-kid's delusion? You can easily visualise someone with that sort of background not being able to judge what's feasible because up to now money has bought everything. If they fall lucky they have a Facebook and if they don't reality catches up in jail.
She’ll definitely improve her jail’s sartorial and attractiveness average.
She's well connected, and she's not poor or black. What makes you think she'll get a real custodial sentence? I reckon a nominal six year sentence, eighteen months in a soft prison, and then eighteen months house arrest, then free on licence.
doubt that. the people whose $$$ she scammed are mostly well-connected and not black as well.
gotta give the appearance of probity. a few (richly deserving) examples of stern justice like her and Madoff avoid deeper scrutiny of things like:
- overpaid CEOs with all up-, no down-, sides in their pay packages
- financial advisors whose incentives - selling you products with high MERs - clash directly with your interests
- the overemphasis of financial companies as opposed to companies that actually make things or deliver services.
So, no, I’d bet she’s going down.
That is not a requirement at all. The vital part is that when you tell lies about your publicly traded companies you must make damn sure you are not on camera, being recorded or surrounded by too many impartial witnesses. You should also diversify well before the shit hits the fan and promote some twit to take the fall because you are too busy with one of your newer scams investor opportunities.
I guess Elizabeth Holmes is a fraud, and a bit of a nut? It's Silicon Valley, so you can be eccentric or even straight-up weird, but in return you had better build a successful company.
Or maybe she had a few years of living it high, with every foible entertained, every cost billable to the company, and even if she gets sent to prison, she's got the one thing she'll successfully milk for the rest of her life, fame (or infamy, because they are the same thing).
It does occur to me (for UK readers) that Holmes shows the directors of RCL really didn't try hard enough. They too could have hired an executive jet, employed a fleet of domestic slaves, bouncers and drivers, and billed the company for a pedigree dog and a human flunky to wipe up after it.
Exactly.
That's a Board of the "Great & The Good." They will have f**k all idea of what they are being shown (or judge wheather it even works) but will be able to reassure potential suckers investors that this is a serious business with massive potential because y'know "It's got these guys on the Board, and they'd never get suckered, right?" I think it was Issac Asimov who noted "An expert outside their own field is just as narrow minded, ignorant and gullible as anyone else." Tharnos will should make a very Business School case study of this and the Cult of Personality around a founder.
Let me suggest a useful investing tip.
Mostly "Great & Good" Board members --> Scam Alert! Your money in danger.
I thought that those directors were well paid for their time. They were intelligent people; they knew why she hired them. She tried to get directors who knew more about the topic but those refused. The son of one of those old and famous directors told his father that this was a scam. The father refused to believe this and stopped speaking to his son. This was in the WSJ story that broke the case.
I dog sit for a Siberian Husky five days a week, she is traffic stopping fine for an over 11 year old dog house trained and very affectionate, though not always impressed when her housemate takes her favourite biscuit. The main issue with Siberian Huskies is that they like to be active or asleep. Without the right support during their active times they get bored. 'Our's' invents games and expects us to (a) understand when she 'talks*' and (b) join in so she can have fun.
*Whether part of the bred or not I do not know; she does not bark but expresses herself in modulated howls that are more like speaking the some people achieve.
" The main issue with Siberian Huskies is that they like to be active or asleep. Without the right support during their active times they get bored. 'Our's' invents games and expects us to (a) understand when she 'talks*' and (b) join in so she can have fun.
Whether part of the bred or not I do not know; she does not bark but expresses herself in modulated howls that are more like speaking the some people achieve."
Yes, the vocal range is in the breed, and yes, they are a binary dog, either on or off. They are not very obedient, being too impressed by their own cleverness to listen to the two-legs. Hmm, very like AI, after all....
My guess is > 50%.
She'd probably read somewhere that you should make eye contact with people if you want them to feel you are trustworthy.
So she figures if a little is good make a lot of eye contact will make them think I'm very trustworthy.
It's the difference between being a human being and faking being a human being.
This post has been deleted by its author
I have no idea why they got a husky. Hudkies are really amazing dogs but ... Huskies talk back to you, argue with you, are high energy, loyal, need activities that you participate in, will invent said activities, and will get destructive if they are not engaged.
I know; I attend to dogs at the local shelter and the huskies are the most fun.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
