5 ms·
This is likely the beginning of the end. With such a massive loss of trust, especially in the healthcare space, it is hard to see how the company could ever rec
by taneem 10y ago
This is likely the beginning of the end. With such a massive loss of trust, especially in the healthcare space, it is hard to see how the company could ever recover in the eyes of customers, investors or employees.
- seehafer 10y agoHolmes will have to go and be replaced by a perceived 'grown-up' CEO. That's the only way (and even that is a longshot) the company ever recovers.
- kilroy123 10y agoI agree. However, it sounds like they don't really have a real product or anything to sell. I think the company imploding is more likely.
- thonos 10y agoWill Holmes have to face any consequences for her company providing false results and making false promises or can she just walk away with a bag of money?
- pjys 10y agoShe has certainly already been able to divert to herself a good chunk of her investors' money. And it's unlikely that she will ever have to face personal consequences for her decisions. Maybe she will run for president in a few years. She certainly has what it takes for a successful political career.
- dekhn 10y agoI'm a lot more skeptical than you. She could face fines, even worse PR than now, and jail time. I don't think she'd be successful running for office after her funded company tanked because it misled everybody about their ostensibly revolutionary technology for a decade.
- SEJeff 10y agoTrump University anybody?
- hackaflocka 10y agoTrump Holmes has a nice ring to it.
- joering2 10y agoMy personally favorite one is Trump And The Empty Jewelry Box Scam
- elsewhen 10y agohow would she have done this? most ceos just get a salary and equity; if the equity goes to zero, which is increasingly looking likely, then all she got was a salary for all the years that she ran the company. i dont think that qualifies as diverting a "good chunk of her investors' money."
- maxerickson 10y agoShe may have sold some of her equity in the company.
- simonw 10y agoIt's called "taking money off the table", and it's actually pretty common in later funding rounds. The founders sell some of their personal stock to investors for an often significant amount of money (multiple millions of dollars). Investors agree to this for a few reasons. Firstly, it's a way for them to get a larger stake in the company. Secondly, it reduces the risk of the founders taking an early exit because they are strapped for cash. Finally, in a competitive deal (against other investors) it can be a way to sweeten the deal and get selected over the competition. Investors don't want founders to be worrying about money - they want them to be focusing on their company.
- Russell91 10y agoShe has voting control, which is why she is still there. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2015/11/03/theranos-letter-shows-elizabeth-holmes-tried-to-take-control-from-shareholders/#a8a450d479e4 http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2015/11/03/theranos-l...
- Aleman360 10y agoThey can just change their name.