6 ms·

Yes, they did. They had a choice to fire Holmes and keep on with the blood testing what have you, and didn't. It is factually accurate and not defending them no

Yes, they did. They had a choice to fire Holmes and keep on with the blood testing what have you, and didn't. It is factually accurate and not defending them nor spin to say that. I'm sure it was considered. This outcome was not a certainty. I think the feds wanted that choice, to be honest. It's a smart play: we don't like Elizabeth Holmes or the work you're doing, but we maybe sorta kinda want to see you succeed because it's a pretty good idea if you'd get your shit together, so pick one and fix it.

garrettgrimsley 10y ago
>They had a choice to fire Holmes According to http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-ther... >Holmes, meanwhile, isn’t going anywhere. As the C.E.O. and chairwoman of Theranos, only she can elect to replace herself.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  Hmm. Surely under the circumstances, assuming she's somewhat rational and aware of fiduciary duty, she'd entertain the idea with her board. Can always bring her back. Then again...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wpietri 10y ago
  Technically true but I think it's practically false. Theranos isn't in the black and won't be any time soon. They need the indulgence of investors to continue. My guess is a large fraction of current stockholders preferred this outcome.
  - choicewords 10y ago
    Honestly, it hard to see why. She does have name recognition, but it's like Martin "I'll jack up the price of your drug and laugh about it"-type notoriety
    - new299 10y ago
      CEOs of pre-IPO companies rarely get pushed out? What is an investor saying if they choose to fire a CEO? Fundamentally they are saying that they misjudged the CEO... they're a poor judge of character. * CEO gets sued: bending the rules seems to be totally ok. Just another risk factor. * Company spending years in R&D: Science takes time. * CEO runs out of money: There's always an element of risk. Was an interesting play but didn't pan out, NEXT! Here's the best possible exit for a failing science based startup: * Acquisition with large dollar value in the press release based on "reaching certain technical milestones". But anyway... I think in Theranos' case the investors are still... invested. There's still a lot of money coming in from China, maybe they think someone in China will buy them for a huge chunk of change regardless? (does happen, and acquisition and investment often don't reflect how good the basic technology is). Maybe there's already a private market in Theranos shares, giving them some liquidity? Maybe they still genuinely think it's a good idea. Honestly, neither you nor I would have invested in them. But they already DID!
      - bbctol 10y ago
        Surely there are enough negatives surfacing about Holmes and Theranos in general that... while firing the CEO may admit that they had been a bad judge of character, not firing her indicates that they still are.
        wpietri 10y ago
        Maybe. Or perhaps now they're going to keep her on a very short leash. In their shoes I could see bringing in a strong executive team, people with significant health care experience, while putting her in the role of visionary founder who does a lot of PR and rah-rah but has very low operational control.
        choicewords 10y ago
        Exactly. You have an individual at the head of the corporation that has done fraud. Do you really believe that's going to change from this point? Most people would have enough sense to let shame see them out. That's even more alarming.
Klinky 10y ago
Is it 100% true that all that would be needed was to fire Holmes?
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  No, we mean then they wouldn't have had to pivot. She was banned.
  - Klinky 10y ago
    They're under investigation for basically lying about the tech behind their core business model. There are fundamental problems not fixed by simply firing Holmes. Pivoting or closing shop seemed inevitable.
- convolvatron 10y ago
  maybe they would have to have a functioning product also

garrettgrimsley 10y ago

>They had a choice to fire Holmes According to http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-ther... >Holmes, meanwhile, isn’t going anywhere. As the C.E.O. and chairwoman of Theranos, only she can elect to replace herself.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
Hmm. Surely under the circumstances, assuming she's somewhat rational and aware of fiduciary duty, she'd entertain the idea with her board. Can always bring her back. Then again...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wpietri 10y ago
Technically true but I think it's practically false. Theranos isn't in the black and won't be any time soon. They need the indulgence of investors to continue. My guess is a large fraction of current stockholders preferred this outcome.
- choicewords 10y ago
  Honestly, it hard to see why. She does have name recognition, but it's like Martin "I'll jack up the price of your drug and laugh about it"-type notoriety
  - new299 10y ago
    CEOs of pre-IPO companies rarely get pushed out? What is an investor saying if they choose to fire a CEO? Fundamentally they are saying that they misjudged the CEO... they're a poor judge of character. * CEO gets sued: bending the rules seems to be totally ok. Just another risk factor. * Company spending years in R&D: Science takes time. * CEO runs out of money: There's always an element of risk. Was an interesting play but didn't pan out, NEXT! Here's the best possible exit for a failing science based startup: * Acquisition with large dollar value in the press release based on "reaching certain technical milestones". But anyway... I think in Theranos' case the investors are still... invested. There's still a lot of money coming in from China, maybe they think someone in China will buy them for a huge chunk of change regardless? (does happen, and acquisition and investment often don't reflect how good the basic technology is). Maybe there's already a private market in Theranos shares, giving them some liquidity? Maybe they still genuinely think it's a good idea. Honestly, neither you nor I would have invested in them. But they already DID!
    - bbctol 10y ago
      Surely there are enough negatives surfacing about Holmes and Theranos in general that... while firing the CEO may admit that they had been a bad judge of character, not firing her indicates that they still are.
      - wpietri 10y ago
        Maybe. Or perhaps now they're going to keep her on a very short leash. In their shoes I could see bringing in a strong executive team, people with significant health care experience, while putting her in the role of visionary founder who does a lot of PR and rah-rah but has very low operational control.
      - choicewords 10y ago
        Exactly. You have an individual at the head of the corporation that has done fraud. Do you really believe that's going to change from this point? Most people would have enough sense to let shame see them out. That's even more alarming.

Klinky 10y ago

Is it 100% true that all that would be needed was to fire Holmes?

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
No, we mean then they wouldn't have had to pivot. She was banned.
- Klinky 10y ago
  They're under investigation for basically lying about the tech behind their core business model. There are fundamental problems not fixed by simply firing Holmes. Pivoting or closing shop seemed inevitable.
convolvatron 10y ago
maybe they would have to have a functioning product also