5 ms·

This entire story makes me much more curious about the enablers of this kind of behavior i.e. the investors and not Holmes herself. Are the big investors really

This entire story makes me much more curious about the enablers of this kind of behavior i.e. the investors and not Holmes herself. Are the big investors really that incomplete or "naive" in their diligence if pumping a big sum like $50M or more ? If I was in that situation (i.e I was a VC), I would at least ask for a working demo of their tech (where I was present to see it go through even if that took an entire day) along with corroboration of their results with conventional tech before I decide to give them a dime. I mean I did this even when I invested just $15K as an angel investor in a company long time ago. This seems obvious to me - why isn't this a thing for big name investors?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Are the big investors really that incomplete or "naive" in their diligence if pumping a big sum like $50M or more ? Her early backers were big-name individuals. Not firms. The healthcare VCs (e.g. Annie Oakley) passed on Theranos. The deeper question is to what degree are David Boies, George Schulz and others who actively suppressed whistleblowers complicit in her crimes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nyrulez 8y ago
  Are you saying the question doesn't apply to individuals? IMO it should probably even more so. I guess you have to be insanely rich to not actually care about a $xxM investment and related diligence. And maybe it highlights an interesting lesson: it's much easier to hoodwink individual investors with charm and lies and Holmes nailed that part down to perfection.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > the question doesn't apply to individuals? Institutional investors have an institutionalised diligence process. Individual investors have their own diligence process. For some, it’s nothing more than a gut check. (Which is okay. There are plenty of successful companies that were founded on checks written on a gut feeling.) The bigger question is why a few of those people kept doubling down, to the point of attacking whistleblowers, after they had enough evidence it was a scam.
  - icedchai 8y ago
    In my experience, early stage technical due-diligence, especially by individuals, is non-existent. It is mostly based on personal reputation and connections.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Are the big investors really that incomplete or "naive" in their diligence if pumping a big sum like $50M or more ? Her early backers were big-name individuals. Not firms. The healthcare VCs (e.g. Annie Oakley) passed on Theranos. The deeper question is to what degree are David Boies, George Schulz and others who actively suppressed whistleblowers complicit in her crimes.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nyrulez 8y ago
Are you saying the question doesn't apply to individuals? IMO it should probably even more so. I guess you have to be insanely rich to not actually care about a $xxM investment and related diligence. And maybe it highlights an interesting lesson: it's much easier to hoodwink individual investors with charm and lies and Holmes nailed that part down to perfection.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > the question doesn't apply to individuals? Institutional investors have an institutionalised diligence process. Individual investors have their own diligence process. For some, it’s nothing more than a gut check. (Which is okay. There are plenty of successful companies that were founded on checks written on a gut feeling.) The bigger question is why a few of those people kept doubling down, to the point of attacking whistleblowers, after they had enough evidence it was a scam.
- icedchai 8y ago
  In my experience, early stage technical due-diligence, especially by individuals, is non-existent. It is mostly based on personal reputation and connections.