4 ms·

Shareholders are still shareholders even if the company is not publicly traded/listed. GSK is a shareholder of 23andMe - not it's parent company. 23andMe is not

Shareholders are still shareholders even if the company is not publicly traded/listed. GSK is a shareholder of 23andMe - not it's parent company. 23andMe is not a subsidiary of GSK. GSK does not even own a majority share in 23andMe: https://www.gsk.com/media/5349/annual-report-2018.pdf https://www.gsk.com/media/5349/annual-report-2018.pdf > 23andMe in which the Group holds 14.5%. You can also find a list of subsidiaries of GSK in there and you will note that 23andMe is not listed among them.

take_a_breath 7y ago
GSK invested $300 million into 23andMe and created an exclusive collaboration agreement [1]. To be clear, these things happened together, one doesn't exist without the other. If a publicly traded-company has more than 5% of outstanding shares owned by a single entity, they have to file an SEC Form 13D. This is a typical cut-off to indicate an activist investor [2]. Far less than the 14.5% GSK owns. Without knowing who owns the other 85.5% of 23andMe (or visibility into their board and voting structure), we have no idea who controls the company. You would need to spend about $44 billion to own 5%, or 24.8 million shares, of Amazon. I'm still not clear on how GSK's purchase of 14.5% of 23andMe along with the exclusive agreement that came with it is the same as buying a single share of Amazon stock. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/24/glaxosmithkline-23andme-team-up-on-genetics-driven-drug-research.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/24/glaxosmithkline-23andme-team... [2]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/schedule13d.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/schedule13d.asp
- ailideex 7y ago
  > To be clear, these things happened together, one doesn't exist without the other. Buying 14.5% of a company does not come with an automatic collaboration agreement nor would a collaboration agreement come with 14.5% of a company's stock unless there is specific terms for that in some contract which establishes both. And there very well may have been - but both a collaboration agreement and 14.5% ownership can exists without such a contract. > I'm still not clear on how GSK's purchase of 14.5% of 23andMe along with the exclusive agreement that came with it is the same as buying a single share of Amazon stock. The argument that was made and that I was responding to was that GSK is 23andMe's parent firm and therefore not legally a 3rd party ... and I'm not sure how I much clearer I can say a shareholder is a shareholder. If you want to argue that the exclusive collaboration agreement (which is not the same thing as 14.5% ownership) somehow defeats 23andMe's privacy policy then please, argue for it. Maybe it does - but you have not done anything more than allude to it doing so. > You would need to spend about $44 billion to own 5%, or 24.8 million shares, of Amazon. And spending that much will not entitle me to an exclusive collaboration agreement with Amazon nor will it make me somehow not a 3rd party of Amazon and therefore allow Amazon to give me all their client data without violating any privacy policies as the person I was responding to claimed. > Without knowing who owns the other 85.5% of 23andMe (or visibility into their board and voting structure), we have no idea who controls the company. We don't - but board members and owners are not the same as parent companies and I don't see how that somehow defeats their privacy policy either but if you think it can please clarify.
  - take_a_breath 7y ago
    And I was responding to this comment: "if I buy some shares in Amazon I don't get have all their client data." The point is that GSK wouldn't have invested $300 million without the exclusive collaboration agreement. That is why it's different than buying a publicly traded stock. GSK is not just a random shareholder, they are a significant owner (may even have board seats) with an exclusive collaboration agreement. You are splitting those things up to make your argument, but they are linked together.

take_a_breath 7y ago

GSK invested $300 million into 23andMe and created an exclusive collaboration agreement [1]. To be clear, these things happened together, one doesn't exist without the other. If a publicly traded-company has more than 5% of outstanding shares owned by a single entity, they have to file an SEC Form 13D. This is a typical cut-off to indicate an activist investor [2]. Far less than the 14.5% GSK owns. Without knowing who owns the other 85.5% of 23andMe (or visibility into their board and voting structure), we have no idea who controls the company. You would need to spend about $44 billion to own 5%, or 24.8 million shares, of Amazon. I'm still not clear on how GSK's purchase of 14.5% of 23andMe along with the exclusive agreement that came with it is the same as buying a single share of Amazon stock. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/24/glaxosmithkline-23andme-team-up-on-genetics-driven-drug-research.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/24/glaxosmithkline-23andme-team... [2]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/schedule13d.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/schedule13d.asp

ailideex 7y ago
> To be clear, these things happened together, one doesn't exist without the other. Buying 14.5% of a company does not come with an automatic collaboration agreement nor would a collaboration agreement come with 14.5% of a company's stock unless there is specific terms for that in some contract which establishes both. And there very well may have been - but both a collaboration agreement and 14.5% ownership can exists without such a contract. > I'm still not clear on how GSK's purchase of 14.5% of 23andMe along with the exclusive agreement that came with it is the same as buying a single share of Amazon stock. The argument that was made and that I was responding to was that GSK is 23andMe's parent firm and therefore not legally a 3rd party ... and I'm not sure how I much clearer I can say a shareholder is a shareholder. If you want to argue that the exclusive collaboration agreement (which is not the same thing as 14.5% ownership) somehow defeats 23andMe's privacy policy then please, argue for it. Maybe it does - but you have not done anything more than allude to it doing so. > You would need to spend about $44 billion to own 5%, or 24.8 million shares, of Amazon. And spending that much will not entitle me to an exclusive collaboration agreement with Amazon nor will it make me somehow not a 3rd party of Amazon and therefore allow Amazon to give me all their client data without violating any privacy policies as the person I was responding to claimed. > Without knowing who owns the other 85.5% of 23andMe (or visibility into their board and voting structure), we have no idea who controls the company. We don't - but board members and owners are not the same as parent companies and I don't see how that somehow defeats their privacy policy either but if you think it can please clarify.
- take_a_breath 7y ago
  And I was responding to this comment: "if I buy some shares in Amazon I don't get have all their client data." The point is that GSK wouldn't have invested $300 million without the exclusive collaboration agreement. That is why it's different than buying a publicly traded stock. GSK is not just a random shareholder, they are a significant owner (may even have board seats) with an exclusive collaboration agreement. You are splitting those things up to make your argument, but they are linked together.