Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not long ago, Elizabeth Holmes was regarded as one of the US’s most successful female entrepreneurs, with a net worth of $4.5 billion, Forbes estimated.
Rough. The premise of her company and the sexiness of disrupting yet another industry seemed promising, but if blood tests are inaccurate and they have no proof their systems work then the company is worthless. Interesting to see how they pick up the pieces, because of the significant hype and press received well before issues were reported.
That's quite a haircut. After I read the story I had to wonder what the Forbes formula is, and whether this might be a little bit of clickbait. But no, the methodology as discussed in the article seems fair for what is essentially guesswork.
As someone who lost a lot of money working and investing in a startup, I've got to point out how important it is to set aside a few bucks for the future. And also note that a massive failure is a good indicator of a subsequent successful venture.
That's quite a haircut. After I read the story I had to wonder what the Forbes formula is, and whether this might be a little bit of clickbait. But no, the methodology as discussed in the article seems fair for what is essentially guesswork.
As someone who lost a lot of money working and investing in a startup, I've got to point out how important it is to set aside a few bucks for the future. And also note that a massive failure is a good indicator of a subsequent successful venture.
What fair methodology? This?
Quote:
Forbes went back to its slide rule and, after talking to venture capitalists and industry experts, recalculated Theranos’ value at $900 million, based on its intellectual property and money it has already raised.
Forbes went back to its slide rule and, after talking to venture capitalists and industry experts, recalculated Theranos’ value at $900 million, based on its intellectual property and money it has already raised.
"Fair" with an eyebrow raised. The Forbes article author is making assumptions that aren't supported by anything more than hearsay and conjecture. Without real data from the company and from Holmes, I don't think it's possible to make a legitimate statement that her net worth is zero.
"Fair" with an eyebrow raised. The Forbes article author is making assumptions that aren't supported by anything more than hearsay and conjecture. Without real data from the company and from Holmes, I don't think it's possible to make a legitimate statement that her net worth is zero.
OK. I didn't catch the "eyebrow raised." There was NO methodology in that piece.
"Fair" with an eyebrow raised. The Forbes article author is making assumptions that aren't supported by anything more than hearsay and conjecture. Without real data from the company and from Holmes, I don't think it's possible to make a legitimate statement that her net worth is zero.
However, that's how they came up with her initial net worth. They used lots of assumptions, hearsay, conjectures, and speculation to initially say she was worth $4.5 billion and they are using those same methods to come up with a new figure.
06-03-2016, 10:30 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason.
And also note that a massive failure is a good indicator of a subsequent successful venture.
That seems like quite the leap, especially for someone like Holmes.
She's basically nothing more than a fraud who thought she'd strike it rich by "disrupting" a highly regulated industry that does something that's actually quite difficult to do well.
The whole idea of being able to conduct a wide range of lab tests based on single drops of blood is ludicrous. Contamination from sweat, oils on skin, etc make it very difficult to get accurate results. Even some like measured BAC is not particularly easy - the wipe used to sterilize the area can cause the first tube to yield wildly inaccurate results.
They couldn't even get their equipment give reliable qualitative results, much less deliver anything quantitative.
The people running Theranos clearly didn't understand even the basics of blood testing (or the ones who did simply didn't care). Holmes herself never even managed to finish her undergraduate degree so it's not entirely surprising that she didn't know the first thing about how to do good lab testing.
Investors apparently didn't know anything about it either and thought that running a lab testing company was no different than starting a web site for people to waste time on.
Holmes and the investors are learning the hard way that simply having a pile of cash and dressing like you're from a sci fi movie are not a substitute for actually knowing what you're doing.
Can lie, cheat, and steal with the best of the men. Business women are now in the same league as their male counterparts!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was NO methodology in that piece.
It's refreshing to see female CEOs
