For some reason this caught my interest beyond the BBC story. I find it fascinating, though most people probably won't.
www.bbc.com/news/business-58336998
It's not written very well and the actual events are more intriguing, or perhaps mystifying, than the article might lead you to believe.
Essentially Elizabeth Holmes was determined to have a world changing medically oriented idea. She was so convinced that she dropped out of her Studies at Stanford to start a company to do it. Her first idea was quickly shown to be a bust so she had another one.
This one she eventually got to the point where the company was valued at $9bn and selling it's services commercially before it became clear that it was no better than the first and it all came crashing down.
Very difficult to understand the woman. Perhaps delusional, but it all seems so carefully constructed. Surely she must have realised that there would come the day or did she think a miracle would happen and they'd find an answer?
There are various video interviews with her on YouTube. The Australian 60 Minutes video explains it quite well, though the presenter is quite annoying. I find it easier to form an opinion of someone if I see them speak.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgNfrDXr7uA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes
|
Been following this tale for while now, came across it on a US web site. I love the suggestion she is so calculating she has even had a child to reduce the sentence /garner sympathy in the event of being found guilty. I bet she gets off.
This is up there with the Anna Sorokin case.
|
The difficulty with dealing with people like this is that they're honest so they never set off any b******* detectors. They so thoroughly convince themselves that their reality is the real one that it is very hard to detect.
The old comment about defeating lie detector machines; "it's not a lie if you believe it" springs to mind.
|
>> I love the suggestion she is so calculating she has even had a child to reduce the sentence /garner sympathy in the event of being found guilty.
A case not far from me had a couple fighting extradition who thought having 3 children would help their cause somehow.
It didn't.
|
|
The poor children. What a very low-life, gutter mentality, thing to do.
|
Yes the Anna Sorokin case popped into my mind also.
I have met several genuine scientists who have great and fully workable ideas to transform even a small part of medicine, but are unable to get funding.
One I met had developed a prototype to fastrack the diagnosis of scepticemia which would save thousands of lives a year even in top notch hospitals. Apparently the diagnosis of this could take up to 48 or even 72 hours by which time the patient might have died as they need to know exactly what antibiotic to use. This machine could do it in one hour.
Another had repurposed a treatment for radioactive poisoning of the liver to treat overdoses of paracetamol. He then had the idea of coating tablets in the treatment so that overdoses were not fatal.
In both cases the cost outweighed the supposed benefits, despite saving many lives each year.
I wonder how many great ideas will be canned now because of concerns it is a scam.
|
Were her actions based on the delusional or greed.
Some folk think they are the greatest, held back only by those around them who cannot see. It is not about money but fame, respect and recognition.
Some perpetuate a deliberate fraud with the sole intention of generating personal wealth. The motivation for this is obvious.
Many of those seduced by both groups seem to include the wealthy and influential who should have the capacity to look critically at propositions, and if necessary get expert advice.
In many ways one could regard them as either foolish or complicit, not victims.
|
>> Were her actions based on the delusional or greed.
She was delusional. Her backers were greedy. Pick your guilty party(ies) from the entire cast.
|
A good mate of mine is a senior engineer at a medical equipment engineering firm. Same sort of thing that Holmes' Theranos made but theirs isn't as ambitious and works.
Over the last 7 or so years the share price has gone from about £2 to over £80 and he purchased an awful lot of them when they were £2 (worth a good chunk of £1m now).
When I look at the firms accounts its tangible net worth is about £50m. The market capitalisation is nearer £600m.
I can't make it out - basically share buyers are willing to pay £600m for a company worth £50m. I guess its down to profits which are about 10% of turnover and the fact that medical shares are booming.
If I had some of their shares I would think about selling them before their bubble bursts.
|
>>When I look at the firms accounts its tangible net worth is about £50m. The market capitalisation is nearer £600m.
>>I can't make it out - basically share buyers are willing to pay £600m for a company worth £50m. I guess its down to profits which are about 10% of turnover and the fact that medical shares are booming.
There are 3 standard methods of valuing companies. The market cap, the book value, and a profit forecast or multiple from which you can in effect calculate a NPV. The three can give very different answers. As a banker I'm sure you know this.
>>profits which are about 10% of turnover
One very crude rule of thumb is to value a business at 10 years profits. I guess that would work better for a fish and chip shop than say biotech or medical stuff, but what's the t/o of this business?
|
>> There are 3 standard methods of valuing companies. The market cap, the book value, and
>> a profit forecast or multiple from which you can in effect calculate a NPV. The
>> three can give very different answers. As a banker I'm sure you know this.
>> One very crude rule of thumb is to value a business at 10 years profits.
>> I guess that would work better for a fish and chip shop than say biotech
>> or medical stuff, but what's the t/o of this business?
>>
Profits are about £10m.
My last employer would consider 20x earnings for a sale.
Anyway, it's what the market will bear and how much someone else wants it.
I was involved with a company that was sold for £1 recently, with the premise that the business would be continued. (No not Rover.)
The sellers effectively gave the buyer a cash dowry of several million in the bank. The buyer (an American firm), promptly shut the place down, demolished the buildings and sold the land off to the highest bidder. 150+ workers stuffed and pocketed the several million.
Sellers tried to sue but the buyer effectively distributed the funds and went in to liquidation. b******s. We did tell the sellers that was likely to happen and refused to deal with the American firm based on knowledge of what the directors had done previously.
I also mentioned here recently about a firm that was purchased leaving the staff very well off. The price was clearly right for all parties.
My guess is that Morrisons will effectively be asset stripped with it's properties sold and leased back or have new mortgages raises on them.
|
>> Been following this tale for while now, came across it on a US web site.
>> I love the suggestion she is so calculating she has even had a child to
>> reduce the sentence /garner sympathy in the event of being found guilty.
What Iffy, formerly of this parish, would have termed a tactical pregnancy. He asserted them to be commonplace amongst female defendants.
|
|
I'd have thought he'd have been out by now.
|
>> I'd have thought he'd have been out by now.
>>
He has half again under some form of option from the directors as "golden handcuffs" for another 5 years.
|
Elizabeth Holmes - Zero
