Hacker News Reader

Comment by corvallis | Hacker News Reader

How is this company still operational? Do serious people believe that they will have a functioning and profitable product in the future? Does Theranos still have salaried employees, and if so, what are they working on? The article mentions a "box that diagnoses diseases", which is a meaningless description. They've gone from "running on fumes" to ...what, exactly? I'm extremely puzzled.

View on HN

They have $200M of cash on hand according to the article. Not defending them but you can do a lot with $200M including a full pivot and brand reboot.

They pay rent on Page Mill Road and have multiple lawsuits pending, last I heard, so I'm wondering how far that cash would actually take them. Also, if Elizabeth Holmes insists on the same level of control without any biomedical credentials, how realistic is a reboot? I would very much like to know the reasoning that any funding providers would use to justify their support.

I guess Fortress thinks they can get a return on the assets, whatever they are. Could be a power play too, if you look at Theranos board there are a surprising amount of political players which could be advantageous for the SoftBank-owned Fortress.

Edit: looks like most of the original board members are gone post-scandal. But for reference here’s who was on it previously http://fortune.com/2015/10/15/theranos-board-leadership/

Investment groups that buy troubled assets are beyond my scope of understanding, but is that what is happening here? It sounds like Theranos is purporting to have a functioning product/business plan in the near future.

I work in medicine so my colleagues and I have been following this farce for several years. When so many advancements and biomedical research can benefit from such funding, why throw money at this fraudulent company?

Edit: Many thanks to users hkmurakami and ukulele above for explanations/clarifications.

They moved everyone to their Newark manufacturing office. (I was wondering why the lights were completely out at 7pm on a Wednesday this week).

I've also seen an ad for subleasing the space relatively recently (Nov or so) so perhaps they have not found sublettors yet.

The suits will probably be settled in the single to double digit millions.

IIRC their board was composed largely of people with deep connections to the government.

I use their board as an example when I teach. It is really useful for helping students understand what a board should do, does, can do, etc. and relating that back to a business.

I’m curious about the key points you call out.

It's basically a three stage thing...

1) I lecture / we talk about what a board does

2) Class brainstorming of what characteristics you would like in board members of a company you founded & what advice you would like from your board

3) We use the really rough evaluative framework from part 2 to analyze a couple of real boards (I've used Theranos, a startup I used to work for that shows up as a lot of examples in class, and some third one that is in the news)

Key point is basically: gravitas, technical competence, business savvy, market insight, and engagement are important but none of them are solely useful. Your board is an asset...and if it isn't you should look at why. Your board helps you make decisions they aren't just for enabling.

I checked LinkedIn and there are ~220 current employees of Theranos listed there, fwiw.

The depth of human stupidity is truly astonishing.

"This company was built on fraud, which was eventually exposed to the world. But what if we...gave them more money?"

Please don't post unsubstantive comments about other people's stupidity. The odds are considerable that you're missing something, and in general HN gets much worse when people do this. Such comments amount to nothing more than puffing ourselves up relative to others. That may attract upvotes from people who'd like to join in, but it adds nothing of value.

We're trying to do better than that here, which is why we have site guidelines like "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

There could very well be some functional aspects of the company's products.

It's not a consumer brand.

So ... if something 'works' and can be proven to work via regulatory approval, or validation from a big chain - there could be something there.

$100M rescue money to get a big piece of something may possibly be worth.

Lots of people have made a lot of money off of distressed assets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com