Slashdot Mirror
Forbes Just Cut Its Estimate of Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes's Net Worth From $4.5 Billion To Zero (qz.com)
It wasn't long agon when Elizabeth Holmes, the founder and CEO of Theranos, was regarded as one of the U.S.'s most successful female entrepreneurs with Forbes estimating her net work to be $4.5 billion. Thanks to all the evidence that Theranos' technology is largely a gimmick and false advertising, the publication has revised that figure to essentially zero, reports Quartz. From the report: Last year, Forbes pegged its value at $9 billion, based on the sale of stakes to investors. Since that lofty estimate, Theranos has been battered by bad news (paywalled; alternate source), starting with reports in the Wall Street Journal in October that its tests were inaccurate. That triggered an inquiry from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which proposed banning Holmes from the industry. 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. "At such a low valuation, Holmes' stake is essentially worth nothing," Matt Herper writes. That's because Theranos' other investors own preferred shares, and since Holmes owns common shares, they would get paid first if the company were forced to liquidate.
What she owns are shared, and if her shares are not preferred, when the company declared bankruptcy what will happen is that all its assets will be liquidated and preferred investors paid first. Nothing will be left for her because of that. Therefore, her net worth is zero.
The argument is that she owns ordinary shares, and while those shares might be kinda sorta worth $100-200M on paper (I can't be bothered to do the calculations...) the reality is she can't sell them (the price would tank if she tried) and if the company goes bankrupt, and Forbes thinks it's very, very, likely it will, then as an ordinary shareholder she'll be last in line to get paid. Bondholders, preferred stock holders, and even the credit card company are ahead of ordinary shareholders when it comes to being paid back after a company is liquidated.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
$900M isn't Holmes' net worth; it's the entire net worth of Theranos as a company. Last line of the summary is a bit confusing but what it's saying is that if the company were forced to liquidate all current assets, Holmes would be among the last to get paid. Other investors in the company with preferred shares would be paid first. By the time it gets to the point where Holmes could legally be paid from the liquidation, it's more than likely there'd be nothing left for her to get.
Rough numbers:
She owns 45% of the company
45% of 9B = 4B
But...someone else invested 1B, and they have rights to the first 1B in a sale.
If the company is only worth 900M, then all of that 900M is allocated to the investor first, and she get $0.
Yeah total bullshit.
After all, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services haven't proposed pulling Theranos's license (and hence qualification to do tests that can be reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid), and haven't proposed banning the Theranos founders from running a lab for two years. Oh, wait, they did. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04...
After all, the company didn't just throw out all the results done on their machines in 2014 and 2015. Oh, wait, they have. http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...
More likely it's the fact that Silicon Valley is a liberal/SJW stronghold, where investors will happily throw money at any company with a female CEO.
As we say in California, what are smoking and where can I get some?
http://valleywag.gawker.com/silicon-valley-named-13th-best-conservative-city-in-ame-1458838034
She owns 50% of the company. This is the poster child for diversification of the portfolio.Theranos is private so the stock is only as valuable as the next private market buyer will pay.
Preferred investors get paid first. She only has common stock. So, nothing left for her no matter how much of the company she owns.
There's a difference between "value" and "price". The "value" of gold remains nearly constant due to comparatively little change in demand and supply. It's the "price" of gold, when measured in a non-gold currency like the US Dollar, which varies. That variance is due to the "value" of the USD fluctuating due to its demand, but mostly its supply, being far more volatile and not being fixed like gold's is. That's why gold is often referred to as the ultimate store of "value"; its "value" doesn't change much, even if the nominal "price" of it, when measured in non-gold currencies, fluctuates wildly.
Gold is mostly used to make jewelry. And so the demand varies greatly with economic stability. Gold has no magic stability.
Another observation of value: back in 1964, you could've bought a gallon of gasoline for about 20 cents. Those two dimes would've contained about 0.144 troy ounce of silver. At about $16 per troy ounce, the silver in those two dimes is now worth about $2.30. Strangely enough, that's about what you'd pay in today's debased currency for a gallon of gasoline.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Forbes is relying on the written law to figure that out. But this is the age of Obama. As we saw with the GM bankruptcy proceedings during the auto bailout, the government can order the bankruptcy judge to ignore the law and pay whomever the government wants paid. This allowed the union to get paid before shareholders despite the law saying the shareholders had priority.
There is no liar like a right-wing AC liar. In the GM bankruptcy proceeding debts were paid in strict accordance with the law. The bondholders (not shareholders) that were upset about not getting preferential treatment were unsecured creditors, unlike the banks that did get paid off first, and had no seniority in settling GM's obligations. They were in the same asset category as the union to whom GM owed a lot of money, and it is up the administrator of the filing to determine how the parties in the same category get treated.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age