Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Major Investor Sues Theranos

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 234 posts

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#151

Post by dredmorbius »

oneloop wrote: post #96
Fricken wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Madoff did was illegal and malicious from the outset. Do you believe that when Holmes was handed the opportunity, at 19, to bring the Edison to market that she set out with the intent of defrauding investors? The only thing she's provably guilty of thus far is believing in her company a little more than is sensible and being preternaturally competent as a fundraiser. When Musk claims he can get people to Mars fo…

How do you know that Madoff was malicious from the outset, I wonder? The guy had a 30 year career, have you studied his beginnings? Maybe you did, but knowing nothing I'd find it more plausible that the guy started small fudging a couple of numbers hoping the next year would be better and eventually snowballed out of control.

My somewhat cursory read of Madoff was that he tarbabied himself. He had been running a successful investment company, but hit losses.

The good, and lawful, thing to do would have been to come clean at that point. He didn't, and his downfall began there.

Instead he did the bad, and illegal, thing: doubled down and paid off the small number of exiting investors with new investor's deposits, whilst lying about returns.

If you've read John Kenneth Galbraith's The Great Crash: 1929 (a short and highly readable account), you'll find a very familar story in Madoff. He fell prey to what JKG calls "the bezzle".

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#152

Post by conjectures »

camillomiller wrote: post #136
hkmurakami wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that weird? The photo choice manipulates the reader impression just as they intend. Perhaps what you might mean is something like "disingenuous" or "biased" or "unethical"

As a journalist, I disagree. In this case the technique is used more to portray the way Holmes is perceived publicly (a "neurotic and delusional powerful woman out of control" -- not my opinion, just what the photo conveys), than to add a spin to a story that's already independently and factually spun in a very clear direction. The use FoxNews does of this photo-picking with President Obama or liberal politicians is…

> the way Holmes is perceived publicly

...which presumably is almost entirely based on what they read or see in the media?

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#153

Post by logicallee »

M_Grey wrote: post #99
logicallee wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it does. We (readers here, you, me, etc) are far outside of mainstream at this news site, HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. When you go from default subreddits to niche ones, the journalidtic integrity improves substantially. Yes, yes, once outside the mainstream, integrity suddenly improves, across the board.

We're not journalists, this is not a journalistic outlet.

I'm just going to go ahead and disagree. This is journalism and news in 2016. (I'm also including people's blog write-ups that they or others submit.) On tech and fundraising issues, I'd say HN and yhe niche blog posts submitted, do count for a kind of journalism.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#154

Post by [deleted] »

M_Grey wrote: post #99
logicallee wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it does. We (readers here, you, me, etc) are far outside of mainstream at this news site, HN, and journalistic standards are much higher. When you go from default subreddits to niche ones, the journalidtic integrity improves substantially. Yes, yes, once outside the mainstream, integrity suddenly improves, across the board.

We're not journalists, this is not a journalistic outlet.

[deleted]

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#155

Post by jacquesm »

I'm definitely not a friend of Theranos, but: they failed to do due diligence before investing, the error is theirs. I wonder if they would sue as well if Theranos had scored big time.

If you treat investing as gambling don't sue if you lose a hundred million dollars of your customers money.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#156

Post by davidivadavid »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #119
bbarn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She looks insane in every photo I've ever seen of her. Even the company vetted ones her eyes are always wide open and she looks nervous.

Eh, I see where you're going. There's two ways to look at that, though. One is worrying about her sanity. The other is thinking she's an energetic, ambitious person pushing her product and company. You'll see a lot of what's in the photos if you ever delve into the world of sales teams and marketing execs. ;)

Huh, what? You mean a bit like you would see a lot of autistic neckbeards if you ever delve into the world of software engineering?

I can't see how looking crazy with wide open eyes and fake smiles correlates with "sales teams and marketing execs."

That's a completely gratuitous caricature.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#157

Post by cmadan »

jacquesm wrote: post #155

I'm definitely not a friend of Theranos, but : they failed to do due diligence before investing, the error is theirs. I wonder if they would sue as well if Theranos had scored big time. If you treat investing as gambling don't sue if you lose a hundred million dollars of your customers money.

When I walk into the casinos, I know the odds of each game and know there is a possibility of losing my money. However if the casino rigs the machines to reduce my odds, then it isn't a fair game anymore and now goes into the realm of cheating.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#158

Post by onion2k »

jacquesm wrote: post #155

I'm definitely not a friend of Theranos, but : they failed to do due diligence before investing, the error is theirs. I wonder if they would sue as well if Theranos had scored big time. If you treat investing as gambling don't sue if you lose a hundred million dollars of your customers money.

The investor's argument is that Theranos lied. The investor believes Theranos fraudulently produced evidence that their product worked in order to fake the responses to the investor's due diligence. If that's true, and the investor can prove it, then that's not simply part of the typical risk of investing, that makes the investor the victim of a serious crime.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#159

Post by dagw »

36bydesign wrote: post #116
djf1 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's entirely appropriate for the supporting photographs to support the article, but that's not what the parent is questioning. If the news is based on facts, then the facts can speak for themselves. An unflattering photo does not support the article if the article is not related to how well the subject takes photos.

So no photo is the way to go? Unless the article is about taking photos?

No, but if all you really want to do is add some visuals and show what the CEO of the company looks like, why not just grab the default portrait photo from the company press pack?

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#160

Post by jacquesm »

onion2k wrote: post #158
jacquesm wrote: post #155

I'm definitely not a friend of Theranos, but : they failed to do due diligence before investing, the error is theirs. I wonder if they would sue as well if Theranos had scored big time. If you treat investing as gambling don't sue if you lose a hundred million dollars of your customers money.

The investor's argument is that Theranos lied . The investor believes Theranos fraudulently produced evidence that their product worked in order to fake the responses to the investor's due diligence. If that's true, and the investor can prove it, then that's not simply part of the typical risk of investing, that makes the investor the victim of a serious crime.

That's a dumb argument then. See, when you do due diligence you should assume that the company lies. That's why you go there in the first place, if you believe everything they tell you then you're going to get fleeced if they lie.

Theranos did not comply with their duty to inform truthfully, but the investors did not comply with their duty to research. Asking the company is not research, the technology being complex is not an excuse, you're going to have to do your own homework, you can't rely on the company because they have an incentive to not be truthful.

It's not as if there is accounting with double bookkeeping that was withheld from you, it's a bunch of machinery that should perform in a certain way. Bring your own samples for which only you know the outcome, have them run those through the machinery in your presence and check the results.

That this will take more than some pencil pushing is where things went wrong, they simply didn't feel that on an investment this size they needed to actually look at the technology, they basically lapped up what the company told them and forked over the cash.

FWIW I do this sort of thing for a living and I'd take it quite personal if a company lied and got away with it because I failed to properly look at their technology.

Belief doesn't enter into it.

edit:

Downvoters are invited to discuss what they think is wrong with this comment or where the disagreement lies.

Post reply on HN