141–150 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise, the film Forrest Gump should not be considered sound investment advice
Forrest Gump is from 1995. Apple had barely begun going up then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genetic testing used to be very expensive: $3B to sequence the human genome. So Ancestry/23/etc. tried to guess certain properties based on very sparse features of your genome, which is hard. But today, whole genome sequencing cost is approaching $100. This cost reduction will upend this industry, in my opinion.
The cheapest WGS I can find for consumers is $299 (30x WGS from Nebula). Do you know a cheaper alternative? I'd much rather get a whole genome that I can download rather than the handful of little snips from 23 and me... At $100 I would buy in a sec. Would be a nice motivator for bioinformatics hobby/learning projects too.
And now it's contents will be traded as a commodity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If 23andme had that many paying customers, they would not have needed to go the SPAC route to avoid financial disclosure. That they have chosen to go public as a SPAC after more than a decade of existence does not speak highly of their financial situation or their prospects for future earnings (and this is generally something that nearly all recent SPACs share).
It could be. It could also be that they just saw no reason to enrich a set of insiders and saw a SPAC as a way to stick it to the man. I have zero clue. My DD is basically on this page, and though I've been a customer since the beginning and have referred a bazillion people, a lot of that has just been due to lack of competition and not necessarily because I've been thrilled by 23andMe's stuff.
A SPAC is the ultimate way to enrich a set of insiders...The SPAC initiators get to buy additional shares of the SPAC at discount prices that other SPAC investors don't have access to. And unlike with a traditional IPO, the targets don't have to disclose those arrangements or other sweetheart details that the target executives receive as part of the acquisition. Another big consideration for a SPAC is that executives get to sell their post-acq stock immediately, while normal employees are still subject to a lock-up period to "protect" the stock price from downward pressure.
But luckily they won't take a sample from someone under two, and in the time between birth and two was when all the privacy issues became clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one who thinks that's a massive hole in the rules? You IPO an empty shell, which passes easily because it does nothing, and then any old shop with a messy business can then be bought by it?
I wouldn't consider it a hole in the rules, it's more of an alternative listing method. In my view, nothing materially changes. If 23andMe is a turd then an IPO through Goldman or JPMorgan isn't going to really change that, and neither will an SPAC. Although it's a little bit "gambling" because you don't know what the SPAC acquisition will be ahead of time, I think the SPAC vehicle is great for retail investors. If y…
I know porn when I see it, and this is a flashing neon sign that reads "get in on our definitely not fraudulent spacs here to absolutely not lose money to the institutional investors juicing a most assuredly not failing business"
Remember when the FBI scanned the anonymous DNA database, from either this or some similar company, found a match, then used that match to get a warrant for the match's personal info? I do.
The database they use is GEDmatch, which is a fully volunteer non-for-profit operation. The entire point of the database is for users to upload their dna to allow anyone from the public to conduct genealogical research. GEDMatch does not even provide sequencing services, so there's no way someone would accidentally share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monetization of user data. Integration with the Match.com API, 'Sure you want to go out with her, you share 12.5% of your DNA'. Open access to various government agencies, ' You share 47% DNA with this GUY who owes taxes , WHERE IS HE'.
Very much this. Not to mention, "sorry, Health Insurance won't cover you because you show a slight genetic predisposition toward fingernail cancer. Good luck."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be. It could also be that they just saw no reason to enrich a set of insiders and saw a SPAC as a way to stick it to the man. I have zero clue. My DD is basically on this page, and though I've been a customer since the beginning and have referred a bazillion people, a lot of that has just been due to lack of competition and not necessarily because I've been thrilled by 23andMe's stuff.
It could also be that they just saw no reason to enrich a set of insiders and saw a SPAC as a way to stick it to the man. A SPAC is the ultimate way to enrich a set of insiders...The SPAC initiators get to buy additional shares of the SPAC at discount prices that other SPAC investors don't have access to. And unlike with a traditional IPO, the targets don't have to disclose those arrangements or other sweetheart deta…
It's almost like we should have a thing called "public markets" where the public can invest directly in new ventures. /s
(Gotta say I'm with Cuban and Mr Wonderful and Elon with the idea that regulators are pretty awful in their blindness to 2nd order effects)
Maybe the blockchain is the way to go after all.