151–160 of 181 posts
I'm so glad I never did 23andMe for my kids. My wife and I did it before all the privacy nightmare revelations (and admittedly I didn't think of them myself) and originally I had planned to have my kids do it too, just to see what they got from us. 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.
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."
Has this happened anywhere in the US? If you work for an employer with group insurance, how can an insurer reject you or even alter your rates? If you don't work for a company with a group policy, buying off the ACA marketplace also is going to prevent the insurer from implementing these types of restrictions on coverage. Maybe this is something that would go on in the life insurance market but so much of the health…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>alternative listing method 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"
The long game for 23andMe will likely be using their valuable dataset for something called Personalized Medicine. "Personalized medicine is based on using an individual's genetic profile to make the best therapeutic choice by facilitating predictions about whether that person will benefit from a particular medicine or suffer serious side effects." In other words, they will become a platform for data-driven healthcare…
No, they're being realistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company gets to go public without having to immediately provide all the materials for due diligence for public investors. The companies shares get peddled to the general public and the SPAC investors and the company both win. The public is left holding the bag.
Don't forget skimping out on the fees and money left on the table when dealing with a traditional investment bank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Ugh yeah I had a feeling this may be the case. I was hoping SPACs might be better, but haven't researched it. 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.
Blockchain won't help; you would have the same problems but with even fewer ways to address them.
This company is just one big ethical dilemma packaged Silicon Valley style to look hip.
The worst thing is that, you can’t even really opt out. My parents tried to gift me a kit for xmas one year, "hey we think this is fun, might be useful to know if you're prone to eyeball cancer or whatever." I explained all the privacy issues and politely declined. But of course they and my sister had already gone ahead and done it, so now my family’s genetic fingerprints are in their databases, nothing to be done ab…
I work in this space and even I have a hard time seeing 23andMe being profitable.
Why would a company go through a SPAC instead of an IPO? Does the SPAC merger constitute a hedge against uncertainty in an IPO? What I mean is, 23andMe gets cash NOW and the SPAC gets the company at a discount but accepts the risk the IPO might not meet its goals? Could someone please explain the strategy?