161–170 of 372 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My most radical political opinion is that we need a right to privacy enshrined in a constitutional amendment. And it needs to be robust enough to prevent the government from subpoenaing data collected by private companies.
The 4th Amendment should already do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To complete the data, the company is trading at $0.34/share, so while $0.40 is a bit lower than the typical 20% premium (~$0.41), I'm not sure it counts as "lowball". It's a typical premium over market cap. Is there any reason to think the company is worth $4.7B or whatever ($9.30/share)? If so the stock is a steal at its current price and we should all buy lots. But can the market be THAT wrong?
My take on their comment was that it should be worth many billions if it was being run effectively but that it's not. That doesn't mean the market is wrong, it means the market thinks it will continue to be run ineffectively.
It seems like there are contradictory facts being claimed: that the price to go private is a lowball, and that the current price is accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused by this; isn't the board of directors who picks the CEO? Or are they locked in for some period of time and don't want to wait around?
I don't know the first thing wrt how 23andMe has its governance and voting setup, but the letter seems to imply the CEO has majority power or, at least, a large enough plurality that it is a one-person-show: > Because of that difference and because of your concentrated voting power, we believe that it is in the best interests of the Company’s shareholders that we resign EDIT: But that brings up a different question:…
voting power dictates control. Ownership dictates rights to profits. you can have full control with 51% ownership, but you still only get 51% of profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My take on their comment was that it should be worth many billions if it was being run effectively but that it's not. That doesn't mean the market is wrong, it means the market thinks it will continue to be run ineffectively.
if that is the case, isnt paying stockholders 20% over value a pretty good deal, and not a ripoff? It seems like there are contradictory facts being claimed: that the price to go private is a lowball, and that the current price is accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the topic of laughability, I would propose that "invoking a dead stranger's name in a self-significant ritual" is absurd to do, and also absurd to be offended by. I hereby grant permission for my name to be invoked in all rituals, sacred and profane, by all current and future living persons. And I'll laugh at you in advance.
Que sera, sera Whatever will be, will be The future's not ours to see Que sera, sera
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My take on their comment was that it should be worth many billions if it was being run effectively but that it's not. That doesn't mean the market is wrong, it means the market thinks it will continue to be run ineffectively.
if that is the case, isnt paying stockholders 20% over value a pretty good deal, and not a ripoff? It seems like there are contradictory facts being claimed: that the price to go private is a lowball, and that the current price is accurate.
Honestly that's borderline fraud.
Literally just one day after 23andMe presented positive phase 2 clinical results for two anti-cancer drugs: https://therapeutics.23andme.com/news-and-research/ The board of directors of 23andMe just resigned in protest. The CEO, Anne Wojcicki (who's sister Susan died of lung cancer last month, and was the former CEO of YouTube) had tried to low ball take the company private at only $0.40 a share -- a more than 96% dr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My oldest brother did so I'm already screwed
Can even one single person here articulate their specific fears of using 23andme, or is it all FUD?
https://www.amazon.com/Change-Agent-Daniel-Suarez/dp/1101984...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To complete the data, the company is trading at $0.34/share, so while $0.40 is a bit lower than the typical 20% premium (~$0.41), I'm not sure it counts as "lowball". It's a typical premium over market cap. Is there any reason to think the company is worth $4.7B or whatever ($9.30/share)? If so the stock is a steal at its current price and we should all buy lots. But can the market be THAT wrong?
Yes. The market can be THAT wrong, not just wrong but also corrupt and broken (on purpose). Hint: regulatory crisis, Suzanne Trimbath, failure to deliver shares, naked shorting, Tesla shortsqueeze, VW shortsqueeze, UBS's and Swiss gov's 50 year secret, etc.
Shortsqueezes are cases of driving prices up because shares are hard to get and shorts need to cover. Again, not related to the best offer being too low.
Secrets are also dumb examples because that’s hidden information.
What we’re talking about here is the valuation with all of the public information available now. Nobody of any relevant market size seems to agree that it should be $9/share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My oldest brother did so I'm already screwed
Can even one single person here articulate their specific fears of using 23andme, or is it all FUD?