Live data from Hacker News

Major Investor Sues Theranos

wsj.com

51–60 of 234 posts

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#52

One thing I find really weird is the choice of CEO photos in media reporting. If there is good news, they chose 'nice', attractive photos. If there is bad news, they look for worse ones. This is true for male and female founders. In this case, everything about this photo is an 'outtake', from hands, choice of framing, facial expression, eyes - it's a photo a photographer would not keep in their image selection.

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.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#53
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hedge funds frequently have charitable foundations and pension funds as limited partners. Unless the hedge fund is just a family office, there's a high probability that the "little guy" will be impacted, somewhere. I can't tell you if your schadenfreude over hedge funds losing money is right or wrong, because that's based on normative values. But I'd encourage you to adjust your understanding of the financial dynamic…

But if the Theranos deal panned out, who would have benefited from the investment by the hedgefund? Would it be the "little guy?" Or would it be the fund managers, and all the "insiders." It goes hand and hand with the notion that the system is rigged.

Do you know how a hedge fund works? Investors (the pensions and charities and so forth) bear all losses and gains, minus the fund's fee.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#55
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hedge funds frequently have charitable foundations and pension funds as limited partners. Unless the hedge fund is just a family office, there's a high probability that the "little guy" will be impacted, somewhere. I can't tell you if your schadenfreude over hedge funds losing money is right or wrong, because that's based on normative values. But I'd encourage you to adjust your understanding of the financial dynamic…

But if the Theranos deal panned out, who would have benefited from the investment by the hedgefund? Would it be the "little guy?" Or would it be the fund managers, and all the "insiders." It goes hand and hand with the notion that the system is rigged.

> But if the Theranos deal panned out, who would have benefited from the investment by the hedgefund?

A hedge fund is an investment fund that pools money from investors and then invests it according to the hedge fund's strategy. So, the primary people who will benefit or lose are the people who invested their money with the hedge fund. Hedge funds also tend to take a percentage of profits as part of their compensation.

I don't see what connection there is to the notion that the system is rigged. No one is obligated to invest in hedge funds and the people who do are aware of the hedge fund's compensation structure. Anyone who invests money is aware that investments have risk and can fail. The purpose of a hedge fund is to invest money to generate (better-than-market) returns, and so the hedge fund will be compensated if that happens. The fact that they're compensated from profits acts as an incentive for them to actually generate profits.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#58

I have a feeling that this level of lying is much more pervasive in startups than people realize.

I think humanity is literally evolving to lie and cheat at a biological level. Soon, universities will have courses in 'Mastering the art of cheating and lying'.

That's a super interesting theory.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#59

Isn't her activity like the textbook definition of fraud? Not to mention the dude who she basically pushed into committing suicide. I hope she gets at least as much time as Madoff.

Yes, but she's incredibly well connected, so expect no criminal charges.

Re: Major Investor Sues Theranos

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, the "web" link is exactly for this. Paywalled sources get penalized in Google's search results, so most of the time searching for the article's title and clicking the Google search results link gets you the full article.

They've upgraded their paywall game, having a google referer doesn't help anymore.

It does, though once you've seen the paywall, no matter what the referrer is you'll get the paywall again.

You need to open the "web" link in an incognito/private mode then click the WSJ link.

Post reply on HN