Re:Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Te...
by Animats on Wednesday April 13, 2016 @03:46PM
(#11491557)
Expect investor lawsuits against her personally. This goes way beyond business failure. It's unusual for a regulatory agency to bar the CEO from an industry, unless they're a crook.
Re:Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Te...
by lawnchair_larry on Wednesday April 13, 2016 @07:12PM
(#11493119)
Her current stake is irrelevant. She sure won't be selling it. It's only a question of what was already cashed out.
Re:Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Te...
by txttran on Wednesday April 13, 2016 @03:37PM
(#11491480)
It says in the article that she has >50% equity.
Re:Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Te...
by no_wave on Thursday April 14, 2016 @10:47AM
(#11497138)
I'm going to guess that these big name investors have liquidation preferences of at least 2x, meaning that her stake will probably be worth nothing once this all blows up even if the company maintains any value (and it probably won't anyways)
Almost anytime a startup gets to a valuation that high, the founders have had an opportunity to take some money off the table. VCs like this, because it keeps the founders' incentives aligned with the investors' (they are more likely to take risks and swing for the fences if they don't have to worry as much about their own personal net worth).
It's dangerous if the founder divests entirely, but you want them to have enough that they aren't too worried about the risk of the company collapsing to make bold decisions when necessary.
That said, I don't know Theranos's cap table, but it's probably unlikely that her current stake in Theranos is worth $1B on paper even today - did she really manage to achieve a $9B valuation while holding onto 11% of her company?