Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:25 PM Jun 2016

Forbes cuts estimated wealth of 'billionaire' Theranos founder to $0

Forbes, the publisher of seemingly countless lists of the world’s billionaires, is patting itself on the back for seeing through the hype about the blood-testing company Theranos and its glamorous 32-year-old founder, Elizabeth Holmes. In connection with the release Wednesday of its second annual list of America’s richest self-made women, it cut the estimate of Holmes’ net worth from $4.5 billion—the tally that placed her at the very summit of the list last year – to zero.

In doing so, however, Forbes unwittingly exposed the essential fatuousness of such lists.The question Forbes should answer is how Holmes got listed in the first place.

The magazine’s estimate of Holmes’ wealth was based then, as now, on the putative value of her company, of which she owns 50%. But Theranos is private, so the valuation of her company, which was pegged last year at $9 billion, always was suspect.

Forbes bought heavily into the hype until the Theranos story began to fray with an expose late last year by the Wall Street Journal. It now turns out that the finger-prick technology that Theranos claimed would revolutionize the blood-testing industry and healthcare in general hasn’t been shown to work.

more
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fo-hiltzik-forbes-theranos-20160601-snap-story.html

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Forbes cuts estimated wealth of 'billionaire' Theranos founder to $0 (Original Post) n2doc Jun 2016 OP
Now they should get to work on the Trump "fortune". marble falls Jun 2016 #1
"...hasn’t been shown to work" or has been shown to not work? ret5hd Jun 2016 #2

ret5hd

(20,489 posts)
2. "...hasn’t been shown to work" or has been shown to not work?
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:37 PM
Jun 2016

I thought it was the latter, and there is a distinct difference.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Forbes cuts estimated wea...