
According to Forbes, Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes now has a Net Worth of Zero - elsewhen
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion-to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/#57645d1b2f29
======
ealexhudson
What interested me specifically about this: they call out the preferred
participating stock. Is it rare? In my experience, not really - not common per
se, but not necessarily rare. And being frank, most common stock holders are
at a fair disadvantage through growth phases.

I wonder if they apply this type of thinking for other potential-high-net-
worth founders, who are likely to have most of their potential-worth tied up
in a single organization. Surely this rule about treating the net value of
such stock as being very low unless/until there was some kind of public sale
or it had otherwise been crystallized somehow means that this type of founder
will never feature in the rich list going forwards?

------
yial
Here is a link :[http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/elizabeth-holmes-
net-...](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/elizabeth-holmes-net-worth)

That won't make you turn off your adblocker.

~~~
waterphone
[https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer](https://github.com/reek/anti-
adblock-killer)

~~~
yial
Thank you! That's pretty cool.

------
a_small_island
"FORBES spoke to a dozen venture capitalists, analysts and industry experts
and concluded that a more realistic value for Theranos is $800 million, rather
than $9 billion. That gives the company credit for its intellectual property
and the $724 million that it has raised, according to VC Experts, a venture
capital research firm. It also represents a generous multiple of the company’s
sales, which FORBES learned about from a person familiar with Theranos’
finances."

Wonder how much weight this holds

~~~
jerryhuang100
i would say that valuing Theranos' IP at $76M is very generous as their
portfolio of non-core patents has nothing to cover their proprietary Edison or
whatsoever.

Given such generous valuation and multiple does that means Theranos' revenue
is just somewhere between $8M (100x as Uber) or $800K (less fund ever raised)?
That would be pathetic.

------
mmastrac
This is a huge leap to peg her at zero. She might have taken some money off
the table in a round. She might have used her stock as leverage with a bank to
invest elsewhere, making a decent return on it (though potentially leaving her
over-leveraged if the banks call those loans).

If you've got a billion dollars in paper money, I don't see it as far-fetched
that you could turn that into a few hundred million of cold, hard cash with
some basic financial advice.

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is a huge leap to peg her at zero.

Its no more of a leap than the earlier peg at $4.5B

------
aficiomaquinas
"From 4.5 B to Zero" a new book by Elizabeth Holmes.
[https://twitter.com/aficiomaquinas/status/738079483081547777](https://twitter.com/aficiomaquinas/status/738079483081547777)

------
graffitici
I'd imagine she probably took some money off the table in some of those
investment rounds. Though no way of being sure, of course..

------
xyzzy4
Classic example of what happens when you don't diversify your investments.
High volatility will sometimes drop your net worth to 0.

~~~
rexreed
It's hard to diversity when your entire "wealth" is determined by a fictional
valuation on non-liquid stock. I can offer to buy .0001% of your company that
you own 100% for $20. That doesn't make you worth $20 Million.

~~~
ryan606
Exactly. See this: [https://m.signalvnoise.com/press-release-basecamp-
valuation-...](https://m.signalvnoise.com/press-release-basecamp-valuation-
tops-100-billion-after-bold-vc-investment-c221d8f86ad7#.lxtccp5vx)

"CHICAGO — December 1, 2015–Basecamp is now a $100 billion dollar company,
according to a group of investors who have agreed to purchase 0.000000001% of
the company in exchange for $1."

