This woman is really amazing!

[randomep]

Agree with her brilliance, however the concept behind this company deserves some scrutiny, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof in my view. The most important is obviously if the tests they have developed match up well with current ones. Point of care testing has existed for a while in the ICU environment, with extremely small blood volumes, specifically for ABG assessment. However the problem is that it only gives a rough approximation of the true values, and is not as accurate as a regular ABG. I actually hope it works out, but the thought that she is worth 4.5 bil based on a valuation assigned by PE is funny. There was an article a while back that talked about valuations being chosen not based on value, but based on the ability to attract more investment. Here is a good article with some of the questions that have been raised about the company.

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-elizabeth-holmes-theranos-2015-4

 

i think this is a good start on validity of the claims. the company got recently got some FDA approvals for their system and hiv tests

 

https://fortune.com/2015/07/02/theranos-fda-approval/

 

OK I really don't get what is the big deal. With HIV testing there are now at home tests using saliva that can give results in 15min. How is theranos groundbreaking? As for hepatitus and herpes, others also offer at home test kits.

 

Seems like to me when they run out of new sexy ideas to tout in the financial community like internet backbone they take an plain vanilla idea and sell some small improvement as out of this world.... I know she is pretty and has an IQ of 180 but I baffled how she can be worth $5B.

[Liberty]

Agree with her brilliance, however the concept behind this company deserves some scrutiny, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof in my view. The most important is obviously if the tests they have developed match up well with current ones. Point of care testing has existed for a while in the ICU environment, with extremely small blood volumes, specifically for ABG assessment. However the problem is that it only gives a rough approximation of the true values, and is not as accurate as a regular ABG. I actually hope it works out, but the thought that she is worth 4.5 bil based on a valuation assigned by PE is funny. There was an article a while back that talked about valuations being chosen not based on value, but based on the ability to attract more investment. Here is a good article with some of the questions that have been raised about the company.

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-elizabeth-holmes-theranos-2015-4

 

i think this is a good start on validity of the claims. the company got recently got some FDA approvals for their system and hiv tests

 

https://fortune.com/2015/07/02/theranos-fda-approval/

 

OK I really don't get what is the big deal. With HIV testing there are now at home tests using saliva that can give results in 15min. How is theranos groundbreaking? As for hepatitus and herpes, others also offer at home test kits.

 

Seems like to me when they run out of new sexy ideas to tout in the financial community like internet backbone they take an plain vanilla idea and sell some small improvement as out of this world.... I know she is pretty and has an IQ of 180 but I baffled how she can be worth $5B.

 

So you know nothing about the company (which was in stealth mode until recently so very little is known about it), but your are baffled by how it can be worth a lot?

 

I know little too, but it's not too hard to imagine that its tests can be significantly better (faster, cheaper, more varied, lower false positives, based on patented tech that is defensible for a while, whatever), and that this could be worth a lot of money. You don't need something entirely "new" to build a valuable business and improve things. The iPhone was far from the first smartphone, the Model S isn't the first EV. I think the rational position is to say that you need more information to make up your mind, not to try to pooh pooh her company and its technology. I don't know yet if Theranos is the Apple or Tesla of its field, but what I've seen so far is impressive.

[Liberty]

Nice menu!

 

https://www.theranos.com/test-menu

[randomep]

Agree with her brilliance, however the concept behind this company deserves some scrutiny, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof in my view. The most important is obviously if the tests they have developed match up well with current ones. Point of care testing has existed for a while in the ICU environment, with extremely small blood volumes, specifically for ABG assessment. However the problem is that it only gives a rough approximation of the true values, and is not as accurate as a regular ABG. I actually hope it works out, but the thought that she is worth 4.5 bil based on a valuation assigned by PE is funny. There was an article a while back that talked about valuations being chosen not based on value, but based on the ability to attract more investment. Here is a good article with some of the questions that have been raised about the company.

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-elizabeth-holmes-theranos-2015-4

 

i think this is a good start on validity of the claims. the company got recently got some FDA approvals for their system and hiv tests

 

https://fortune.com/2015/07/02/theranos-fda-approval/

 

OK I really don't get what is the big deal. With HIV testing there are now at home tests using saliva that can give results in 15min. How is theranos groundbreaking? As for hepatitus and herpes, others also offer at home test kits.

 

Seems like to me when they run out of new sexy ideas to tout in the financial community like internet backbone they take an plain vanilla idea and sell some small improvement as out of this world.... I know she is pretty and has an IQ of 180 but I baffled how she can be worth $5B.

 

So you know nothing about the company (which was in stealth mode until recently so very little is known about it), but your are baffled by how it can be worth a lot?

 

I know little too, but it's not too hard to imagine that its tests can be significantly better (faster, cheaper, more varied, lower false positives, based on patented tech that is defensible for a while, whatever), and that this could be worth a lot of money. You don't need something entirely "new" to build a valuable business and improve things. The iPhone was far from the first smartphone, the Model S isn't the first EV. I think the rational position is to say that you need more information to make up your mind, not to try to pooh pooh her company and its technology. I don't know yet if Theranos is the Apple or Tesla of its field, but what I've seen so far is impressive.

 

I know about blood tests and at home tests cos I have used lots of them. So I know something about the industry.  When you are worried about HIV, Hep C, price is not that big a deal.

 

You say you know very little about the company but what you've seen is impressive. Ok to a guy who admittedly knows little about theranos plz tell me what is impressive. BTW I have read the articles.......

 

Seems like to me we all know little. But I've seen the website talking about their tests. They require human assistance. And they are talking about a $9 pricepoint... I dunno I don't get it.

[Guest Schwab711]

Agree with her brilliance, however the concept behind this company deserves some scrutiny, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof in my view. The most important is obviously if the tests they have developed match up well with current ones. Point of care testing has existed for a while in the ICU environment, with extremely small blood volumes, specifically for ABG assessment. However the problem is that it only gives a rough approximation of the true values, and is not as accurate as a regular ABG. I actually hope it works out, but the thought that she is worth 4.5 bil based on a valuation assigned by PE is funny. There was an article a while back that talked about valuations being chosen not based on value, but based on the ability to attract more investment. Here is a good article with some of the questions that have been raised about the company.

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-elizabeth-holmes-theranos-2015-4

 

i think this is a good start on validity of the claims. the company got recently got some FDA approvals for their system and hiv tests

 

https://fortune.com/2015/07/02/theranos-fda-approval/

 

OK I really don't get what is the big deal. With HIV testing there are now at home tests using saliva that can give results in 15min. How is theranos groundbreaking? As for hepatitus and herpes, others also offer at home test kits.

 

Seems like to me when they run out of new sexy ideas to tout in the financial community like internet backbone they take an plain vanilla idea and sell some small improvement as out of this world.... I know she is pretty and has an IQ of 180 but I baffled how she can be worth $5B.

 

So you know nothing about the company (which was in stealth mode until recently so very little is known about it), but your are baffled by how it can be worth a lot?

 

I know little too, but it's not too hard to imagine that its tests can be significantly better (faster, cheaper, more varied, lower false positives, based on patented tech that is defensible for a while, whatever), and that this could be worth a lot of money. You don't need something entirely "new" to build a valuable business and improve things. The iPhone was far from the first smartphone, the Model S isn't the first EV. I think the rational position is to say that you need more information to make up your mind, not to try to pooh pooh her company and its technology. I don't know yet if Theranos is the Apple or Tesla of its field, but what I've seen so far is impressive.

 

I think it's pretty rational to assume this innovative new test is not as innovative as the seller claims. The only thing that matters from the country's perspective is if her tests provide a better value (combination of accuracy, ease, and costs).

 

I think the majority of her valuation is due to the business not being required to seek FDA approval. Everything written on her company states that the tests are "at least as accurate as currently available tests".

 

Without more information, why would we assume her tests are better for the country's health as opposed to assuming she found an innovative way to avoid FDA approval?

 

However, I do think it's great that a young, good-looking woman has created such a large amount of wealth for herself in a "male" industry while using "male" tactics (aggressive company using "trade secrets" vs common IP protection). It would be great if woman had an Elon Musk to look up to. If nothing else, to prove that it is absolutely possible for anyone to succeed.

 

https://fortune.com/2015/07/02/theranos-fda-approval/

[Liberty]

I know about blood tests and at home tests cos I have used lots of them. So I know something about the industry.  When you are worried about HIV, Hep C, price is not that big a deal.

 

You say you know very little about the company but what you've seen is impressive. Ok to a guy who admittedly knows little about theranos plz tell me what is impressive. BTW I have read the articles.......

 

Seems like to me we all know little. But I've seen the website talking about their tests. They require human assistance. And they are talking about a $9 pricepoint... I dunno I don't get it.

 

Well, maybe I'm easily impressed, but a 30-year-old founder of a company valued at 10bn by savvy investors like Larry Ellison, who built a business in a very tough and technical field, where large incumbent companies tend to dominate, and who wants to make hundreds of blood tests available in Walgreens and other drugstores to regular people for a few bucks impresses me. I wasn't seeing anyone else doing that quite yet, but maybe I missed it.

 

We're likely talking passed each other, and it's probably my fault. You were probably just looking for more evidence of what Theranos is doing better than others, while I pattern-matched some of what you said and probably read too much into it (being "baffled", the "she's pretty.. but.." comment, "what's groundbreaking?", etc).

 

I apologize for being a bit defensive. I also hope to learn more about Theranos. Maybe someday they IPO and we can learn more about what's going on in there. The recent press blitz certainly could be the an early step to going public.

[randomep]

I know about blood tests and at home tests cos I have used lots of them. So I know something about the industry.  When you are worried about HIV, Hep C, price is not that big a deal.

 

You say you know very little about the company but what you've seen is impressive. Ok to a guy who admittedly knows little about theranos plz tell me what is impressive. BTW I have read the articles.......

 

Seems like to me we all know little. But I've seen the website talking about their tests. They require human assistance. And they are talking about a $9 pricepoint... I dunno I don't get it.

 

Well, maybe I'm easily impressed, but a 30-year-old founder of a company valued at 10bn by savvy investors like Larry Ellison, who built a business in a very tough and technical field, where large incumbent companies tend to dominate, and who wants to make hundreds of blood tests available in Walgreens and other drugstores to regular people for a few bucks impresses me. I wasn't seeing anyone else doing that quite yet, but maybe I missed it.

 

We're likely talking passed each other, and it's probably my fault. You were probably just looking for more evidence of what Theranos is doing better than others, while I pattern-matched some of what you said and probably read too much into it (being "baffled", the "she's pretty.. but.." comment, "what's groundbreaking?", etc).

 

I apologize for being a bit defensive. I also hope to learn more about Theranos. Maybe someday they IPO and we can learn more about what's going on in there. The recent press blitz certainly could be the an early step to going public.

 

Ya its cool.

 

I read about her a while back in my paper copy of fortune or some such magazine. And these questions stuck out in my mind. As I have no one to talk to about finance, this forum is one of very few outlets.  So, I blurted out the first thing on my mind in this thread.......

 

But definitely it helps for us all to stay on top of things. Health is a huge industry for growth, it is 18% of GDP and there's obamacare. There is tremendous pressure to shave costs. So the industry is hungry for a game changer. But it is hard in such a labour intensive industry. I mean it is ridiculous that my doctor still uses paper files.

 

[Jurgis]

Nice menu!

 

https://www.theranos.com/test-menu

 

The total for all tests is $3300.

 

It's probably much cheaper (5x cheaper?) than regular labs, but still a huge amount if you wanted to have a complete blood test.

[Liberty]

Nice menu!

 

https://www.theranos.com/test-menu

 

The total for all tests is $3300.

 

It's probably much cheaper (5x cheaper?) than regular labs, but still a huge amount if you wanted to have a complete blood test.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there are discount for multiple tests at the same time, since a lot of the process is the same regardless of how many tests you do (collecting blood, shipping it to lab, processing it, then sending back results).

[Jurgis]

Nice menu!

 

https://www.theranos.com/test-menu

 

The total for all tests is $3300.

 

It's probably much cheaper (5x cheaper?) than regular labs, but still a huge amount if you wanted to have a complete blood test.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there are discount for multiple tests at the same time, since a lot of the process is the same regardless of how many tests you do (collecting blood, shipping it to lab, processing it, then sending back results).

 

Possibly. Though Theranos clearly loses money on $3 tests, so they are probably assuming multiple tests per run already.

[Liberty]

Nice menu!

 

https://www.theranos.com/test-menu

 

The total for all tests is $3300.

 

It's probably much cheaper (5x cheaper?) than regular labs, but still a huge amount if you wanted to have a complete blood test.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there are discount for multiple tests at the same time, since a lot of the process is the same regardless of how many tests you do (collecting blood, shipping it to lab, processing it, then sending back results).

 

Possibly. Though Theranos clearly loses money on $3 tests, so they are probably assuming multiple tests per run already.

 

Maybe they lose money, but once you have your fixed costs paid up, running a marginal test (especially if it's an easy one that doesn't require anything consumable) might be almost free. You already have your guy who picks up the samples, your lab and your equipment... as long as utilization isn't 100% and less profitable tests aren't displacing more profitable one, might as well run them.

[Jurgis]

 

Maybe they lose money, but once you have your fixed costs paid up, running a marginal test (especially if it's an easy one that doesn't require anything consumable) might be almost free. You already have your guy who picks up the samples, your lab and your equipment... as long as utilization isn't 100% and less profitable tests aren't displacing more profitable one, might as well run them.

 

Liberty, I think you gonna take this as attack on Theranos, since you are already defensive.

 

However, it's clear that they can't make money on $3 test even with their automation. It is not almost free. They have to get the blood, which involves human work, the delivery is not free, the sorting and pass through is not free.

 

Anyway, people don't order a single blood test, so the $3 tests are red herring really. The likely number is probably around 10 tests unless someone orders something nonstandard.

 

It is not clear how many tests they can run on a single blood sample. It's probably not a very large number. Once again, don't take that as criticism since the common case is not someone ordering 100+ tests.

[Liberty]

 

Maybe they lose money, but once you have your fixed costs paid up, running a marginal test (especially if it's an easy one that doesn't require anything consumable) might be almost free. You already have your guy who picks up the samples, your lab and your equipment... as long as utilization isn't 100% and less profitable tests aren't displacing more profitable one, might as well run them.

 

Liberty, I think you gonna take this as attack on Theranos, since you are already defensive.

 

However, it's clear that they can't make money on $3 test even with their automation. It is not almost free. They have to get the blood, which involves human work, the delivery is not free, the sorting and pass through is not free.

 

Anyway, people don't order a single blood test, so the $3 tests are red herring really. The likely number is probably around 10 tests unless someone orders something nonstandard.

 

It is not clear how many tests they can run on a single blood sample. It's probably not a very large number. Once again, don't take that as criticism since the common case is not someone ordering 100+ tests.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you missed my point.

 

I'm not saying that a $3 test is free in the abstract. I'm saying that the lab person who draws blood is paid by the hour and is going to get paid anyway. The truck that picks up the samples is going to come by anyway. The equipment has already been bought, etc.. So the marginal cost of that test might be almost free (as long as utilization isn't 100%).

 

They're not sending a new truck for each new sample. They're not paying the person who draws the blood per sample, they're not buying a new blood testing machine every time, etc. Fixed costs, right?

 

Some tests might require expensive consumables (chemicals?) or take a long time, so they are more expensive in time on the labs/on the equipment. But some tests might be super quick and use nothing more than the electricity to run the equipment, so could potentially be done for just a few bucks at a profit (because of the fixed costs + almost zero variable costs).

[Jurgis]

Nah, I got that. Although it's not clear what the agreement with Walgreens is, so we don't know if Walgreens are paid per test or per hour or nothing or whatever. That impacts your marginal cost. Also test sorting in the lab is not free in marginal POV either.

 

But this is not very important, so I think we are fine. :)

[Pelagic]

Nice menu!

 

https://www.theranos.com/test-menu

 

The total for all tests is $3300.

 

It's probably much cheaper (5x cheaper?) than regular labs, but still a huge amount if you wanted to have a complete blood test.

 

A lot of that price is overlapping screens. If you look at what some of the individually most expensive tests are they are screens for a number of things like a STI screen or drug panel screen whereas there are also tests for individual drugs. Also some are male/female specific as well, the actual price would probably be cheaper than that for a complete blood test for an individual.

[giofranchi]

An Inside Look At The Theranos Direct-To-Consumer Experience

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2015/07/13/an-inside-look-at-the-theranos-direct-to-consumer-experience/?utm_campaign=forbeshealth&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_channel=Business&linkId=15487295

 

 

Gio

[bookie71]

Thanks

[giofranchi]

Thanks

 

My pleasure!

 

Cheers,

 

Gio

[constructive]

She is impressive but I am very skeptical of the valuation.

 

Remember when Eike Batista was worth $35B? It turned out the market was wrong and he was worth $0.

 

The economics of Theranos' business don't sound promising at all. I suspect it will be lower margin and more capital intensive than investors are hoping.

[Liberty]

She is impressive but I am very skeptical of the valuation.

 

Remember when Eike Batista was worth $35B? It turned out the market was wrong and he was worth $0.

 

The economics of Theranos' business don't sound promising at all. I suspect it will be lower margin and more capital intensive than investors are hoping.

 

I see no reason to compare her to Eike Batista at this point. He was highly leveraged, operating in a fairly corrupt and bureaucratic country, in a cyclical, commodity industry, while being extremely promotional to push his public companies to ever higher valuations. She's been in stealth mode for 10 years working on technology and runs a private business that has only been valued by extremely savvy investors like Larry Ellison, and as far as I know they have no debt.

 

If anyone smells a bit like Batista at this point it's Drahi, in my opinion...

[constructive]

She is impressive but I am very skeptical of the valuation.

 

Remember when Eike Batista was worth $35B? It turned out the market was wrong and he was worth $0.

 

The economics of Theranos' business don't sound promising at all. I suspect it will be lower margin and more capital intensive than investors are hoping.

 

I see no reason to compare her to Eike Batista at this point. He was highly leveraged, operating in a fairly corrupt and bureaucratic country, in a cyclical, commodity industry, while being extremely promotional to push his public companies to ever higher valuations. She's been in stealth mode for 10 years working on technology and runs a private business that has only been valued by extremely savvy investors like Larry Ellison, and as far as I know they have no debt.

 

If anyone smells a bit like Batista at this point it's Drahi, in my opinion...

 

Batista had a lot of debt but his companies also had a lot more assets than Theranos (I'm guessing).

 

Also you don't get a $10B private valuation on minimal revenue without extremely serious salesmanship. There is nothing wrong with being a salesman / promotional if you can back it up. I hope the company can create $10B in value to justify its valuation.

[Liberty]

Batista had a lot of debt but his companies also had a lot more assets than Theranos (I'm guessing).

 

Also you don't get a $10B private valuation on minimal revenue without extremely serious salesmanship. There is nothing wrong with being a salesman / promotional if you can back it up. I hope the company can create $10B in value to justify its valuation.

 

Technology startups are not valued on their assets (at least not how you meant it here).

 

What were Google's assets in 2001 or whatever? That's not what mattered.

 

I understand the impulse to be skeptical, but comparing Holmes to Batista is just random and uncalled for IMO.  Might as well compare Elon Musk to Batista while we're at it...

[constructive]

I understand the impulse to be skeptical, but comparing Holmes to Batista is just random and uncalled for IMO.  Might as well compare Elon Musk to Batista while we're at it...

 

Yes, I would absolutely make that comparison.

 

In a raging bull market, companies are valued on blue sky potential. In a bear market they are valued on short term earnings and assets. Given that Tesla is consuming tons of cash, they are very dependent on the capital markets remaining favorable.

[Liberty]

I understand the impulse to be skeptical, but comparing Holmes to Batista is just random and uncalled for IMO.  Might as well compare Elon Musk to Batista while we're at it...

 

Yes, I would absolutely make that comparison.

 

In a raging bull market, companies are valued on blue sky potential. In a bear market they are valued on short term earnings and assets. Given that Tesla is consuming tons of cash, they are very dependent on the capital markets remaining favorable.

 

What I'm seeing on one side is a promoter asset-gatherer who built a house of card that was bound to crumple in the next down cycle because the only thing that held it up was high commodity prices (on which he had no control). On the other, I see extremely brilliant technologists who built companies from nothing by creating things that are useful to humanity and that have the potential to transform for the better the industries where they are playing.

 

Tesla is growing at 50% a year and constantly reinvesting massively in new things (Model X, Gigafactory, Tesla Energy, Model 3, Supercharger network, probably other secret things). That's why they're not profitable. They could be if they just dialed this reinvestment back (like Amazon), but it would be letting short-term win over the long-term.

 

If you think they can't be profitable with the best, most desirable vehicle on the market that has had waiting lists since it came out, and with battery costs going down every year, then we'll have to agree to disagree. They don't need the equity market to survive, but having access to it can certainly optimize their rate of reinvestment since they don't generate as much funds as they can productively use. Batista was just doing highly leveraged bets on commodity prices, not designing space rockets and competing against government-entrenched monopolies... A very different animal.

 

There's more to life than valuation (especially GAAP valuation - ask John Malone). Likening Holmes and Musk to Batista doesn't make sense to me.

[giofranchi]

A very good article:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/07/15/giving-theranos-a-few-tests/

 

Cheers,

 

Gio