George Shultz, former Secretary of State and one of the most respected figures in American politics, was an early investor in Theranos. According to public filings, he invested a total of $1.6 million in the company between 2013 and 2015.
Theranos was founded by Elizabeth Holmes with the goal of revolutionizing blood testing by using just a few drops of blood instead of traditional vials. The company received significant attention from media and investors alike, with its valuation briefly reaching $9 billion.
Shultz joined Theranos’ board shortly after investing, bringing with him decades of experience in government and business. He became one of the company’s most vocal supporters, praising both its technology and its CEO.
However, as allegations about Theranos’ practices began to surface – including claims that it was manipulating test results – Shultz found himself at odds with many others on the board who pushed back against concerns raised by regulators and journalists.
After years of controversy, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Holmes with committing fraud by making false statements about her company’s technology capabilities. In March 2018 she settled those charges paying a fine but accepting no guilt for what she did wrong while running Theranos.
Over time it became clear that much or all of what had been promised regarding technologies deployed within such tiny devices which could do lots of targeted tests on very small samples simply never existed beyond discussion boards. Investors who believed their capital would expand rapidly alongside advances made insisted anyone doubting this new paradigm change medical research would find themselves outbid for access to investment opportunities wherever they may exist.
In retrospect economists now suggest thousands potentially millions over-invested without enough professional scrutiny before signing up fully embracing these novel techniques – allegedly due diligence itself being held solely among insiders hoping nobody pulls away too hard when feeling shaky pull them under litigation waves arising: those attracted exclusively because perceived profits came quick evidently creating lacklustre investor due diligence prior to investing.
While Shultz did not speak publicly following the SEC’s charges, it is clear that he had lost faith in Theranos. In interviews with journalists covering his book “Learning from Experience” published 2020, Schultz pointed out that his trust was based on what he believed would be high quality board oversight and trusted advisers guiding company management at inception towards responsible actions throughout upon regulatory scrutiny.
Shultz has since become an advocate for stronger regulation and ethical behavior within startup companies.
As for those investors who followed Holmes during her meteoric rise, many of them lost millions as a result of their misplaced bets invested taken by so-called industry experts without considering thoughts about how biological data might actually shift swiftly or slowly whatever paradigm one believes exists deep down inside range diverse opinions brought external wide adoption brings barely tempered tones sometimes unaddressed but rather embraced when predictability keeps selling shares moving upward.
Now whether George Schultz’s investment in Theranos met his expectations initially forecast can hardly be determined conclusively from public record. What we do know is this: irrespective in whose cornucopia yield may rest solely according only accounting standards doesn’t on its own justify enthusiastic support meant creating a mythology surrounding any new promising diagnostic technology (or whatever else) first rather than consider actual evidence supporting a need clearly identified – numerous cost-benefit analyses carried out before settling into market should help here suffice if attracting more seasoned corporate executives who do not simply blindly follow hype whereas beliefs regarding great promise produces profits does potentially come back to bite unsuspecting enthusiastic adopters where it hurts badly thereby underlining major flaws uncovered thereafter which end up hitting bottom lines hard wrecking reputations besides emptying bank accounts almost overnight fetching endless litigations ruining lives over errors made through naivety greed consumed enthusiasts scarcely monitored by watchful investors knowing better until too late when left picking thru losses exceeded gains associated with perceived future returns tied to heaven sent opportunities rarely grounded in proven facts.
George Shultz, former Secretary of State and one of the most respected figures in American politics, was an early investor in Theranos. According to public filings, he invested a total of $1.6 million in the company between 2013 and 2015.
Theranos was founded by Elizabeth Holmes with the goal of revolutionizing blood testing by using just a few drops of blood instead of traditional vials. The company received significant attention from media and investors alike, with its valuation briefly reaching $9 billion.
Shultz joined Theranos’ board shortly after investing, bringing with him decades of experience in government and business. He became one of the company’s most vocal supporters, praising both its technology and its CEO.
However, as allegations about Theranos’ practices began to surface – including claims that it was manipulating test results – Shultz found himself at odds with many others on the board who pushed back against concerns raised by regulators and journalists.
After years of controversy, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Holmes with committing fraud by making false statements about her company’s technology capabilities. In March 2018 she settled those charges paying a fine but accepting no guilt for what she did wrong while running Theranos.
Over time it became clear that much or all of what had been promised regarding technologies deployed within such tiny devices which could do lots of targeted tests on very small samples simply never existed beyond discussion boards. Investors who believed their capital would expand rapidly alongside advances made insisted anyone doubting this new paradigm change medical research would find themselves outbid for access to investment opportunities wherever they may exist.
In retrospect economists now suggest thousands potentially millions over-invested without enough professional scrutiny before signing up fully embracing these novel techniques – allegedly due diligence itself being held solely among insiders hoping nobody pulls away too hard when feeling shaky pull them under litigation waves arising: those attracted exclusively because perceived profits came quick evidently creating lacklustre investor due diligence prior to investing.
While Shultz did not speak publicly following the SEC’s charges, it is clear that he had lost faith in Theranos. In interviews with journalists covering his book “Learning from Experience” published 2020, Schultz pointed out that his trust was based on what he believed would be high quality board oversight and trusted advisers guiding company management at inception towards responsible actions throughout upon regulatory scrutiny.
Shultz has since become an advocate for stronger regulation and ethical behavior within startup companies.
As for those investors who followed Holmes during her meteoric rise, many of them lost millions as a result of their misplaced bets invested taken by so-called industry experts without considering thoughts about how biological data might actually shift swiftly or slowly whatever paradigm one believes exists deep down inside range diverse opinions brought external wide adoption brings barely tempered tones sometimes unaddressed but rather embraced when predictability keeps selling shares moving upward.
Now whether George Schultz’s investment in Theranos met his expectations initially forecast can hardly be determined conclusively from public record. What we do know is this: irrespective in whose cornucopia yield may rest solely according only accounting standards doesn’t on its own justify enthusiastic support meant creating a mythology surrounding any new promising diagnostic technology (or whatever else) first rather than consider actual evidence supporting a need clearly identified – numerous cost-benefit analyses carried out before settling into market should help here suffice if attracting more seasoned corporate executives who do not simply blindly follow hype whereas beliefs regarding great promise produces profits does potentially come back to bite unsuspecting enthusiastic adopters where it hurts badly thereby underlining major flaws uncovered thereafter which end up hitting bottom lines hard wrecking reputations besides emptying bank accounts almost overnight fetching endless litigations ruining lives over errors made through naivety greed consumed enthusiasts scarcely monitored by watchful investors knowing better until too late when left picking thru losses exceeded gains associated with perceived future returns tied to heaven sent opportunities rarely grounded in proven facts.