Post by eri on Dec 1, 2021 18:08:03 GMT 12
First, the defence. A key argument here is that Holmes and her co-defendants were not economical with the truth but were merely following a well-trodden path of exaggeration and hyperbole when talking about the company, its products and prospects. To support this contention the defence has referenced Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison, who were both accused of exaggerating the capabilities of their respective Apple and Oracle. Normal founder behaviour which should not be punished, in other words.
Some elements of this are clearly defensible. An entrepreneur should be expected to put the good aspects of their company and products in the best possible light, but it is a long bow to argue deliberate lying about the business is an acceptable standard. Here Nikola, the electric vehicle start-up, is instructive. Under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission over information relating to its capital raise, the company has admitted that nine statements made by founder Trevor Milton about Nikola's progress and technical abilities were wholly or partly inaccurate. Nikola is now contemplating a US$125 million provision for civil penalties, yet the company remains valued at over US$5.7b.
Given the apparent rewards of "exaggeration", it should hardly be surprising if entrepreneurs (risk-takers by definition) do not take every opportunity to talk up their business, based on a strategy to attract investment, get high enterprise values, and cash out, having transferred the risk to other investors. This should not be possible; after all, most early stage investors are highly sophisticated, and capable of exercising due diligence on the claims of entrepreneurs. Surely such hyperbole could be found out?
It is here the evidence submitted at the Holmes trial becomes so interesting. One after the other, investors representing billions of dollars used to back Theranos have been cross-examined, and their process has been shown as little more sophisticated than placing a large sum on red or black. Lisa Petersen, who invested US$100m of DeVos family money in Theranos, admitted on the stand she had done no review or investigation of the business, prompting Holmes' defence attorney to question whether she had heard of the concept of due diligence.
www.nzherald.co.nz/business/andrew-barnes-the-business-of-lies-is-becoming-a-dangerous-norm/6TQFRKQLWZXZDVKYKNTCRXRYUI/
in nz + ak
at the moment
we have gov addicted to spin to the extant
that they don't even believe some of their own press releases
therefore they have no one to blame but themselves
for the loss in trust with both levels of gov.
both of them believe more in the power of propaganda to achieve their desired ends
than trust democracy to deliver them
so it's time for the people
to show both of them the door
Some elements of this are clearly defensible. An entrepreneur should be expected to put the good aspects of their company and products in the best possible light, but it is a long bow to argue deliberate lying about the business is an acceptable standard. Here Nikola, the electric vehicle start-up, is instructive. Under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission over information relating to its capital raise, the company has admitted that nine statements made by founder Trevor Milton about Nikola's progress and technical abilities were wholly or partly inaccurate. Nikola is now contemplating a US$125 million provision for civil penalties, yet the company remains valued at over US$5.7b.
Given the apparent rewards of "exaggeration", it should hardly be surprising if entrepreneurs (risk-takers by definition) do not take every opportunity to talk up their business, based on a strategy to attract investment, get high enterprise values, and cash out, having transferred the risk to other investors. This should not be possible; after all, most early stage investors are highly sophisticated, and capable of exercising due diligence on the claims of entrepreneurs. Surely such hyperbole could be found out?
It is here the evidence submitted at the Holmes trial becomes so interesting. One after the other, investors representing billions of dollars used to back Theranos have been cross-examined, and their process has been shown as little more sophisticated than placing a large sum on red or black. Lisa Petersen, who invested US$100m of DeVos family money in Theranos, admitted on the stand she had done no review or investigation of the business, prompting Holmes' defence attorney to question whether she had heard of the concept of due diligence.
www.nzherald.co.nz/business/andrew-barnes-the-business-of-lies-is-becoming-a-dangerous-norm/6TQFRKQLWZXZDVKYKNTCRXRYUI/
in nz + ak
at the moment
we have gov addicted to spin to the extant
that they don't even believe some of their own press releases
therefore they have no one to blame but themselves
for the loss in trust with both levels of gov.
both of them believe more in the power of propaganda to achieve their desired ends
than trust democracy to deliver them
so it's time for the people
to show both of them the door