[HN Gopher] Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe
        
       Author : mfiguiere
       Score  : 44 points
       Date   : 2025-06-13 20:31 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
        
       | The28thDuck wrote:
       | This is a great outcome no?
        
         | woleium wrote:
         | Who knows. What we do know is someone intimately familiar with
         | the data and its potential utility is no longer bound by any
         | prior contractual obligations as to its use. I doubt this will
         | end well, but i am a cynic.
        
           | burnt-resistor wrote:
           | This. Nonprofit status is no assurance of governance. Just
           | look at Firefox. The limiting factor is the ethics of the
           | new/returning management/board of directors layer(s).
        
       | mrguyorama wrote:
       | So, found company, SPAC it to get some of that sweet sweet public
       | market cash, run it poorly so that it goes bankrupt and you
       | resign, and then buy it at auction for less than it's supposed
       | assets?
       | 
       | Surely that does something bad to economics of investing and
       | running businesses if you can just steal public investment
       | dollars like that, right?
       | 
       | Is there an alternative that doesn't reward a rich CEO for
       | killing their own company, even if it wasn't done on purpose?
       | 
       | She put very little of her own money into it. One of the first
       | investors was Google, ie her husband, then it just kept raising
       | money (how much of that money went directly to Anne), billions of
       | dollars of investment, never made profit, and now she gets it for
       | $300 million or so.
        
         | abxyz wrote:
         | The principle is that employees matter more than shareholders:
         | wiping out shareholders to save jobs is the greater good even
         | if it enriches a nefarious or incompetent executive. Many
         | retail investors are shocked to learn in their first bankruptcy
         | how low they are in the pecking order when a company goes
         | under.
        
         | nradov wrote:
         | The alternative is just to not make stupid investments in the
         | first place. The shareholders knew (or should have known) the
         | risk. If "dumb money" hasn't purchased the stock then the CEO
         | wouldn't have been able to burn their capital.
        
           | sidewndr46 wrote:
           | aren't scenarios like this ultimately enabled by the
           | application of the Greater Fool theory?
        
             | nradov wrote:
             | No one is required to be a fool. You can opt out.
        
         | LarsDu88 wrote:
         | Very few companies have CEOs that actually have the voting
         | shares to run their own company to the ground to buy it
         | privately.
         | 
         | Wojcicki was actually able to stand against the rest of the
         | board to bring this company down to bankruptcy level because of
         | her 49% voting shares
        
         | refulgentis wrote:
         | She wasn't rewarded, she asked to take it private twice because
         | it was going to go bankrupt, board said no both times, now she
         | has to pay 7.5x her last offer to them.
         | 
         | Now it has.
         | 
         | I think you're misunderstanding it as if the company
         | endogenously failed due to missteps on her end, which sort of
         | trivially can't be the case, there's a very defined product
         | here where you can charge more for the output than the input.
         | Thing is, investors / board didn't wanna run that sort of
         | business, apparently.
        
       | OutOfHere wrote:
       | The tech behind 23andMe has long been grossly obsolete. AFAIK,
       | they test a small sample of DNA only, whereas serious people do
       | whole genome testing. A newer company in the field with more to
       | offer is Nucleus Genomics, but I advise finding the full genome
       | test provider that's right for you.
        
         | Someone1234 wrote:
         | And then what? So you find a full genome test provider, and now
         | you have a full array result: What do you then do with it that
         | doesn't violate your privacy?
        
         | oxygen_crisis wrote:
         | Isn't the real prize the library of personally-identified
         | samples preserved in their "biobank" and not the methodologies
         | or analysis they've applied to it so far...
        
           | OutOfHere wrote:
           | Huh. The prize to the user is the quality of the data and the
           | analysis, not the prospect of it.
        
         | burnt-resistor wrote:
         | I rarely used the 23andme website for much of anything and
         | always used it to export into Promethease.
        
           | OutOfHere wrote:
           | The 23andMe scan just doesn't have all the necessary data. It
           | scans just a small sample of the data that's biologically
           | relevant. Think 700K SNPs versus 5 million SNPs with full
           | genome.
        
         | yread wrote:
         | They have the freezers filled with biological material that
         | could be resequenced though. Or not?
        
       | tintor wrote:
       | Is there any full genome sequencing company which doesn't keep
       | dna results associated with user name? ie. strong privacy
       | guarantees
        
         | londons_explore wrote:
         | I thought they all gave you the option to delete your data?
         | That's effectively the same.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-06-13 23:02 UTC)