Founder of 23andMe buys back company out of bankruptcy auction

Start company.
Run it into the ground.
Go bankrupt.
Buy it back.

📈

Debts are gone might as well
In the capitalist system, the investors deserve all the profits because they're the ones risking everything, or something like this, I'm not an economists.
- Yes, and the workers risk nothing, or something like that, I'm told. 😂
- Bondholders are having a haircut.
You missed 2. Sell (IPO)company
I’m not sure what he she actually did as far as divestiture, but evidently he wasn’t the current owner. I wonder to what degree unreasonable growth expectations flushed the company.
- She
OP, you linked to the comments instead of the top of the article. 💀
- Ah dang you did point it out. They even just copied the top comment there, unless they are ColdWetDog.
So fraud? They defrauded the investors by destroying it. I bet she sold before the news the company is going under.

Actually an interesting turn of events. Sounds like she'd been fighting hard to get it back, but they'd been fighting her on it.

Not sure what it all means, but there's something going on there. It's all very unusual.

Selling off user data but has an excuse to "wasn't me" the whole situation
There's still some gift left to squeeze out. She's not giving up on a good bad thing.

Debts are gone AND now he can sell the user data with impunity! No NO, that was that OTHER GUY

She*
- heh fair, gender bias for me.
Hey, don't talk about Guy Incognito like that

How about the data they sold

That's exactly where all the value is. Selling people's fucking genetic information. What makes it even more valuable is that it can be used against all subsequent descendants of the person that willingly gave it up. Do a DNA test like this and you're selling out your entire family.

TTAM later said it had obtained backing from a “Fortune 500 company with a current market capitalization of more than $400 billion and $17 billion of cash on hand.”

That's not at all concerning.

A little searching finds only one company that really fits the bill. Costco has a market cap of $433B and had a reported $14.8B cash on hand as of May 11. That's an interesting possibility that I wouldn't have guessed. Costco is less evil than most big corporations, so that's a little hopeful if I got it right.
Oracle comes close with a market cap of $583B. That's indeed over $400B, but that would make the description a bit weird. In any case, Oracle makes more sense from a business angle. Unfortunately, they are near the top of the evil scale.
- Calling it here, Costco is going to use the genetic information to create the perfect hot dog.
- Shit, Oracle was down in the low $400B range in May. Apparently being evil pays well in the current administration.

This roller coaster keeps on rollering

I thought they had already agreed the sale of the genetic data to another company?

There's an article in the link.

Ok so I think I'm the first person in the comments to actually click to read the article, cause I'm gonna say something I'm not seeing.

How did you get it to auto snap to the article comment section?
Didnt realize you could share that and it wouldn't default to the article.

The "#comment" at the end of the URL. It's a title/heading/fragment in HTML that hints to your browser to go there directly.
Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL#fragment
- Oh. Neat.
  Thanks for the Wikipedia link
Everything after the # character in the URL is called an anchor and it's not actually being sent to the website server so it's meant for your browser (though the server can see it using javascript). The anchor can point to any ID in the HTML of the web page and browser will scroll it into view on page load. You can find the ID of any element using right click -> inspect though not all elements have explicit ids.
I've no idea to be honest.
Some webpages have a bad habit of automatically appending tags to the URL, or outright changing it, as you scroll down.

All your DNA just got bought.

Bought back by the one person who already had prior access, and bought by her own research non-profit. As far as privacy concerns go, that's the best case scenario.

how the fuck did this company go bankrupt what did i miss

It's not a great business model if you think about it. Customers pay a small fee once then never again.
- When did selling a product instead of a subscription become a bad business model?
  Edit: I have a lot of trouble believing that a product that could theoretically have value to every person on the planet for current and every future generations, that can't be passed along used or resold, couldn't develop a successful sustainable business model.
- I assumed they were making absolute bank by selling the data

So glad I never did this one.