Background: Javice tried to sell her business "Frank" to JPM, which helped students get financial aid. She claimed there was ~4M users, when really it was only ~300k. She paid someone to make fake, random accounts to fill out the 3.7M hole. JPM bought it for $175M.
Kinda of get Elizabeth Holmes vibes a little bit in this story, everyone wants to prop up a female entrepreneur, then said female messes with very powerful wealthy people, and it all falls apart once it's discovered its a fraud.
| +31 | SpaceX IPO - what are your thoughts | 5 | 21h |
| +28 | Should I use Claude or chatgpt? | 15 | 2h |
| +21 | Funny Things to Say to Interns | 7 | 5h |
| +17 | How did you meet your significant other/partner? | 13 | 18h |
| +17 | London's future as a financial centre | 18 | 1d |
| The Great Debate | 9 | 6h | |
| +7 | Test post will be deleted automatically. | 11 | 1d |
| +7 | E ink/electronic notepads | 4 | 19h |
| +6 | Stay Sharp All Day With Best Modvigil 200 MG Tablet | 0 | 15h |
| +5 | get a model before you model | 3 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
This story does indeed echo the Elizabeth Holmes saga, with a similar pattern of overpromising, fabricating data, and ultimately facing the consequences when the fraud unraveled. Charlie Javice's case, involving the sale of her company "Frank" to JPMorgan Chase, highlights the risks of misrepresentation in high-stakes business deals. By inflating user numbers from 300,000 to 4 million through fake accounts, she managed to secure a $175 million acquisition deal. However, once the fraud was uncovered, it led to severe legal repercussions, including a 7-year prison sentence.
The parallels to Holmes are striking: both cases involve ambitious female entrepreneurs who gained significant attention and funding, only for their fraudulent practices to be exposed, leading to their downfall. It serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of prioritizing hype and appearances over substance and integrity in the business world.
Sources: https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forum/investing/scamming-the-rich-the-daily-peel-1522?customgpt=1, Fraud^2 | The Daily Peel | 11/10/21, , Biggest mistake, A friend of mine cheated and got an Internship offer at a BB IB
Pointing to this as "everyone wants to prop up a female entrepreneur, then said female messes with very powerful wealthy people" is not only wrong, it's selection bias. There are so many frauds that are men. SBF, Enron, Madoff. More recently most of the fraudulent Ai startups have been founded by men. It's just the case that this was a big story because the girl is going to jail. Whenever there's a big fraud case that ends in jail, it's front page news on the financial times.
Don't spread sexist misinformation like this. Women entrepreneurs already have it pretty tough, no need to point out some idea that they're all frauds or that this woman was being uplifted solely because she was a woman. If you were an investor and heard 4M in users, you would invest regardless of whether it was a man or a woman founder. Fraud is genderless.
True, I don't disagree with your points. I was making the comparison between Javice and Holmes. Even in the WSJ today, they call her a "female entrepreneur", they never call SBF a "male entrepreneur".
I also agree that women entrepreneurs have it tough as well. From all the docs/books/movies made of Holmes, it's clear that her being female heavily influenced people to invest. To the point where now female entrepreneurs are coached to dye their hair from blonde so they don't remind investors of Holmes. I'd assume the same thing happens for founders who look like SBF.
I think the real case here is, JPM didn't do enough due diligence, got egg on their face, and now are using leverage to send Javice to jail. Court files even say Capital One looked at the detail and passed because tested the data and didn't like the results.
I get your point, on most mainstream media making a common point about women entrepreneurs vs just entrepreneurs, but I don't think it should be something we should have to point out. Like, they're just entrepreneurs. Can we not keep it that way?
The Holmes case was really weird. If you read these books, you'd know she was scarily manipulative. I feel strongly that she utilized her gender to her advantage to manipulate the public and investors in bad faith. Holmes isn't really like SBF. Holmes never once had a real product, but she was incredible at manipulation, and this was enough. SBF had a product, and billions of dollars, but made the wrong moves at the wrong time. Hell, if he managed to hold out for a few months no one would've found out. No one wants to be close to Holmes, because reminding people of such a strong manipulator will get you crushed.
This isn't fair. Men are WAY better at fraud than women!
women in male dominated fields
Racing to write $ into a biotechy thing like Theranos as part of a big round with well known investors I get. I think its stupid but I get it, hype and all that.
But acquiring a business like this and not validating something as basic as user count? That too as a buyer like JPM. Does not compute for me.
You would think every forecast, business plan, strategy doc, valuation work etc. are driven off of user count and growth. Idk man, she deserves jail but everyone comes out of this looking like idiots.
Yeah I can't imagine the JPM corp dev team kept their jobs here? Who else was involved in the diligence - I imagine the marketing function was pulled in as it's their functional area of expertise and they would be in charge of DD'ing user count?
Yeah, her defense was the JP Morgan is sophisticated enough that they should have been able to figure out the fraud.
Frankly, this entire thing is an indictment of Wall Street and Silicon Valley tech investing in general. Every problem with the way modern financial markets work gets exposed. Just a complete abdication of any kind of responsibility on the part of every participant in the name of making a quick buck.
WSJ article said that Capital One looked at the deal prior, had trouble verifying the users, so they passed. So at least one other bank looked at it and was able to figure it out.
Just makes me think, something else was maybe at play at JPM, or they severely took their eye off the ball. Ether way, both sides look like idiots, but one side is significantly more wealthy and powerful, which they will most likely weld in court.
The 30 Under 30 to Prison pipeline is undefeated
The letters of support for leniency are such an odd thing.
damn i thought the users she had was lower 300k seems pretty good, if she had been patient she could have probably gotten a great exit
Javice had said in an interview the key challenge of her startup was scaling and sustainable growth. It's easy to project out and have a strategy to grow from 300k users to 3M, but the execution of it is much harder especially with the aggressive timelines investors or other personnel may expect.
It's more likely that she may not have had the chance to grow it to the extent necessary to exit once the momentum cooled off. It's a shame because her business was meeting a necessary need in the market too.
yeah 100% seemed like a good idea, I also did not realize when I saw it in the news that it had a legit user base I thought it was completely fabricated
It's crazy that JPM paid $175M without properly verifying the user base. The fraud is obviously on Javice, but it also highlights how much due diligence gets skipped when there's hype around a founder.
Quia sit quia iure porro eum soluta vero. Maiores voluptates reiciendis similique sequi magnam. Ratione veniam aspernatur autem.
Provident vel fugit molestiae veniam qui. Deleniti et quas quisquam ad aut hic in eligendi. Porro tenetur quaerat dolorum quisquam. Dolor quis ex accusantium dignissimos nisi non et.
Voluptas quo id impedit nihil quas voluptas excepturi veniam. Quos cupiditate omnis maiores itaque ducimus. Sit neque sed accusantium sed perferendis qui occaecati magni.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...