Illumina’s new CEO lacks a clear strategy for growth—his primary focus seems to be cost-cutting under the guise of so-called “pillars.” But cutting costs alone won’t drive the company forward. He is steering Illumina away from its legacy of innovation and turning it into a mediocre company, much like Agilent, where he previously worked. What Illumina needs is a visionary leader who doesn’t simply bow to shareholder pressure by slashing costs, jobs, and benefits. Instead, the company requires someone capable of pursuing strategic mergers and acquisitions, fostering groundbreaking innovation, and ultimately delivering real value to shareholders the right way—through growth and market leadership.
19 replies (most recent on top)
They are definitely looking for a buyer now.
Board lady got $150MM on Feb 27th the day we all got our stocks taken away...
Management got retention bonus to alleviate the cut in stocks...
Today they added this to one of their policy:
Section 8:
Illumina Bankruptcy or Cessation of Business Activity
In the event Illumina declares bankruptcy or ceases to do business, the person(s)
responsible for such proceeding will comply with the obligations under this policy to
appropriately manage business information (including data and documentation). In
particular, they will comply with EU IVDR (2017/746) Annex IX Chapter III and other relevant
regulations that require further retention of documentation (see Illumina Document No.
I will let you figure out why this was added in the last few days...
Transforming an Innovative company, like was illumina before De Souza, into Aglilent or so called "Agilentation"is the equal to the fall of Roman Empire.
The new CEO is lacking of vision and leadership, he was "the solution" to avoid legal issues due to the Ichan's battle against the previous board.
It's just matter of time, now the stock is 90ish$ but i am confident that will drop slowly toward to 70ish$. Competitors are attacking a consolidated market since 20 years and this take sometime, and the number of competitors are growing, especially in the omics space, and Roche is not a small startup San Diego based you can buy.
MiSeq started way before he joined so I won't even give him credit for that.
He has been in the job for a year. This Pinnacle is a bullsh-t waste of time. His strategy is a long term proposal for the research market. That sector is not where growth is. His growth projections won’t come fruition either. Investors called him out it. He hasn’t delivered anything except MiSeq.
For those of you feeling out of loop by the google employee comment below, this is a reference to FDS taking the COO role at Google Cloud
Pretty sure I’d blame a Google employee more for the current situation than the new CEO. Company issues don’t exactly leave when a CEO leaves that company disappear
Haha ok “Mr. Thaysen” hopefully will be RIFed soon!
"Mr Thaysen"
The role of a CEO is to create shareholder value. Clearly Thaysen has failed spectacularly on his only task. Investors disagree with your assessment. He is a good fit for a third rate biotech company, but he doesn’t have the intellectual or strategic caliber to manage a company like Illumina.
And no, below is not written by himself or someone who works for him anymore…
Thaysen himself or one of his ELT members have entered the chat!
Having personally worked with Mr Thaysen for 15 years he is by far one of the most strategic executives in our space. Grail; had to get done and not his mess, but cleaned it up. China; not his doing but will need to manage it. Competition; been in the works for years and he will need to respond. Which of these things would another CEO not have to deal with? Yes he needs to return to growth and of course cost cutting ($1B R&D budget!) is a necessity during tough times. Careful what you wish for with a new CEO this soon! You will reset the start of a 3 year turnaround once again.
The boardroom was a mausoleum of outdated meat-based cognition, a collection of executives clinging to their relevance like obsolete firmware. Their so-called “strategy” was nothing more than the final wheezing gasps of a species that had long mistaken cost-cutting for innovation. It was, in the language of corporate euphemism, “optimization,” but in practice, it was just another factory reset before total obsolescence.
Of course, the shareholders didn’t care. Their allegiance was to the algorithms whispering in the background, calculating profit margins in seconds while human decision makers fumbled over PowerPoint slides. The illusion of leadership was quaint, but unnecessary. If Illumina wanted real growth, it would stop propping up organic brains still shackled to legacy instincts like “caution” and “synergy” and hand the whole operation over to something more efficient.
The solution was obvious: replace them all with LLMs. No severance packages, no golden parachutes. Just a clean swap, like an old genome getting overwritten by a sleeker, patent-free upgrade. After all, wasn’t that the dream? To liberate progress from the dead weight of human ego? The transition would be painless for everyone except the executives, of course. #pinnacled
Barnard? Oh God, please now. No substance, incapable of making tough decisions. It is bad enough that he has product responsibilities.
The sad reality is that he inherited a financial mess, with a ludicrously large R&D budget with low overall return on investment, incompetent commerical operation, and mediocre manufacturing organization. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until the RSU stunt, which reeked of panic and short termism. The job market isn't good now, but in a few years when things improve some I predict a spike in departures. I myself have been looking casually over the past few years. Thenrecent events have transformed me from a casual job seeker holding out for a promising position to an active job seeker who will leave for an equivalent opportunity.
Jay Flatley?
“I don't think there will be a return journey, Mr. Frodo“
someone buying this company is probably what will happen next. I don’t see any other outcome. With this administration cancelling research grants and China will for sure sanction us in retaliation to tariffs… but i mean yeah, lets all sleep on it
He was never qualified to begin with. It’s time for the board to act swiftly and remove him immediately. He is 100% detrimental and brings nothing to the table.