71–80 of 346 posts
My favorite part of new tech company filings is looking at the risk section and finding something to the effect of: "We are not profitable, and may never be." > We have a history of losses and, especially if we continue to grow at an accelerated rate, we may be unable to achieve profitability at a company level (as determined in accordance with GAAP) for the foreseeable future. I understand the reasoning behind havin…
It's not a tech company, it's a property company with the valuation of a tech company.
The financials - https://imgur.com/a/NZONeDo TLDR : Revenue - $1.535B | Costs - $2.904B | Loss - $1.369B
So revenue and net loss are almost the same number. They lose^h^h^h^h spend $2 for every $1 that comes in. Ouch. Edit: Yes, spend is better verb here than lose...thanks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of businesses I have worked for, the company leases the building from another company owned by the founders.
This is to protect the buildings from liability through issues with workers. You don't want to be sued by a worker for something and have the buildings on the table.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats because Amazon was only unprofitable due to Capex and R&D. Their operating margin is fantastic, it was this promise that enticed investors! WeWork on the other hand is very ugly.
The retail margins are about the same as walmart. They don't have some magic sauce in selling things. AWS is their real money maker.
Can someone give me a tldr of what this is/means and why it's almost at the top of HN?
The S-1 document has that info, and it has been released. There are a lot of red flags, such as a $2 spend for each $1 made.
“When applying our average revenue per WeWork membership for the six months ended June 30, 2019 to our potential member population of 149 million people in our existing 111 cities, we estimate an addressable market opportunity of $945 billion. Among our total potential member population of approximately 255 million people across our 280 target cities globally, we estimate an addressable market opportunity of $1.6 tri…
Does a watch manufacturer say that there are approximately 255 million left arms which we can reach by post, and since our watches sell for $1000 that's a $255B opportunity?
I’m really disgusted by how much recent tech IPOs inject pitch deck-style garbage into the S-1 filing, especially this one. I’ve always had a great amount of respect for the mediating nature of the S-1’s dry, candid, and ruthlessly honest assessment of business risks, and even though those things are still there, they’re blown out by marketing photos, full-page charts, and branding. This is basically like putting per…
Companies get a lot of latitude with the first few pages. Seasoned S-1 skimmers peruse that stuff, but save the digging in for the risk factors, financials and the accompanying notes.
First time I hear about this company. Why is it related to HN?
They run co-working and remote office locations. Perfect place to be if you're a remote worker needing on office or a small firm or start-up, hence the HN discussion and interest.
“When applying our average revenue per WeWork membership for the six months ended June 30, 2019 to our potential member population of 149 million people in our existing 111 cities, we estimate an addressable market opportunity of $945 billion. Among our total potential member population of approximately 255 million people across our 280 target cities globally, we estimate an addressable market opportunity of $1.6 tri…
Is this how these things are usually calculated? Does a watch manufacturer say that there are approximately 255 million left arms which we can reach by post, and since our watches sell for $1000 that's a $255B opportunity?
Yes, it’s a run-of-the-mill back-of-the-envelope TAM [1] estimate. The point of this number isn’t to value the company. It’s to identify obvious limits to scaling.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_addressable_market