Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The We Company S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 346 posts

Re: The We Company S-1

#81

Post by citilife »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #28

Does the S-1 disclose the fact that the founder is also one of the company’s biggest business partners? He buys up properties and then leases them to WeWork. Seems like a red flag to me.

This is pretty much how McDonalds controls its franchisees and in fact makes money. While I agree in this case "The We Company" should actually be holding the buildings (as it's a workspace holding company), it's a good way to ensure limited liability to the company and allow the founder to exert control (not saying it's a good thing for share holders).

Re: The We Company S-1

#82

Post by agotterer »

xiphias2 wrote: post #67
heavenlyblue wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We have free lunch, a ping-pong table and a VR room with monthly fitness days"

Actually they don't have free lunch, which is quite strange for Silicon Valley companies

They are an NYC (does anyone still call it Silicon Alley?) company.

Re: The We Company S-1

#84

Post by notfromhere »

hackerbabz wrote: post #36
phyalow wrote: post #20

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.

This is what seems to not be understood by a lot of investors and people commenting on investments. Amazon could have turned a profit years earlier if they wanted to. Instead it made more sense to continue spending all of their money on expansion and R&D. It's the same with Tesla. They are selling a shit ton of cars at good markup. If they wanted a profit, they could have one. They just don't want one right now.

Yeah, no. There's a fundamental difference between Tesla and Amazon in terms of their profit potential. Super misleading to say that Tesla 'just doesn't want to profit rn'

Re: The We Company S-1

#86

Post by zaroth »

empath75 wrote: post #64
skinnymuch wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t it be from the IPO? If they sell 10% of the company, it should raise billions.

That sounds like a ponzi scheme, not an investment.

I would never invest in WeWork, but no, not at all. A Ponzi scheme takes new investor dollars to pay the earlier investors’ “returns”.

Taking new dollars to grow the company to generate future profits is actually the definition of “investment”.

Re: The We Company S-1

#88

Post by gtfratteus »

richardwhiuk wrote: post #58

> We are a community company committed to maximum global impact. Our mission is to elevate the world’s consciousness. ....

Hey, they may have said nothing, but at least they didn't use a lot of words doing it. In that sense, it's a better mission statement than most politicians have.

Re: The We Company S-1

#89

Post by beager »

anilshanbhag wrote: post #62
beager wrote: post #50

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…

I for one think those photos / charts are important as otherwise you won't understand how big WeWork is. Couple of days ago I was casually checking Wework locations and was surprised that they have 24 locations in Beijing, 10 in Bangalore, 21 in Tokyo ! They are everywhere.

It’s trivial to convey that information in plain text

Re: The We Company S-1

#90

Post by nickdandakis »

beager wrote: post #50

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…

I'd agree except WeWork's emphasis on design is a huge reason they have become this big in the first place.
Post reply on HN