Live data from Hacker News

The We Company S-1

sec.gov

101–110 of 346 posts

Re: The We Company S-1

#101

According to the prospectus, they lose so much money because they are building out new locations. Their break even point takes about a year for an individual location. So theoretically, they have a path to profitability. I just wonder where they get the cash in the meantime. >$1B/year burn rate, ouch.

Actually building or leasing?

Re: The We Company S-1

#102
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 think it is interesting.

There are new paths to going public in the last several years, specifically because the government had made it too expensive to go public and be public primarily after Enron. One decade of companies coming to terms with staying private, one decade of companies coming to terms with the new ways of going public.

So they loosened that up and the industry reacts.

Re: The We Company S-1

#103
> Upon completion of this offering, Adam Neumann will own or control more than 50% of the total voting power of our capital stock

Another Zuckerberg style IPO. Activist investors beware...

Re: The We Company S-1

#104
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.

It's a public offering, WeWork didn't invent design. That's a terrible argument.

Re: The We Company S-1

#105
post #22

“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…

Sheesh! I think I found a company, label it tech and mention in the prospectus my potential customership of 8 billion people. Do investors actually buy into such bullshit?

Investors seeking to move their money out of unstable countries won’t mind

Re: The We Company S-1

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? I was under the impression it does not own land for the most part.

It's a mix. Some locations they own, some they lease--including some that the CEO owns and they lease from him, which is an interesting arrangement.

How is that going to fly with a public company?

Re: The We Company S-1

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mostly we're trying to get SF to rebrand as New New York.

Re: The We Company S-1

#108

> We have 3 classes of stock: Class A shares which have 1 vote, class B shares, which have 20 votes, and class C shares which have 20 votes. All classes vote alongside each other. I wouldn’t consider being an investor in this company unless class B or C shares are publicly traded. Just look at the underperformance of GOOGL, SNAP, and SQ for reasons why not to be an investor here.

Unfavorable opinion alert! Lets say they were publicly traded, and not held for institutions, VCs, and fonders. Would you as a person, buying Class B shares ever buy enough that the 20 votes per share matter? Why does the number of votes to you matter, unless you sank a few hundred million into the company (at which point, you would be an institution or vc), your votes wouldn't matter with any of the classes.

Creating a share structure like this makes me worry that the founders will continue to have a controlling stake in the company, and new investors won't be able to exert any influence over the company. Companies run by ideologues like WeWork often do a lot of things that aren't necessarily in the best interest of their investors (like banning meat from their offices). If the public investors have no power to reign that in, you're completely at the mercy of the founder.

Re: The We Company S-1

#109
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.

I mean, you just managed to do it with just words alone.

Re: The We Company S-1

#110

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 a massive conflict of interest. It's been well publicized. But it seems wall Street doesn't care.
Post reply on HN