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

121–130 of 346 posts

Re: The We Company S-1

#121

Post by jddj »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #80
jddj wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Is this how these things are usually calculated? 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

Thanks.

But isn't making a claim that it's plausible that every square inch of office space in every modern city will be managed by WeWork actually doing the opposite of identifying some of the obvious limits to scaling?

I suppose some of this is addressed elsewhere under other sections, and the fact that it's called the Total Addressable Market explains a lot, but it does seem remarkably arbitrary and to be of very little value.

Re: The We Company S-1

#122

Post by mattmar96 »

ohashi wrote: post #104
nickdandakis wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not a terrible argument. Investors are people too. They can be swayed by nice looking things.

2nd page, yellow background - can't tell me that doesn't give you a sense they have their shit together.

All that being said - I won't be investing ha.

Re: The We Company S-1

#123

Post by mrcu5 »

bko wrote: post #98
doppp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a tech company, it's a property company with the valuation of a tech company.

They're trying to sell it as tech > We have approximately 1,000 engineers, product designers and machine learning scientists that are dedicated to building, integrating and automating the complex systems we use to operate our business

To do what? I'm not too familiar with them but what more do they have other than a website to look at potential spaces with some photos and a description and sign up for one? Maybe process payments as well?

Re: The We Company S-1

#124

Post by AJ007 »

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…

It can also serve as a major red flag, when a company adds in a bunch of unnecessary things while excluding things that aren’t required, but are critical, to valuations such as churn rates.

This was a big one in Uber’s filings where it looked like they were probably mixing in Uber Eats to hide flat or declining usage of the actual ride sharing service. Public companies changing how something has been historically reported also raises similar questions. Report the metrics that look amazing, exclude, merge, or mask the stuff that looks bad.

Re: The We Company S-1

#125

Post by dragandj »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #46
webninja wrote: post #12

> 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.

The reverse of that argument is "if my vote doesn't matter, why do they want to additionally shrink it by 20x"?

Re: The We Company S-1

#126

Post by roenxi »

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.

Not understanding is one option; not trusting is another.

It is presumably quite easy to shuffle operating expenses into the earnings report as capital expenses if a company really wants to, and the 'development' in R&D can hide a bunch of things.

I'm happy to be wrong, but 'Oh, they can make money the minute they choose to, but at the moment they are choosing not to' is a concerning argument. Apple might have gone from "give the money back to shareholders" -> most profitable company in the world -> broke by the time Amazon turns a serious profit for its shareholders. It is yet to be disproven beyond all doubt that Amazon is competitive by virtue of having abysmal profit margins.

Re: The We Company S-1

#127

Post by nickdandakis »

ohashi wrote: post #104
nickdandakis wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My argument is that they're using the same strategy, language and branding they used to sell their brand to the world to sell their public offering to the world.

I don't perceive that as detrimental, and don't see how designing a document is "disgusting". It's nontraditional.

Re: The We Company S-1

#128

Post by Fordec »

dbuder wrote: post #37

I've disliked WeWork from the beginning, it pretends to be a tech company but it's just an old school real estate play. I still wouldn't short it, especially early on.

Yeah, with the yield curve news lately, I'm really considering a short but I'm well aware the market can stay irrational longer than I can stay solvent

Re: The We Company S-1

#129

Post by nabnob »

mrcu5 wrote: post #123
bko wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're trying to sell it as tech > We have approximately 1,000 engineers, product designers and machine learning scientists that are dedicated to building, integrating and automating the complex systems we use to operate our business

To do what? I'm not too familiar with them but what more do they have other than a website to look at potential spaces with some photos and a description and sign up for one? Maybe process payments as well?

I'll see if I can dig up the article, but I think they're planning on tracking everything that workers do in their buildings and giving that data to employers.

Edit - found this - https://www.inc.com/betsy-mikel/wework-is-trying-a-creepy-ne...

>WeWork's latest acquisition is a small software company with 24 employees. Euclid is a spatial analytics platform...Euclid's website says the company is "focused on redefining the workplace experience of the future." Translation: optimizing every aspect of the physical workplace so workers are their most productive. Euclid does this by tracking how people move around physical spaces. Its technology can track how many people showed up to a meeting or to that after-work happy hour. The company can see where employees tend to congregate and for how long. It's all done over Wi-Fi.

Re: The We Company S-1

#130

Post by RivieraKid »

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.

Tesla can't achieve profit even after extreme cuts across the board, including capex. Their capex minus D&A has been declining for a while and is negative.

https://twitter.com/TESLAcharts/status/1123186053811032064?s...

Post reply on HN