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

211–220 of 346 posts

Re: The We Company S-1

#211

Post by maroonshifter »

JackFr wrote: post #179
maroonshifter wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nit, peruse means to read carefully with an attention to detail.

"Peruse can mean 'to read something in a relaxed way, or skim' and can also mean 'to read something carefully or in detail.' Peruse is thus a contronym because it has multiple definitions that seem contradict each other." https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/peruse-usage

Yes I realized this, but this makes the word unnecessarily ambiguous and this new definition is the purely the result of enough people using the word incorrectly long enough.

We don't mean "destroy 10%" when we use the word decimate anymore, I get it. Natural language, migration of meaning, subjective denotation etc.

Re: The We Company S-1

#215

Post by manigandham »

dymk wrote: post #196
CodeSheikh wrote: post #150

This statement though "The We Company is committed to being meat, single-use plastics, and carbon emissions free."

A laudable goal? Of all the statements to bemoan, why choose the one about environmental sustainability?

These are buzzword marketing goals, and usually unachievable without ridiculous costs, assuming they're even attempted.

Re: The We Company S-1

#216

Post by led76 »

ec109685 wrote: post #203
led76 wrote: post #180

Based on the filing the company awarded 42M stock options to the CEO earlier this year. The filing mentions a share price of $110 per share, so that's over $4B. That can't be normal, right? That's 10% of the entire company. It's more than Elon Musk got for Tesla by a long shot, and that was already controversial.

Options require the stock to go up to be worth anything. So if the stock price increases ten percent, that would be $420M (120-110) * 42M shares. Still seems like an awful lot.

That's actually not quite how it works: "The options awarded had a per-share exercise price equal to the fair market value of our Class B common stock on the applicable grant date"

Common stock is usually way less expensive than preferred, so while currently the company may be 'valued' at $110 per share, the common stock is probably in the $30s or $40s.

He's likely already up $2B on the stock options (pending vesting), assuming the company does IPO at $47B and all common stock converts at the $110 valuation.

Personally I think this is unheard of -- anyone else know of examples of CEO compensation like this prior to an IPO?

Re: The We Company S-1

#217

Post by dwaltrip »

nickdandakis wrote: post #127
ohashi wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that isn't what an S-1 is supposed to be, from my understanding. It isn't a marketing document -- they are warping it.

Re: The We Company S-1

#218

Post by led76 »

TimPC wrote: post #209
ec109685 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options require the stock to go up to be worth anything. So if the stock price increases ten percent, that would be $420M (120-110) * 42M shares. Still seems like an awful lot.

4.2M not 420M. 10% of 42M in options.

It's not $42M in options. It's 42M options, possibly valued at $110 each at the IPO. Hence $4B

Re: The We Company S-1

#219

Post by burtonator »

human20190310 wrote: post #184
jsty wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, under "related party transactions": https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1533523/000119312519... "We are party to lease agreements for four commercial properties with landlord entities in which Adam has an ownership interest..."

> Adam is a unique leader who has proven he can simultaneously wear the hats of visionary, operator and innovator... Is this a normal sort of thing to see in such a filing? He's being referred to by his first name and heaped with praise.

Adam is extraordinarily humble. Everyone, including Adam, would never exaggerate.

Adam is a part of everything. He is in the sky and sea. He is in the dreams of children at night. He is all that there is, forever.

Re: The We Company S-1

#220

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #176
raiyu wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest tech challenge they have is figuring out how many conferences rooms to build out per X number of offices. Not enough, and you have a huge queue to use them, too many and you have lost office space rental. Outside of that there isn't much tech to go around. We used them before they were WeWork, when they were still GreenDesk in Dumbo. Overall it was great, and it's a great product given the flexibility and…

> The biggest tech challenge they have is figuring out how many conferences rooms to build out per X number of offices. How is that a tech challenge? The only actual tech they have is their swipe card access and room/desk booking systems They might use some tech internally to optimise certain aspects of their business, but that would be like calling a coffee shop that does their finances in Excel a tech company

> calling a coffee shop that does their finances in Excel a tech company

Techbucks S-1 coming soon!

Post reply on HN