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

WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#111

Post by solotronics »

willart4food wrote: post #94
aresant wrote: post #49

If you want to expand this greed-driven view to how absolutely whacky and double dealing this IPO is going to be add in the following: 1) If WeWork does NOT raise at least $3billion in this IPO they will be in default of a contingency with lenders that will WITHHOLD a committed $6billion credit line. (a) 2) This at first glance sounds sage, keeps the bankers honest in pushing the IPO right? When in fact the lending b…

The price of money. Some's going to have to pay for those expensive buildings, bonuses, suits and perks.

Not sure why your being downvoted, if you think about it this is an interesting application for smart contracts where you need less or no intermediary between investors and owners.

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#112

Post by peterwwillis »

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #20

I will be very happy when WeWork collapses. Every time a jackass like this "graces" our industry, we are set back in the aftermath of the wake - it reinforces a false narrative that tech companies are bullshit.

How is it a false narrative?

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#113

Post by pawelk »

x0x0 wrote: post #51
ChuckMcM wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much as far as I can tell. My rule is that after finding more than one path where a company is generating metrics through a scheme where it is on both ends, I figure they are all in on the misrepresentation/fraud aspect.

The thing is, the $6m is so... pissant. Like WeWork made Adam a (multi!) billionaire. What is he doing scamming WeWork over $6m?

The mindset required to become a billionaire is incompatible with that of leaving 6M on the ground for whatever reason ;)

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#114

Post by appleshore »

aresant wrote: post #49

If you want to expand this greed-driven view to how absolutely whacky and double dealing this IPO is going to be add in the following: 1) If WeWork does NOT raise at least $3billion in this IPO they will be in default of a contingency with lenders that will WITHHOLD a committed $6billion credit line. (a) 2) This at first glance sounds sage, keeps the bankers honest in pushing the IPO right? When in fact the lending b…

Luckily, we have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect taxpayers from such shenanigans.

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#115

Post by mattcdrake »

rmason wrote: post #90
jonlucc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those curious, the other guest was Alex Wilhelm, a regular financial reporter of startups and their S1s. He's pretty well-equipped to dig into them.

He said in that video that the information contained in the S-1 was worthless. If in the know journalists are trashing it then who is going to be buying this stock?

Pension fund managers.

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#116

Post by rajacombinator »

rmason wrote: post #90
jonlucc wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those curious, the other guest was Alex Wilhelm, a regular financial reporter of startups and their S1s. He's pretty well-equipped to dig into them.

He said in that video that the information contained in the S-1 was worthless. If in the know journalists are trashing it then who is going to be buying this stock?

You, your family, and your friends via their 401k mutual and index funds.

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#117

Post by rajacombinator »

draw_down wrote: post #28
philwelch wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A true genius would increase his net worth by building a successful business. If you're not clever enough to do that though, there's always self-dealing.

He is building a successful business, it's just that that business isn't necessarily WeWork. I don't hold their stock, I'm not one of their VCs, what he and WeWork do is not my business, I have no quarrel with it.

You will hold their stock soon if you own any mutual or index funds.

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#118

Post by nodesocket »

code4tee wrote: post #17

Why does WeWork increasingly look like one of those deals on Shark Tank that starts off looking great then goes way south when the sharks start probing? I can see it now: “Wait, so we’d be investing in your business which is leasing buildings from another business that you own... but we’re not getting a piece of that action?” “Hold on, so we’d have to license the name of this company back from you and then you contin…

"I'd like to propose a licensing deal for WeWork..." -- Mr. Wonderful

Re: WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism

#119

Post by ineedasername »

vkou wrote: post #69
ineedasername wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that line of reasoning might take us to a realm where plundering is always the smart option, offering certainty where the alternative is risky. It is not completely legal though. Someone like a CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the company. "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" is a real thing, and opens you up to liability for actual loses as well as punitive damages. So while I underst…

> I think that line of reasoning might take us to a realm where plundering is always the smart option, offering certainty where the alternative is risky. In a business with very risky long-term fundamentals, yes. If you are trying to run a factory that makes widgets, or a store that sells widgets, or even a social network where people discuss widgets... There are obvious ways to build a successful business around the…

"Just do what your competitors do, but better" is indeed obvious. That would be the strategy. The tactics, however, are not so obvious, and the difficulty lies in execution. As just one of many possible example, even a great, visionary CEO might fail in the face of a stagnant workforce unable to adapt to the changes as capital runs out and debt runs high. And great, visionary CEO's are exceedingly rare.

Further, you assume that legitimate compensation would exceed what a predatory CEO could extract by self-dealing and gaming performance metrics. Even a successful business may have much more upside for the CEO in self-dealing rather than long term hard work. Why put in the hours to increase your legitimate compensation package when instead you can siphon the same or greater amounts via self-dealing? Or even just half of that, but in a tenth of the time before moving on to the next victim company?

Post reply on HN