WeWork CEO gives back $5.9M from 'We' trademark after criticism • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by djmips » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 10:26 PM UTC

baby wrote: post #96

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing in your statement above that seems remotely surprising to me. Now, I'm extremely bearish about WeWork, and their financials (not to mention their governance) look horrible at least from my layman's eye, but you seem to be arguing above that WeWork is overvalued based on the comparison to a real, physical asset. If there is anything the Internet has shown, it is (unfortunately, IMO) that all the money…

That’s why being a service company is always a win: 1. Find a market that has no way of shrinking and where small and big money is being made. 2. Launch an app that you can market as a product, but that makes money from providing a service to small and big money business. 3. Profit.

I'm genuinely curious about this simple recipe. Do you have any successful examples?

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

#122

Post by umeshunni » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #58

umeshunni wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is from Business Insider, a well known clickbait content farm, not a newspaper.

Either way, it's still true that he used his position as CEO to outsource trademark creation to himself, and has now reversed that move. Also, other self-dealing.

Yes, I don't think anyone can deny that the CEO has done some very shady dealings, including selling stock right before the IPO, selling services to the company, leasing real estate back to the company and so on.

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

#123

Post by preommr » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

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…

To be fair, some of the offers those investors make are pretty awful and sometimes they treat the people on the show pretty badly. The show is mostly for entertainment and a lot of it is manufactured. If people go on the show trying to give them as little as possible while also getting promotion on tv, then I don't really blame them.

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

#124

Post by olefoo » Wed, Sep 04, 2019, 10:50 PM UTC

appleshore wrote: post #114

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.

Even if it were still functional organization this would be outside of it's purview. This is all SEC territory.

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

#125

Post by munk-a » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 12:32 AM UTC

exogeny wrote: post #12

It's less about the actual transaction and more about the structure that permitted it and the capricious willingness to do it. There are red flags all over the place with this company, and the optics of him doing that just adds more fuel to the raging inferno of terrible governance.

I am actually a bit surprised this isn't illegal - it seems like the CEO purchasing the "We" trademark would likely violate an NDA or possibly be pursuable under corporate espionage laws - he essentially sniped the domain once the company restructuring was on the road map...

Alternatively the shareholders might be able to go after him for some conflicts of interest - he manipulated the company restructuring to pick a particular name after personally securing the rights to it to force the company to buy it off of him...

Both these scenarios seem like things that should be illegal.

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

#126

Post by munk-a » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 12:34 AM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #82

cameronbrown wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine he could sell 6 mil. in stock without damaging the price.

Whereas -- and this was implicit in my comment -- playing pissant games like this almost certainly hurts the stock price. It also screams that you ought to be closely auditing expenses from every member of the cxo team.

He's already offloaded a bunch of stock - he might just be trying to milk it for all it's worth before the price tanks post-IPO.

The beautiful thing is that CEO culture and reputation is such that having successfully lead a company to an IPO might be enough on it's own to land him a number of cushy board seats and future CEOing opportunities assuming he doesn't just grab the cash and run to Peru.

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

#127

Post by munk-a » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 12:36 AM UTC

frogpelt wrote: post #16

Honestly, who cares? A lot of people care now because they just filed for an IPO, which is why he returned the money. But if this was a private company and a co-founder thought he deserved $6 million for his efforts and wanted to label it as a trademark transfer, I see no problem with it.

Most people are denied the opportunity to casually pick up $6 million for nothing and that money could have gone to increase salaries for people who are actually helping to keep WeWork running.

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

#128

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 2:32 AM UTC

djmips wrote: post #121

baby wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why being a service company is always a win: 1. Find a market that has no way of shrinking and where small and big money is being made. 2. Launch an app that you can market as a product, but that makes money from providing a service to small and big money business. 3. Profit.

I'm genuinely curious about this simple recipe. Do you have any successful examples?

[deleted]

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

#129

Post by timoth3y » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 3:23 AM UTC

The more I read about WeWork, the more I am convinced that it's the Webvan of the current bubble.

A huge amount of hype and money involved. They have the biggest and "best" investors behind them. Those who point out seemingly huge problems with their long-term business model are dismissed as "just not getting it".

Sometimes business models really are new, and I admit that I often don't grasp the importance or viability of a new model at first glance, but when a business seems this wrong it usually is.

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

#130

Post by hcs » Thu, Sep 05, 2019, 6:49 AM UTC

human20190310 wrote: post #64

x0x0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's 6 million real dollars.

Not exactly...

"In consideration of this contribution and in lieu of paying cash, the Company issued to WE Holdings LLC partnership interests in the We Company Partnership with a fair market value of approximately $5.9 million, which was determined pursuant to a third-party appraisal."

(Quoted by Matt Levine, I assume from the original statement)