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

131–138 of 138 posts

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

#131

Post by gandutraveler »

nodesocket wrote: post #118
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

"Wework is a poo poo on a stick"

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

#132

Post by human20190310 »

hcs wrote: post #130
human20190310 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I stand corrected. That turns the whole matter into a complete WTF.

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

#133

Post by cglace »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #46
cglace wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need to disclaim that you are not an investor?

Transparency and disclosure of any bias is important.

Is it, I think saving disclaimers for when they actually matter is more important. If everyone included disclaimers listing their inconsequential relations to companies they would quickly be ignored as noise(which they would be).

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

#134

Post by paulcole »

ineedasername wrote: post #119
vkou wrote: post #69

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. 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…

Are there any examples of significant fines/penalties to notable CEOs for "Breach of Fiduciary Duty"?

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

#135

Post by paulcole »

ineedasername wrote: post #62
javajosh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Breach of Fiduciary Duty" sounds like one of those things that you're supposed to do, but which is almost impossible to prove (after all you just have to claim "I thought it was a good idea" and you're covered), and so is basically never enforced. It's the kind of rule that ethical, good CEOs worry about, and the kind of rule successful CEOs don't waste energy on. BTW, I notice that commenters often have wildly diff…

Yeah, I imagine it's hard to prove when the CEO just games the company's performance metrics to improve their compensation package, but self-dealing makes things at least a little bit clearer. I wouldn't be surprised if there's at least one activist investor lined up with plans to take advantage of the situation and start a shareholder lawsuit. As for a good CEO vs. successful CEO, I guess I don't actually view the l…

Are there any examples of significant fines/penalties to notable CEOs for "Breach of Fiduciary Duty"?

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

#136

Post by xeromal »

nabdab wrote: post #31
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.

Wework is not a tech company... Stop buying into the narrative. Wework is a landlord nothing more nothing less.

Wework is a tech company as long as people call it a tech company.

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

#138

Post by BlewisJS »

rajacombinator wrote: post #116
rmason wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

WeWork has dual class shares so it won't be included in the S&P 500 at a minimum.

Reference: https://fortune.com/2019/08/20/wework-ipo-s-and-p-500/

Post reply on HN