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

Troubles Mount for the We Company as Softbank Reportedly Calls for Shelving IPO

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 171 posts

Re: Troubles Mount for the We Company as Softbank Reportedly Calls for Shelving IPO

#71

Post by kasey_junk »

jbob2000 wrote: post #4

We're going to look back on this company and say to ourselves "why did we fund a company to sign rental agreements". I jest, but WeWork is one of those strange entities that's greater than the sum of its parts. If the magic goes or the brand tarnishes a little, then the whole thing goes poof.

WeWork is offering its customers something of value, that while not unique, was rare. That it has to do largely with changing the normal contracts in their industry doesn’t matter much.

The issue is not with what they are selling it’s with how they are funding it. I think this story says a lot less about We than it does about SoftBank.

Re: Troubles Mount for the We Company as Softbank Reportedly Calls for Shelving IPO

#72

Post by stanfordkid »

graeme wrote: post #67
setr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..? I’m not seeing anything on that page that isn’t based on “facts”, and none of it seems obviously incorrect..

It says co2 doesn't impact temperature: "While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true. The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature b…

The thing with ZeroHedge is that you will see an article like this alongside another one like this: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-...

It is in aggregate an extreme blog with narratives that are non-consensus. So, yes, climate denial fits in that box, but it will also have articles on climate apocalypse. In aggregate I find it to be fairly eye-opening and bring to light ideas that are forgotten by mainstream media. It also has a healthy disregard for any form of consensus reality or authority.

Furthermore, in the very article you linked there is a link to a NATURE commentary: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf

Of course, we should leave it to experts to interpret a scientific paper such as this one, but my perception is that reporters do not always get it right. In all of the NYTimes you just hear the consensus from organizations such as the UN, I have yet to see an interview with an author of a paper such as the one mentioned above.

Re: Troubles Mount for the We Company as Softbank Reportedly Calls for Shelving IPO

#73

Post by jakelazaroff »

braythwayt wrote: post #58
dnadler wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what the point is here besides a vague loathing of the financial industry...

What loathing? Finance serves an important purpose. But its purpose is NOT to police self-dealing. And the people putting the money in are exactly the people who are directly responsible for governance. Likewise, due to regulatory capture, the people who put money into businesses are closely related to the people who write laws about what is or isn’t legal, and enforce those laws. So if Adam’s choices are ok with his…

> If Adam provides an opportunity for his investors to make their “ten billion,” why would anyone object to his self-dealing?

On the other hand, why would anyone care whether or not his investors make their “ten billion”?

We object because it’s a you-scratch-our-back-we-scratch-yours situation in which the rich get richer and no value is produced for the rest of society.

Re: Troubles Mount for the We Company as Softbank Reportedly Calls for Shelving IPO

#74

Post by heymijo »

navigatesol wrote: post #44
wastedhours wrote: post #8

We must be pretty important for Softbank as a signal - even if they didn't believe in the company, allowing such a major investment take such a big hit would be rather bad. Worth them pouring a few $bn more in instead of an IPO, if only to shore up faith in the rest of their portfolio? All that being said, someone needs to be mentoring the CEO, like right now. That S1 was... not... great.

> Worth them pouring a few $bn more in instead of an IPO, if only to shore up faith in the rest of their portfolio? I'd love to know how throwing good money after bad would shore up the faith in the rest of the portfolio? "No one else wants this, but we can't afford to mark-to-market, so we're going to throw more money in with the hopes of maintaining an illusory valuation." At the end of the day, it's a bad business…

Softbank has over $10 billion of its $100 billion Vision Fund invested in WeWork.

That's a hell of a big bet. It's not hard to imagine Softbank will do whatever it can, rational or not, to try to get WeWork to a point where they can cash out.

Re: Troubles Mount for the We Company as Softbank Reportedly Calls for Shelving IPO

#76

Post by braythwayt »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #73
braythwayt wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What loathing? Finance serves an important purpose. But its purpose is NOT to police self-dealing. And the people putting the money in are exactly the people who are directly responsible for governance. Likewise, due to regulatory capture, the people who put money into businesses are closely related to the people who write laws about what is or isn’t legal, and enforce those laws. So if Adam’s choices are ok with his…

> If Adam provides an opportunity for his investors to make their “ten billion,” why would anyone object to his self-dealing? On the other hand, why would anyone care whether or not his investors make their “ten billion”? We object because it’s a you-scratch-our-back-we-scratch-yours situation in which the rich get richer and no value is produced for the rest of society.

Well, that is certainly a valid position to take, and I am not unsympathetic.

But my parent comment was responding to the question of whether this specific behaviour is illegal. Your take touches on whether the entire industry—with or without a few leasebacks and trademark deals—is morally repugnant.

Re: Troubles Mount for the We Company as Softbank Reportedly Calls for Shelving IPO

#77

Post by graeme »

stanfordkid wrote: post #72
graeme wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says co2 doesn't impact temperature: "While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true. The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature b…

The thing with ZeroHedge is that you will see an article like this alongside another one like this: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-... It is in aggregate an extreme blog with narratives that are non-consensus. So, yes, climate denial fits in that box, but it will also have articles on climate apocalypse. In aggregate I find it to be fairly eye-opening and bring to light ideas that are for…

Ironically this seems a good case of gelman amnesia. If you think he's wrong on climate (a MAJOR thing to be wrong about), why would you trust his opinion on subjects where you know less?

------

I didn't link the article, I just reply to the comment asking what was wrong. But he's very much wrong and that nature article doesn't support him. He said CO2 did not lead to a rise in temperature. That article says there was a lower than expected rise in temperature - it's still rose!

He said co2 has no significant impact on temperature which is definitely not what that paper is saying. They refer to co2 as anthropogenic forcing.

Full text is here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/...

Re: Troubles Mount for the We Company as Softbank Reportedly Calls for Shelving IPO

#78

Post by [deleted] »

tomp wrote: post #17

I know most HN readers look down upon the site, but I really like Zero Hedge's take on this. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-09/2-letters-20-billi... > Super-voting stock – Zuck did that and it worked out in the end > Accelerating losses – Look at all that revenue growth > Zero possibility of profits – Hasn’t mattered for years > Convoluted insider dealings on property leases – Property GPs always double dip s…

[deleted]

Re: Troubles Mount for the We Company as Softbank Reportedly Calls for Shelving IPO

#79

Post by setr »

graeme wrote: post #67
setr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..? I’m not seeing anything on that page that isn’t based on “facts”, and none of it seems obviously incorrect..

It says co2 doesn't impact temperature: "While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true. The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature b…

The main thrust there is that CO2 is not the primary motivator, but instead something else is; which they provide some supporting links for (which I haven’t bothered to review).

And that CO2 not being “proven” as the primary motivator due to lack of testing is also trivially true — we only have the one earth to test on, so we test on models; and our understanding of earth is hardly complete, and so too must be our model.

The conclusions may be “wrong” but at least that article is hardly making things up as they go along

Re: Troubles Mount for the We Company as Softbank Reportedly Calls for Shelving IPO

#80

Post by robbiep »

calcifer wrote: post #56
stanfordkid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ZeroHedge is the type of site that will quickly be labelled alt-right, fake news etc. in reality they tend to just interpret events in much more extreme ways but still rely on largely factual sources. I find the commentary to be much more thought provoking than consensus outlets. Glad to see some fellow HN'ers peruse the site.

Quite right, like this [1] 100% factual not at all bullshit scientifically sound article on climate change. Thought provoking indeed. [1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/5-surprising-scien...

3 and 4 are certainly false; whilst 1 and 2 are true, the end result of any change to the status quo of our environment (ie sea levels) is that society simply can’t afford a 7-70m rise in sea levels. Whether or not you ‘believe’ and this isn’t a religious perspective, this should be well accepted science by now, is that we are causing a change we can’t affoed; and even if we aren’t causing it, it looks like ‘factor x’ is, and we as a civilisation should do all we can to avoid it
Post reply on HN