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

141–150 of 171 posts

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

#141

Post by mywittyname »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #35
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…

I've been reading zerohedge since 2008. I've not really liked the turn it took around 2015-2016 but it seems to have come back around and become a bit more balanced than it was in those early days of flirting with being a full on MAGA blog. It's, IMO, the best financial blog out there.

The problem I have with ZH is that it's always pessimistic, regardless of whether or not pessimism is warranted or logical.

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

#142

Post by julienfr112 »

jeltz wrote: post #107
stewy85 wrote: post #37

I fail to see how this company could survive a recession. The first thing companies do during a recession is reduce their headcount. Less headcount means less desks required.

Many of their competitors have survived recessions just fine. You just have to either be diversified or have enough cash reserves. The issue is mostly that WeWork has too high costs and a too high valuation.

Their competitors were profitable before the recession...

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

#143

Post by prepend »

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? Why do we, for that matter?

There’s one aspect of some sort of ethical wrongness because I suspect there’s an eventual chump who will lose out not having full perspective when this thing falls apart.

But, for me, I have a tendency to feel uncomfortable when things are “obviously” wrong. I find it curious about me, and I’ve met others, who just don’t like it when things are off. The simple act of making the world more correct is pleasing. I’ve found it pretty helpful in debugging and system design. I find it really annoying in domains where there isn’t really an objective right and wrong, or it’s not clear to me what’s right, or where they aren’t fixable. And it’s pretty common in politics or religion where people point out wrongs.

So I don’t think money or technology is neutral. I think they both as information have certain innate needs to grow in the most efficient way possible. Money is like a river trying to flow to the ocean and actions like We took and is taking are the equivalent of trying to build a harbor in shallow water or some other illogical act.

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

#144

Post by navigatesol »

tempsy wrote: post #137

I'm looking through some other SoftBank investments. My guess is that Brandless, Wag (dog walking), Clutter (moving), and DoorDash are all in similar positions of having raised too much money.

>I'm looking through some other SoftBank investments

Uber as well, although it actually has a solid brand and a useful product. However, the fund is underwater on their investment too, which adds pressure.

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

#145

Post by navigatesol »

heymijo wrote: post #74
navigatesol wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>Softbank will do whatever it can

I agree: they'll do something. But having to pour money into a company that just blew its IPO because the business is terrible...well, not sure the market as a whole can see that as anything else but "we're f-cked!"

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

#146

Post by swsieber »

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…

At that's patently false? Reading through the supporting material it seems like a pretty good point - CO2 follows, not drives temperature.

https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-...

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

#147

Post by vonmoltke »

kasey_junk wrote: post #135
vonmoltke wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rare? Regus was widespread in this space before WeWork was a twinkle in Adam Neumann's eye.

1 vendor in a space is rare.

Regus wasn't the only vendor, just the largest one.

Also, I'd call one vendor in a space a monopoly. Rareness is about the ease of finding a vendor.

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

#148

Post by nickpinkston »

save_ferris wrote: post #24

Corporate governance for startups is such a joke sometimes, it’s unbelievable. And investors bring it upon themselves. You want sustained hockey stick growth, regardless of the cost to the team and the business, no matter what? Then you’re gonna find some founders that are much better at making the business look promising by hitting certain metrics than actually building a solid operational foundation for the busines…

Though this happened at GE too over a long time with a traditional corp gov structure.

I'm blanking on the tech company [1] that recently gave into the pro-traditional corp gov people and gave up their super-voting shares, only for Wall St. to start screwing them and the long-term of the company, which was reported as a blow for the pro-trad corp gov people.

It's a hard call, but I think I'm still for close control by the founders. Sure Elon might've promised too much and pushed Tesla too far, but if they put in a former auto exec I suspect the company wouldn't be as far along as it is.

The SolarCity acquisition OTOH seems like Elon taking a bonus for himself and having the power (via his votes, but also who he is for the company / execution) to make the board go along with it.

I suspect Neumann's investors are in too deep to challenge his craziness (sound like anyone else?) but the market rightly smells bullshit.

[1] I heard about it on Pro Rata the other day.

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

#149

Post by graeme »

swsieber wrote: post #146
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…

At that's patently false? Reading through the supporting material it seems like a pretty good point - CO2 follows, not drives temperature. https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-...

That's from the article. The author of that post has had virtually all of his work funded by the oil industry.

That doesn't make him wrong, but it does raise questions. There are also few who agree with his stance.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/26/uds-david-leg...

Fully examining arguments against Legates would be a lot of work, but here's a discussion of his most recent paper.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

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

#150

Post by swsieber »

graeme wrote: post #149
swsieber wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that's patently false? Reading through the supporting material it seems like a pretty good point - CO2 follows, not drives temperature. https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-...

That's from the article. The author of that post has had virtually all of his work funded by the oil industry. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does raise questions. There are also few who agree with his stance. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/26/uds-david-leg... Fully examining arguments against Legates would be a lot of work, but here's a discussion of his most recent paper. https://www.theguardian.c…

That has virtually nothing about his claims, just his funding. And while the source of funding is important, I'd love to see an analysis of the actual claims/science.
Post reply on HN