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

Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 245 posts

Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

#101

Post by jakelazaroff »

mpalmer wrote: post #84
jakelazaroff wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but all that would have been fine if he’d acted responsibly. Obviously giving him that much power is a dangerous game to play, but it doesn’t absolve him of responsibility for his behavior. Ultimately he — not the investors — is the one who built this sandcastle on partying, self-dealing and a cult of personality. One of the things about blame is that it’s never zero sum, and in this case there’s more than enou…

> Yeah, but all that would have been fine if he’d acted responsibly. > if he’d acted responsibly > if The "if" is the point. SoftBank had the ability to eliminate the risk of this "if", and didn't.

So what you’re saying is: if someone doesn’t prevent you from doing something, they should shoulder more of the blame than you do for actually doing the thing?

Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

#102

Post by JumpCrisscross »

greenyoda wrote: post #32
exogeny wrote: post #19

Considering he has the votes to fire the entire board, I'd be shocked if this happens. Softbank is completely fucked.

If he fires the whole board, wouldn't that add further doubt about the company's governance and reduce the expected value of any future IPO even further? It doesn't seem like that would be in his best interest.

> It doesn't seem like that would be in his best interest

Rationally, he might be able to extract more cash out of the business running it into the ground than by having it saved by someone else. Delusionally, he might think he's the only one who can run WeWork.

Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

#103

Post by GCA10 »

smelendez wrote: post #93
GCA10 wrote: post #42

Leaving aside all of the headline-making entertainment of Adam Neumann being Adam, the real problem here is that WeWork really doesn't have much in the way of enduring network-effect advantages -- even though it tried so hard to convince investors otherwise. In many tech-fueled marketplaces, getting big in a hurry is a practically unbeatable advantage. I saw this 20 years ago when I was tracking eBay. No end of littl…

I think it's possible there could be advantages for a chain co-working space over independent ones, but it depends on how the market looks long term. Not saying that chain has to be WeWork, of course. For instance, short term users, who pay the highest rates, could turn out to be a big part of the market. That could be business travelers, companies moving office or setting up offices, companies that need temp office…

Those are all good ideas. They're very much in line with the ways that airlines (United), credit-card issuers and hotels (Marriott) try to leverage their big customer pools. Execute them well, and you can pick up some "free" (or nearly free) revenue and push up your profit margins by a percentage point or two.

Agree that running a chain of co-working office facilities can be quite a decent business (QADB). But those tend to be valued much more conservatively by the stock market.

Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

#104

Post by bradleyjg »

rossdavidh wrote: post #86
notyourday wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Preferred shares existed before Facebook, and it may not the be norm, but there's a reason we no longer see the hostile takeovers from the 80's. That has nothing to do with preferred shares. Most of public companies adopted poison pills aka shareholder right protection plans which work along the lines of this: 1. If someone acquires a certain percentage of company shares without board of directors agreeing to it, t…

While there are issues with Zuckerberg, I think it bears noting that the FB IPO wasn't done because he needed the money, but rather because they were forced too by law because too many people had ownership. So, he didn't give great terms in the IPO because he didn't really need any cash; FB was already cashflow-positive. This is a marked contrast to WeWork.

A company with 2000 shareholders and $10MM in assets it is forced to become a reporting company but it doesn’t have to go public.

Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

#105

Post by Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 »

exogeny wrote: post #19

Considering he has the votes to fire the entire board, I'd be shocked if this happens. Softbank is completely fucked.

Financial Times is just reporting that _Softbank_ is the one asking him to step down, so that clearly complicates things: https://www.ft.com/content/ee652036-dd64-11e9-9743-db5a37048...

Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

#106

Post by misiti3780 »

MobileVet wrote: post #25
bitL wrote: post #14

Didn't the two head honchos already redirect some cashflow to their accounts? I think they and their grandchildren will be fine... Softbank on the other hand...

Yes... And Softbank was so high on kool-aid they let Adam sell them $700M of his stake. Absolute worst use of investment at that level... Taking a little out to derisk yourself after a B or greater round is reasonable. Taking almost 10% of a round is obnoxious.

ya i was surprised that he was able to extra so much money also.

Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

#107

Post by notahacker »

shartshooter wrote: post #58
cm2012 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is if the global economy downturns fewer people want to rent short term, WeWork is still committed to paying the long term lease costs.

Short term rentals are an inferior good. An economic downturn could lead to more business for them

Not when the companies that wish they could shorten their lease terms tend to be stuck with them (and sometimes, after shedding some employees, with a lot of additional space they could let out short term...). WeWork also isn't at the cheap or flexible end of the short term office space rental market - it's very much a product designed to appeal to a particular type of company starting out. They could pivot, but so could other people with office space they can't lease out...

Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

#108

Post by michaelt »

purple_ducks wrote: post #50
tempsy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to the quality of the product from the customer POV.

They rent office space.

If you think office space doesn't vary in quality, you haven't worked in a very wide range of companies :)

Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

#109

Post by benjaminbrodie2 »

iamleppert wrote: post #40

What kind of company that is controlled by a single man insists on branding itself as “we”? Even the name of the company is a bold-faced lie.

How should wework be pronounced? I always pronounce it like I'm stating a fact (that we do in fact work)

Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO

#110

Post by misiti3780 »

Dunedan wrote: post #82
goatinaboat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you declare your company has a billion shares and I buy 1 for $1 then you have a valuation of... one BILLION dollars. If I later buy 1 share for $2 then your valuation has doubled. That is basically SoftBank’s business model.

Basecamp even made a headline out of it a while ago: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/basecamp-valuation-tops-100-b...

that article is hilarious!
Post reply on HN