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

121–130 of 245 posts

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

#121

Post by iamleppert »

stagger87 wrote: post #77
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.

Is your argument that companies that use plural pronouns in their name should have certain types of ownership structures?

At a certain point, you need to stop listening to what people say and start looking at what they do.

In this case, there is a clear mismatch in terms of what Adam is saying and his behavior as the CEO of this company. If WeWork’s mission is really to be one of empowering people to work the way they want, its governance structure and actions by those at the top need to reflect those values.

Put simply, the CEO himself isn’t living up to the core values of the company and needs to be dismissed.

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

#123

Post by notahacker »

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…

> We also owns Meetup, and I could see WeWork or another chain finding ways to offer additional uses that we don't currently associate with coworking spaces. The advantage could be easy online booking for all kinds of meetings and events, maybe with added features like food and beverage catering.

> A chain could also effectively become a marketplace for coworking and other temporary business space needs. Maybe you could book a spot for your company holiday party, or reserve a shopping mall kiosk for a week to do user testing, or even book space at a non-corporate-owned coworking space through your account.

Much as WeWork could bring customers, I can't help but think Meetup would have been in a much better place to be that middleman for renting interesting and varied spaces without being lumbered with a branded workspace product...

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

#125

Post by gbear605 »

krisoft wrote: post #61
gwern wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adam has the votes, but not the cash. Softbank has the cash, but not the votes. Arrangements can be made. Ironically, that's a problem for Adam precisely because We is not Theranos. Holmes had the votes and the cash, which hadn't been spent yet since Theranos wasn't a real business, and she could (and did) just coast for years on what was already in the bank without any need to go to any investors or banks or third p…

> But since We is a real business with real users and a successful one, We can't just coast on its cash. We have a very different definition of what does it mean to be a successful business.

It's successful in the sense that it could raise prices to make a profit and there's a possibility that it would still have enough customers left. Unlikely the oft-discussed "selling dollars bills for 90 cents" companies, WeWork is creating real value that its customers will pay for. The question is still open whether that value is more than the operating costs, but it's at least possible. I'd bet against it though.

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

#126

Post by rhizome »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98
Donald wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can thank loose monetary policy that has created an unbalance between capital seeking returns and the number of investment opportunities. Executives have leveraged this into abusive multi-class share structures that sacrifice shareholder's ability to reign in company behavior. The result is a few tech executives wielding unaccountable authority over incredibly powerful economic resources.

> You can thank loose monetary policy I'm not so sure. WeWork is the product of three capital sources. One, Mortimer Zuckerman, who was "not just their landlords AND seed investor," but also "happened to own Fast Company and NY Post which were instrumental in propping up WeWork in the press before anybody knew who they were" [1]. Two, MBS, who backed the Vision Fund to the tune of $45 billion [2]. Three, Masa Son. Mr…

Aren't there also tax strategies/techniques that offer benefits from these investments when they fail as well? That both making and losing money in the VC/FinEng context each have their tax advantages (in the US)?

My impression is that upon this foundation and US interest rate/monetary policies create a perverse incentive where the investor doesn't really have to care too much how the company turns out. Like sure, a success pays off much more, but bankruptcy isn't bad either. Did I dream all this? :)

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

#127

Post by wavefunction »

cdolan wrote: post #111
stagger87 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your argument that companies that use plural pronouns in their name should have certain types of ownership structures?

First rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging. Honestly how did you make this logical jump? It’s pretty obvious to me the parent post was pointing out that there is a lot of irony in a company, completely controlled by one individual (or his wife if he dies), is named “We”.

Unless it's the "royal We" and then it's even more potential delicious irony.

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

#129

Post by notyourday »

BubRoss wrote: post #90
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…

The shares with no voting power would still be converted in the case of a buyout of a company though, right?

It is also a lot more complicated than that.

With a single class of shares every shareholder interest is aligned. It is not possible to create a subclass of shareholders among the existing shareholders without existing shareholders agreeing to it. So in a buyout all shares are equal and will receive and equal percentage of distribution of all assets regardless of how those assets are structured.

The moment there are different classes of shareholders, there's a jockeying for a position. It is no different from the plays that can be made by a private company when it is getting a new round of investment/gets bought out -- those with A class shares have certain rights, with B some other rights with C some other rights etc. There's nothing ( apart from a rather complicated regulations that govern a right of minority shareholders not to get totally screwed ) that prevents those that control the voting block via special preferred shares from virtually screwing other shareholders:

Board can just vote to split the company into "icky carcass" with nominal assets, most of the liabilities give most of it to non-voting shares. Give the non-voting shares some tiny percentage of the ownership in the "awesome sauce" part of the company. Voting shares (held by insiders) get the opposite percentage. As the part of this deal the "awesome sauce" company gets sold.

It just has not been tried yet -- in fact I'm very surprised it has not been tried yet. It of course would be challenged in courts but I'm pretty sure it will be found legal -- after all "you have no rights compared to the rights of holders of class SP" has been spelled out in the offering paperwork and investors/employees/shareholders still lapped it.

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

#130

Post by soniman »

This has all happened before. The proto-WeWork was called HQGlobal and the firm behind it was Frontline Capital. The whole thing unraveled in the 2000 bust as the tenants all went out of business and canceled their leases at the same time. WeWork is not going to be pretty when the economy turns. Bill Ackman backed Frontline Capital and it pretty much sunk his first hedge fund, Gotham Capital.
Post reply on HN