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.
The we could refer to the customers. “We Work at WeWork”. It could refer to the staff as well.
Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO
141–150 of 245 posts
Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO
#142> Mr. Neumann still has allies among the directors and the ability to fire the entire board thanks to shares he controls that carry extra votes. It defies imagination that a fund would put 10B into a company whose CEO is accountable to no one. I think we may also see new leadership in SoftBank, or at least their next fund.
Reposting because FT had it up: https://www.twitter.com/nickatfp/status/1171613239580516352
Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s quoted as saying he wants to be “President of the World” and live forever. This guy isn’t riding off into the sunset.
So the bank robber type who gets caught after the perfect crime for picking up a penny from the floor or for having one last job too many?
Both maybe? Trying for the We trademark money after cashing out 700m seems like picking up the penny, and the various We spinoffs seem like the job too many.
Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any earlyish startup (smaller than a certain size) that's facing cash flow problems during a larger economic downturn would likely just move to a remote-only model, maybe with very short-term rentals for high-stakes meetings. No, it's not ideal, but if the survival of the business is at stake, cutting out your coworking fees seems like the easiest way to reduce overhead. I'm no economist, but to me, it seems that sho…
Any earlyish startup (smaller than a certain size) that's facing cash flow problems during a larger economic downturn would likely just move to a remote-only model, maybe with very short-term rentals for high-stakes meetings. Do you know any companies that have made this kind of transition?
I'm not sure the combination of downturn and co-working spaces pitched for relatively short-term startup spaces has existed before.
I would note that I know of larger companies that are shifting people to remote who don't consistently use their assigned office space if capacity has gotten tight.
Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO
#145WeWork is a useful product. Office real estate is broken for startups. Landlords make us take 5-10 year leases when startup planning horizons are almost never longer than 18 months. WeWork earning 30-40% margins by allowing us to take shorter terms that better fit our needs. Should be a good business.
There is clearly a market for WeWork... and many competitors. WeWork is and will be a great company, no matter what. WeWork main competitor is Regus, founded in 1989. Regus is now present worldwide with revenues of 2.535 billion GBP (2018). Their market cap is a mere 3.68 billion! There are also tons of smaller companies in that sector which are not international (mostly 1/2 countries) with much lower valuations. So,…
Have you ever been in a Regus office? They're horrible spaces. They don't get it. WeWork is a lot nicer. That's why they're worth a lot more.
Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO
#146> Mr. Neumann still has allies among the directors and the ability to fire the entire board thanks to shares he controls that carry extra votes. It defies imagination that a fund would put 10B into a company whose CEO is accountable to no one. I think we may also see new leadership in SoftBank, or at least their next fund.
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.
I think it was an episode of Planet Money a couple of months ago, that had an interview with someone senior in the bond world. She seemed really quite worried about the current state of the market.
There is so much capital desperately trying to find a home that they are having to invest in companies with very little oversight or influence. In the past they would have been the grown-ups in the room, applying some scrutiny and skepticism to everything. But now companies can simply go somewhere else if you turn them down.
She seemed to think that there were a lot of companies being kept afloat by this easy money that could easily go pop in the near future, or companies that should have gone bust ages ago but are limping along with cheap credit.
It does seem that whether or not we are headed for an imminant bust, the economy is in a pretty peculiar place at the moment with negative interest rates etc.
Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO
#147Considering he has the votes to fire the entire board, I'd be shocked if this happens. Softbank is completely fucked.
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.
If it were a real successful business it wouldn't need emergency cash injections to stay alive.
Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
It's a matter of perspective. Your general example sounds like it's from the perspective of WeWork's CEO, who is obviously responsible for his decisions.
But what about the perspective of SoftBank's shareholders? If they're unhappy about this, they ought to be unhappy with the dealmakers at SoftBank for creating a situation where SoftBank is exposed to volatility of this kind.
Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the customer's POV, selling dollar bills for fifty cents each is also a high-quality product.
No not really. Again, they lose billions right now because it costs a lot to build out new buildings. Then as a building matures they recoup these costs through the memberships. The more mature offices are profitable. It just isn’t necessarily tech/VC level profits.
They aren't building out anything, they lease existing office space.
Re: Some WeWork Board Members Seek to Remove Adam Neumann as CEO
#150> Mr. Neumann still has allies among the directors and the ability to fire the entire board thanks to shares he controls that carry extra votes. It defies imagination that a fund would put 10B into a company whose CEO is accountable to no one. I think we may also see new leadership in SoftBank, or at least their next fund.
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.
The problem is having so much wealth concentrated in the first place. If capital was more evenly spread, then those who control it would have no problems finding worthwhile investments (smaller investments would become worthwhile because collectively the controllers of the capital would have more time to oversee them)