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

WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

#81

Post by wpietri »

Pfhreak wrote: post #51
bhk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in this case, the "victims" were voluntarily involved. Also, the peanut gallery is free to throw peanuts at the stage.

You think the rank and file got their just desserts?

Maybe? I mean, for the baristas and whatnot, sure, I feel bad for them. But for educated professionals? Especially the kinds of people who can extract significant compensation in equity? I struggle to feel particularly bad.

Everybody involved knew (or should have known) that the recent round of money-losing IPOs were high-risk ventures. And I would hope anybody thinking about taking options instead of cash would learn enough about pricing options to be pretty clear on the risks involved.

Also, if the con had gone on long enough for the "rank and file" to cash out after the lockup expired, how many of them would be giving money back to investors after WeWork's problems were revealed? I'm guessing zero. Let alone the salary they got for building what turned out to be worth way less than what was invested.

Re: WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

#82

Post by samsol »

WisNorCan wrote: post #34
indemnity wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see these shenanigans it validates my position of turning options into cash if I’m above water ASAP, and getting as much of my raises into base salary as possible. Twice burned (2001, 2009)...

I completely agree. I recommend selling along the way. You may lose some upside, but you definitely lose some downside. Unfortunately, WeWork employees aren’t given that choice. They are getting fired with underwater options while Adam makes billions. I wonder how he can rationalize this to himself.

I can think of a Billion reasons for him to rationalize this !!!

Re: WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

#83

Post by recursivecaveat »

justboxing wrote: post #10

Since when did loss making pre-IPO companies become "TOO BIG TO FAIL" ?

'Too Big to Fail' means that the government steps in to bail out a company because its failure would be a threat to the economy. Private companies have been saving each-other from liquidity crises for centuries, because bankruptcy destroys a lot of value.

Re: WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

#84

Post by Atheros »

lainga wrote: post #60
staticautomatic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know who said that first but it certainly wasn't Matt Levine.

But the big question (for longtime readers) is: does that misattribution count as securities fraud?

Did you disclose to your employer that you were going to ask that question on HackerNews? If not, that's securities fraud.

Re: WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

#85

Post by wutbrodo »

robk wrote: post #56
indemnity wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see these shenanigans it validates my position of turning options into cash if I’m above water ASAP, and getting as much of my raises into base salary as possible. Twice burned (2001, 2009)...

Meh I regret selling any GOOG in the low $200s

I remember at the start of my career selling portions of my GOOG grants like all the personal finance guides told me to do, and how shocked I was that when my coworkers would tell me they held onto all of theirs...

OTOH, it just as easily could've gone the other way, I suppose? Google truly is sui generis, and it's hard to fault me for not knowing that at 21

Re: WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

#86

Post by hintymad »

indemnity wrote: post #32
WisNorCan wrote: post #28

There is another less discussed downside to Vision Fund’s reckless spending and overvaluation of startups. While Travis & Adam make their billions, the employees at Uber and WeWork are granted overvalued options and stock that subsequently crashes. The Uber stock is still below where it was 5 years ago and may never recover. The WeWork stock will likely never recover. As an employee, I would avoid working for a compa…

Every time I see these shenanigans it validates my position of turning options into cash if I’m above water ASAP, and getting as much of my raises into base salary as possible. Twice burned (2001, 2009)...

I can think of many counter examples too. Say, Netflix, Arista Networks, Google, Facebooks, and etc. I guess the key is to pick a good company instead of avoiding options. And of course, leave a company immediately if it shows fundamentally bad signs.

Re: WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

#87

Post by thaumasiotes »

Aeolun wrote: post #65
w-j-w wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You honestly can't think of anyone else who is responsible? How is WeWork not fraud? How was it legal for Neumann to take all of that money?

If I sell you a bottle of air for $20, is that fraud?

People do that very thing all the time. Usually the thought is that the bottle makes a nice display piece.

Re: WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

#88

Post by askafriend »

solveit wrote: post #69
robk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh I regret selling any GOOG in the low $200s

It was still the right move. As every poker player knows, just because you lost doesn't mean you played the hand wrong.

It wasn't necessarily the right move. He/she likely had asymmetric information about where Google was going and how likely it was to continue succeeding.

If they couldn't sufficiently exploit that, then that's on them (assuming they had access to all the relevant metrics).

It's great to diversify, but blindly selling isn't some sort of virtue to optimize for...

Re: WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

#89

Post by compsciphd »

robk wrote: post #56
indemnity wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see these shenanigans it validates my position of turning options into cash if I’m above water ASAP, and getting as much of my raises into base salary as possible. Twice burned (2001, 2009)...

Meh I regret selling any GOOG in the low $200s

having $300K in GOOG and not selling it, is no different than having $300K in cash and using it all to buy GOOG.

If you wouldn't do the latter, you shouldn't do the former (but yes, if you would have invested all your cash into google, more power to you to keep all your google stock as google stock)

Re: WeWork Needed a Bailout, But Adam Neumann Still Leaves a Billionaire

#90

Post by compsciphd »

askafriend wrote: post #88
solveit wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was still the right move. As every poker player knows, just because you lost doesn't mean you played the hand wrong.

It wasn't necessarily the right move. He/she likely had asymmetric information about where Google was going and how likely it was to continue succeeding. If they couldn't sufficiently exploit that, then that's on them (assuming they had access to all the relevant metrics). It's great to diversify, but blindly selling isn't some sort of virtue to optimize for...

depend, as I wrote above. If I give you 2 options.

1) $300K in GOOG 2) $300K in cash

if you dont believe that using all of the $300K in cash to buy GOOG immediately is the smart move, yes, you should be blindly diversifying.

Post reply on HN