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

How to Steal a Billion

oversharing.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 156 posts

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#41

Post by x2f10 »

CptFribble wrote: post #13

That's the funny thing about Billions-with-a-b: normal thinking about money and value just doesn't work IMO. The Vision Fund is going to lose ~$19 billion. But Masa Son still controls over $80 billion. That's more wealth and power than almost any human being will ever have in history, ever. At that point the numbers don't even matter. Maybe Neumann took Masa Son for $50 billion. Who cares? A person can live in the US…

>At that point the numbers don't even matter. Maybe Neumann took Masa Son for $50 billion. Who cares?

The numbers don't matter to whom? I have to imagine the numbers matter to Neumann, Masa Son, WeWork stakeholders & WeWork employees. It is never meaningless.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#42

Post by jariel »

mbesto wrote: post #4

I like Matt Levine's take on this: (re: Adam Neumann) If you want, you can imagine him as a diabolical genius who explicitly set out to short the unicorn bubble and then walked away barefoot with a jaunty whistle and $700 million of SoftBank’s money, but that does not strike me as necessary or accurate. My model doesn’t require you to think that your startup is dumb! You don’t need to worry about Neumann’s personal b…

When a company is public there are short positions to be played and this is definitely 'value creating' - in the exact same manner that all financial activity is 'value creating' on some level.

It was not a 'bubble that burst' on WW, so much as it was a misunderstanding of the public's appetite for risk. There is a company there. WW is not being wiped out. Softbank may very well recover their 'losses' and then some.

It's a misunderstanding of the nature of risk and the need for some companies to take in 'fuel' that makes grasping what happened with WW a little more difficult. Also - because we love to hate on people that make 'koolaid that's just a bit to strong' - while at the same time adore those who make 'just strong enough' koolaid ... there's an element of populism going on here. Amazon's retail business has never made a dime - though there are obviously some powerful fundamentals there, it can't really be ignored, and yet, we keep Bezos very, very rich in terms of valuation.

My prediction is that in the long run, WW will be a succesfull company, it will make Softbank money, and that Newman's $1B take, in retrospect (if that's all he got) will seem on par with most startups that made it big. And I say this as someone who really doesn't like the guy, at least from what information there is publicly.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#43

Post by sharkmerry »

rayvy wrote: post #37
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people out here are sweating medical bills in the low $10,000's, while the news is talking about billions being gained and lost in the span of a few weeks - so fast it makes you wonder if that amount of wealth really even existed in the first place. If people lose confidence in the system because of that it’s because they can’t multiply. Billionaires are very rich compared to middle class people, but there are…

Your comment is posted as a matter of fact, but includes no sources/citations

Its probably true, just cherry picked.

Currently healthcare will be 52trill over ten years

Warrens plan from two estimates is 52-59 trill over ten years.

Billionaire thing seems wrong. Forbes 400 richest americans has 2.96 trillion total between them. Lowest person on the list has networth of 2.8 bill

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#44

Post by buboard »

JohnFen wrote: post #28
simonh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing to remember is, this all happened in the open. The people paying him all this money knew exactly what they were doing, know exactly what he was doing and even encouraged him in doing it. I for one will not be shedding any tears for Softbank's losses. Neumann may be a bit of a jerk, if the stories about him are true, but good luck to the guy. It’s not as though he hurt anybody.

> It’s not as though he hurt anybody. He didn't? He didn't hurt his employees, his investors, his contractors, and so forth? He didn't hurt the the tech space (WeWork is not a tech company, but they're widely perceived to be) by reducing even further what little trust it still has?

did they lay off people? I dont give a toss about investors who don't even know what they 're investing in.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#45

Post by UserIsUnused »

0xffff2 wrote: post #26
hashberry wrote: post #14

WeWork/Uber/Airbnb... it's interesting how WeWork is classified as tech IPO next to these (e.g. Softbank used its "technology fund" to invest in WeWork). How did this happen? Isn't it an obvious real estate company? Is it because WeWork appealed to tech startups and remote workers?

Isn't Uber an obvious transportation company? Isn't AirBnB an obvious hospitality company?

Uber is not buying cars and transporting people, Uber is a technologic middle man, a tech tool.

AirBnB is not buying houses to rent, it's a web middleman.

Amazon does sell stuff directly, so it's retail not tech.

All these 3 companies are well categorized, WeWork is not, WeWork buys properties to rent, it's just that, nothing that Regus isn't.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#46

Post by bilbo0s »

JohnFen wrote: post #28
simonh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing to remember is, this all happened in the open. The people paying him all this money knew exactly what they were doing, know exactly what he was doing and even encouraged him in doing it. I for one will not be shedding any tears for Softbank's losses. Neumann may be a bit of a jerk, if the stories about him are true, but good luck to the guy. It’s not as though he hurt anybody.

> It’s not as though he hurt anybody. He didn't? He didn't hurt his employees, his investors, his contractors, and so forth? He didn't hurt the the tech space (WeWork is not a tech company, but they're widely perceived to be) by reducing even further what little trust it still has?

I think what simonh is saying is that the employees knew what WeWork was. (They were the ones who created the spreadsheets and charts that outlined what was going on and presented it all to the investors in several separate acts of galling transparency.) The investors knew what WeWork was. All of that data was, again, transparent to the point of insult. Contractors may not have known, but certainly had access to the same information everyone else had and could have known had they actually reviewed the information.

I think the guy is a piece of excrement, probably simonh thinks he's a piece of excrement as well. However, he did what he did out in the open. He just did it with jaw dropping temerity. No one participating in this whole affair can claim to have been victimized. He asked for all of them to consent to the insane, and they gave him what he wanted, hearty consent.

It's a cautionary tale to me, of how greed can blind what are normally relatively intelligent people. Don't let greed blind you when evaluating startups.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#47

Post by shantly »

rayiner wrote: post #34
CptFribble wrote: post #13

That's the funny thing about Billions-with-a-b: normal thinking about money and value just doesn't work IMO. The Vision Fund is going to lose ~$19 billion. But Masa Son still controls over $80 billion. That's more wealth and power than almost any human being will ever have in history, ever. At that point the numbers don't even matter. Maybe Neumann took Masa Son for $50 billion. Who cares? A person can live in the US…

> Most people out here are sweating medical bills in the low $10,000's, while the news is talking about billions being gained and lost in the span of a few weeks - so fast it makes you wonder if that amount of wealth really even existed in the first place. If people lose confidence in the system because of that it’s because they can’t multiply. Billionaires are very rich compared to middle class people, but there are…

> If people lose confidence in the system because of that it’s because they can’t multiply. Elizabeth Warren’s new health plan will cost $50 trillion over ten years. Middle class Americans make $8 trillion a year, compared to about $130 billion for America’s billionaires.

To anyone who might take this as an indication Warren's plan will increase HC spending, if we do nothing average yearly HC spending for the 2020s in the US is going to be over 5T anyway. It was at ~3.65T last year, and growing fast.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#49

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

0xffff2 wrote: post #26
hashberry wrote: post #14

WeWork/Uber/Airbnb... it's interesting how WeWork is classified as tech IPO next to these (e.g. Softbank used its "technology fund" to invest in WeWork). How did this happen? Isn't it an obvious real estate company? Is it because WeWork appealed to tech startups and remote workers?

Isn't Uber an obvious transportation company? Isn't AirBnB an obvious hospitality company?

It's an interesting point. If drivers are employees, I'd call them a transportation company. If they aren't, I'd call them a tech company. Analogous logic for Airbnb. But it seems like too subtle a distinction to be reasonable. More likely, "tech company" just isn't a super useful label anymore, with the grey area growing and growing.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#50

Post by [deleted] »

sharkmerry wrote: post #43
rayvy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is posted as a matter of fact, but includes no sources/citations

Its probably true, just cherry picked. Currently healthcare will be 52trill over ten years Warrens plan from two estimates is 52-59 trill over ten years. Billionaire thing seems wrong. Forbes 400 richest americans has 2.96 trillion total between them. Lowest person on the list has networth of 2.8 bill

[deleted]
Post reply on HN