101–110 of 274 posts
I’ve ridden this stock down almost all the way (came in at $5 then 2.50 then again at $0.50). I am a pretty bad investor in that my top criteria is to buy stocks that produce a good or service I love and then stick with them a long time. As an operator WeWork adds so much value to us as we staff up all over the world. I love being able to go into any city and have a fun energetic and aesthetically beautiful environme…
But surely now at .21…
It never had that much value, it just made it look like it did for long enough to get people to invest in it at vastly inflated prices. "Renting offices to work in" was never going to be a silicon valley style success, because it just can't scale that way.
"WeWork has raised a total of $22.2B in funding over 23 rounds."
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/wework/investor_fina...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Losing money doesn't destroy wealth. It just transfers it from one place to another.
If you buy a stock for 100 dollars, and due to a series of bad results which led to price adjustments, the stock is now worth 1 dollar, you lost 99 dollars. Nobody else picked up those 99 dollars. Asset depreciation is a fundamental concept that you should be familiar with, as it influences several aspects of your personal finance: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/depreciation.asp
Stocks don't reprice without transactions.
It never had that much value, it just made it look like it did for long enough to get people to invest in it at vastly inflated prices. "Renting offices to work in" was never going to be a silicon valley style success, because it just can't scale that way.
Explain why. It’s literally Uber for offices. It could’ve worked if managed right.
"Mini-cab firm" is not a SV success story either.
It never had that much value, it just made it look like it did for long enough to get people to invest in it at vastly inflated prices. "Renting offices to work in" was never going to be a silicon valley style success, because it just can't scale that way.
Explain why. It’s literally Uber for offices. It could’ve worked if managed right.
It never had that much value, it just made it look like it did for long enough to get people to invest in it at vastly inflated prices. "Renting offices to work in" was never going to be a silicon valley style success, because it just can't scale that way.
"Taxi services" was never going to be a silicon valley style success, because it just can't scale that way. "Food delivery services" was never going to be a silicon valley style success, because it just can't scale that way.
It never had that much value, it just made it look like it did for long enough to get people to invest in it at vastly inflated prices. "Renting offices to work in" was never going to be a silicon valley style success, because it just can't scale that way.
It never had that much value but it has taken $22 billion of perfectly valuable money and set it on fire: "WeWork has raised a total of $22.2B in funding over 23 rounds." https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/wework/investor_fina...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you buy a stock for 100 dollars, and due to a series of bad results which led to price adjustments, the stock is now worth 1 dollar, you lost 99 dollars. Nobody else picked up those 99 dollars. Asset depreciation is a fundamental concept that you should be familiar with, as it influences several aspects of your personal finance: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/depreciation.asp
In order for the stock "price" to move, somebody sold. Stocks don't reprice without transactions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter and YouTube don’t make profits, yet are still wildly successful. With a high enough amounts of hype, stock price, and money, a company can stave off reality in seeming perpetuity.
Wasn't Twitter mostly profitable, except for some hugebsttlement with the FCC (?)? Until recently that is.