The financials - https://imgur.com/a/NZONeDo TLDR : Revenue - $1.535B | Costs - $2.904B | Loss - $1.369B
Whats the expectation here? That real estate will get 50% cheaper or that users will pay 100% more to rent an office?
The We Company S-1
111–120 of 346 posts
Re: The We Company S-1
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We have free lunch, a ping-pong table and a VR room with monthly fitness days"
Actually they don't have free lunch, which is quite strange for Silicon Valley companies
They (We) does have mandatory enforced veganism, however.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-13/wework-te...
Re: The We Company S-1
#113I’m really disgusted by how much recent tech IPOs inject pitch deck-style garbage into the S-1 filing, especially this one. I’ve always had a great amount of respect for the mediating nature of the S-1’s dry, candid, and ruthlessly honest assessment of business risks, and even though those things are still there, they’re blown out by marketing photos, full-page charts, and branding. This is basically like putting per…
I see this differently. This is a government document, but one that investors will read now and refer back to in the future. Why make it plain boring text when you can spin this document into a reason to invest?
This is an opportunity to tell the world who you are. Interested parties read these for a reason. It might as well look how you want it to look, as long as the same necessary content is listed.
Re: The We Company S-1
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? I was under the impression it does not own land for the most part.
It's a mix. Some locations they own, some they lease--including some that the CEO owns and they lease from him, which is an interesting arrangement.
Under "Properties Leased to The We Company," this is very interesting:
"As of June 30, 2019, future undiscounted minimum lease payments under these leases were approximately $236.6 million, which represents 0.5% of the Company’s total lease commitments as of June 30, 2019."
Re: The We Company S-1
#115I’m really disgusted by how much recent tech IPOs inject pitch deck-style garbage into the S-1 filing, especially this one. I’ve always had a great amount of respect for the mediating nature of the S-1’s dry, candid, and ruthlessly honest assessment of business risks, and even though those things are still there, they’re blown out by marketing photos, full-page charts, and branding. This is basically like putting per…
I see this differently. This is a government document, but one that investors will read now and refer back to in the future. Why make it plain boring text when you can spin this document into a reason to invest? This is an opportunity to tell the world who you are. Interested parties read these for a reason. It might as well look how you want it to look, as long as the same necessary content is listed.
> Why make it plain boring text when you can spin this document into a reason to invest?
That's exactly what the document was designed not to do. It's meant to convey facts, not "spin." Why do we use plain boring text on a prescription label? So the important disclosure information is readily available to consumers in a consistent and uniform format. The same logic applies to SEC filings.
Re: The We Company S-1
#116My favorite part of new tech company filings is looking at the risk section and finding something to the effect of: "We are not profitable, and may never be." > We have a history of losses and, especially if we continue to grow at an accelerated rate, we may be unable to achieve profitability at a company level (as determined in accordance with GAAP) for the foreseeable future. I understand the reasoning behind havin…
I wonder how that compares to what they tell new hires who are likely taking a haircut for equity in the company
They probably tell the new hires the same thing they tell themselves:
* It's always a gamble, but if you'd received $x0,000 of options 3 years ago, they'd be worth $x00,000 now.
* You'll own 0.00x% of the company, and if you owned that much of Facebook you'd be a multimillionaire.
* Companies like Amazon don't make a profit, and the stock market is fine with it. They know Bezos could turn a profit if he wanted to, but he's putting all the money to work growing the business.
* A company's IPO price isn't its all-time peak price; Google's stock increased 9x from their IPO price.
You'll note that, if you look carefully, nowhere in those points did I promise WeWork options would ever be worth anything.
Re: The We Company S-1
#117I’m really disgusted by how much recent tech IPOs inject pitch deck-style garbage into the S-1 filing, especially this one. I’ve always had a great amount of respect for the mediating nature of the S-1’s dry, candid, and ruthlessly honest assessment of business risks, and even though those things are still there, they’re blown out by marketing photos, full-page charts, and branding. This is basically like putting per…
> they’re blown out by marketing photos, full-page charts, and branding Companies get a lot of latitude with the first few pages. Seasoned S-1 skimmers peruse that stuff, but save the digging in for the risk factors, financials and the accompanying notes.
Lmao, pages 157-160 are straight up magazine-esq full page adds for other companies (SalesForce, DropBox, etc)
Re: The We Company S-1
#118If you wanna put those financials in perspective...
We Company financials chart: https://imgur.com/a/Xky1NNh
Re: The We Company S-1
#119How do you read things like this? I'm overwhelmed but feel like there are nuggets all over in this document.
With your eyes, mostly.
Re: The We Company S-1
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a mix. Some locations they own, some they lease--including some that the CEO owns and they lease from him, which is an interesting arrangement.
How is that going to fly with a public company?
As long as the lease rates are inline with the market rates, shouldn't be an issue.