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

The We Company S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 346 posts

Re: The We Company S-1

#191

Post by [deleted] »

addicted wrote: post #168
jddj wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. But isn't making a claim that it's plausible that every square inch of office space in every modern city will be managed by WeWork actually doing the opposite of identifying some of the obvious limits to scaling? I suppose some of this is addressed elsewhere under other sections, and the fact that it's called the Total Addressable Market explains a lot, but it does seem remarkably arbitrary and to be of very…

They aren't making that claim though. They are just doing simple back of the envelope math using their current metrics, but in word form. No one is suggesting that those numbers will actually be achieved.

[deleted]

Re: The We Company S-1

#192

Post by exothermic »

ryaniscool wrote: post #35

According to the prospectus, they lose so much money because they are building out new locations. Their break even point takes about a year for an individual location. So theoretically, they have a path to profitability. I just wonder where they get the cash in the meantime. >$1B/year burn rate, ouch.

And yet, their operating margin before any growth spend (or G&A) is a meager 20%.

I suppose this has to do with relatively low average occupancy rates? I wasn't able to find occupancy rates on their existing locations in the S-1.

Re: The We Company S-1

#193

Post by vikramkr »

tw1010 wrote: post #51

How do you read things like this? I'm overwhelmed but feel like there are nuggets all over in this document.

Having an accounting 101 level of background (I'm sure there are a lot of good online resources to pick up accounting - the basics of accounting are way easier than the basics of computer science IMO)gets you like 90% of the way there to be able to skip down to the financial statements and the footnotes and get a decent sense of what the company looks like. Obviously you can go further and further in depth, and there are a lot of things specific to the IPO process that are good to know, but IMO knowing how to look through the accounting statements and read a balance sheet/income statement/statement of cashflows is the 20% of effort needed to get 80% of the insight you would want.

Re: The We Company S-1

#194

Post by anonu »

beager wrote: post #50

I’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…

This sounds very curmudgeonly of you - and I say that in the nicest way. I empathize with your point of view - but I think the graphics promote an important view into how the company perceives themselves. This is also important for investors to take into account.

You can skip the first dozen pages and get to the meat of the S1 further down.

Re: The We Company S-1

#196

Post by dymk »

CodeSheikh wrote: post #150

This statement though "The We Company is committed to being meat, single-use plastics, and carbon emissions free."

A laudable goal? Of all the statements to bemoan, why choose the one about environmental sustainability?

Re: The We Company S-1

#197

Post by KaiserPro »

doppp wrote: post #33
mmillin wrote: post #2

My 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…

It's not a tech company, it's a property company with the valuation of a tech company.

Its a property management company. They own some leases, but not actual buildings.

Re: The We Company S-1

#198

Post by Balgair »

CodeSheikh wrote: post #150

This statement though "The We Company is committed to being meat, single-use plastics, and carbon emissions free."

Buzzword Bingo? It's a strange statement that is maybe trying to attract investors that are looking to invest in those categories of companies and exclude others. Might as well just throw in a lot of jargon at that rate.

Re: The We Company S-1

#199

Post by martin_bech »

rbrtl wrote: post #103

> Upon completion of this offering, Adam Neumann will own or control more than 50% of the total voting power of our capital stock Another Zuckerberg style IPO. Activist investors beware...

I thought the NYSE was against this crazy Classes of stock insanity?

Re: The We Company S-1

#200

Post by martin_bech »

nova22033 wrote: post #182
rbrtl wrote: post #103

> Upon completion of this offering, Adam Neumann will own or control more than 50% of the total voting power of our capital stock Another Zuckerberg style IPO. Activist investors beware...

FB opened at 38 and is now close to 200..so maybe not the best comparison. FB actually makes money.

But stille completely crazy, that you can buy up, most of the company, and Zuckerberg still controls it.
Post reply on HN