Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Uber isn't at taxi company, since it doesn't own or operate taxis. Conceptually it's a platform for connecting independent taxi operators with customers Uber is a moonshot bet on re-imagining transportation when autonomous vehicles become a reality. If that reality never materializes, Uber either raises prices and sees its growth rate and valuation crash back down to earth or it goes out of business.
At least nobody said Uber is a "data" company like they used to. Five years of Uber telling me the driver is "5 minutes away" for 20 minutes straight when I request a pickup at LAX tells me they don't even look at their data!
WeWork Isn’t a Tech Company
201–210 of 229 posts
Re: WeWork Isn’t a Tech Company
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, from the article, that the reason that Uber would be considered a tech company and not a transportation company is a matter of assets and how it can scale. Uber is not a bus company. It does not own a gigantic fleet of cars or large depots to store them in, nor does it employ mechanics and cleaners to tend to them, or have long-term contracts for gates at stations around the country. Uber is a tech company b…
> Uber is not a bus company. It does not own a gigantic fleet of cars or large depots to store them in, nor does it employ mechanics and cleaners to tend to them, or have long-term contracts for gates at stations around the country. Ironically, if Uber achieves its self-driving dreams it will have acquire all of these things.
Re: WeWork Isn’t a Tech Company
#203I like that WeWork is finally forcing us to have the conversation about WTF a "tech company" even is. A company that sells software? Or one that employs a lot of engineers? Or companies that use a lot of tech in their operations? Companies with a presence in San Francisco and Kombucha on tap? Are big banks tech companies? Insurance providers? Hospitals, auto manufacturers, oil and gas... What isn't a tech company?
I can't remember where I heard this or who said it, but I do like it and use it as my own definition. A tech company is a company whose product is "easily" scalable with a few taps of the keyboard and clicks of the mouse. A game development company is a tech company. Selling one, two or a few thousand units is not that big of a deal. Now, we can argue that scalability in terms of cloud services is an issue. Think Ste…
Re: WeWork Isn’t a Tech Company
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maturity transformation, to give it its proper name, isn’t inherently a bad business; it’s how your bank transforms your weekly or monthly pay packet into a 25-year mortgage. But - and here is the crucial point - it is not tech .
It is a bad business generally, because it requires an unfailing entity to exist as a stopgap ("lender of last resort") who will take the hit to prop you up as the short term payment becomes due, for the inevitable times when the payments don't line up. WeWork doesn't (yet) have that.
There is a lot of ideology around homeownership both for and against, I am on the for side, so when asked about the social value of banking, that’s my go-to answer.
Re: WeWork Isn’t a Tech Company
#205I'm not sure the founder sees it as a tech or real estate company but something more: >In 2017, Neumann declared that WeWork’s “valuation and size today are much more based on our energy and spirituality than it is on a multiple of revenue.” He has long maintained that categorizing WeWork as a real-estate concern is too limiting; it is a “community company” with huge ambitions. “We are here in order to change the wor…
>our energy and spirituality >it is a “community company” >“We are here in order to change the world,” Can some explain to me what renting out shared workspaces has to do with any of this?
Re: WeWork Isn’t a Tech Company
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each WeWork office has an SPE that's just for that lease. Every landload wants WeWork on the lease, but won't get it, as WeWork tends to have significant leverage with either the space that they're going after or the desire to have WeWork on the rent roll. When things are booming, WeWork is advantageous for landlords, and appraisers/the market/potential buyers will underwrite that space positively. However, there's m…
> The losers in the WeWork deal are the landlords, as they're bearing a lot of the risk, and get minimal upside. Couldn't this be interpreted differently? That is, landlords are having less and less choice. Something from WW is better than an empty building. Is WW a canary of sorts? It tells us about changes in the economy (less growing small to mid-size companies in major metro area?), as well as the health and stre…
>Something from WW is better than an empty building...WW might not pay out well, but it's better than nothing.
The deals, if they go through to the end of the lease, are a net positive for the landlord, and they are better than sitting on the empty space. One of the benefits to a WeWork lease is that sometimes they can aggregate hard to lease space under a single lease where the individual spaces might be hard to lease, or there might not be a tenant in the market to take all the space.
The flip side is that WeWork spends a LOT of money on their build outs, and expects the landlord to subsidize that through high TIs (tenant improvements) and a lot of free rent. This means that a WeWork lease will generally wind up costing a landlord a lot of money up front, and it will take longer for that lease to break even.
Yes it might be great to have a tenant like WeWork in the later stages of their lease, but it's always a question of whether they'll have the income in those later years to make it pay off. The other aspect of this is that if WeWork goes dark, your left with space that's like too big for the market (WeWork will take a lot of space off your hands) which is problematic, but their build outs will likely not be very useful for the next tenant. This means capital outlays by the landlord to break up and possibly "whitebox" the space.
The valuation side gets more complicated, so I'll just put that aside for now.
>Couldn't this be interpreted differently? That is, landlords are having less and less choice... It tells us about changes in the economy, as well as the health and strength there of?
I think it does, in a similar way to Uber and Lyft ushering in the "gig economy", but as a company, WeWork doesn't have the tech side of it to back it up. Landlords having less choice is partially of their own doing, and partially a response from companies themselves. Landlords have been pushing rents like crazy, and in many markets tenants are just tapped out. Some of the rent growth seen several years after the recession has moderated, but it's still out of the reach of many tenants that don't have the kind of credit or strong balance sheets that landlords love.
Companies, on the other hand, are changing their strategies and thinking about the utilization of real estate much differently than they were 10 years ago. Open floor plans are the biggest indicator of this, as it allows for more employees to be places in the same square footage. With the high rents of class A office in the city and significant commute times in many metros, companies are now more likely to entertain the idea of having multiple offices, with secondary offices leveraging cheaper spaces either in the suburbs or cheaper markets. Remote work and remote only companies go along with that, in that you need less space if you have a portion of your workforce that is never in the office.
In a way, WeWork is supposed to assist companies by providing them this flex space or their remote employees with a place to work. The problem is that it trades flexibility for cost in a way takes away a good amount of it's value proposition.
Re: WeWork Isn’t a Tech Company
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each WeWork office has an SPE that's just for that lease. Every landload wants WeWork on the lease, but won't get it, as WeWork tends to have significant leverage with either the space that they're going after or the desire to have WeWork on the rent roll. When things are booming, WeWork is advantageous for landlords, and appraisers/the market/potential buyers will underwrite that space positively. However, there's m…
I believe you, but in markets like Austin, TX (where I live) it seems odd that a landlord would not just hold out for a more orthodox lease, since there is some shortage of retail space and rental rates are high. What am I missing as to why they would lease to such an SPE?
If there's a shortage of space, having WeWork take a chunk of it off the market is only going to move rents higher. Also, whatever you sign WeWork at is going to set a significant comp in the market, which can again push rents. Businesses do like the idea of being close to a WeWork, so that's going to put more pressure on rents.
There are tenants that are great in bull markets, some that are great in bear markets, and others that are great in both. I would very much describe WeWork as a tenant that is a great bull market tenant, but that's about it.
Re: WeWork Isn’t a Tech Company
#208Re: WeWork Isn’t a Tech Company
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I doubt WeWork will reach positive earnings and a market cap of 5.3 bln anytime soon. No one said anything about "anytime soon" (1) They are a US company. (2) They raised at a $40bn valuation in their last funding round, so I don't know why you think a $5.3bn market cap is out of the range of possibility. (3) The float will be whatever it is. (4) WeWork is a real estate company. Real estate companies tend to make p…
Softbank is currently making up the valuation, and by doing so, setting the value for their existing holdings. Take those valuations with a large grain of salt, it's not like a publicly traded security where you can be reasonably sure of getting around that market value if you decided to sell right now.
Re: WeWork Isn’t a Tech Company
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't remember where I heard this or who said it, but I do like it and use it as my own definition. A tech company is a company whose product is "easily" scalable with a few taps of the keyboard and clicks of the mouse. A game development company is a tech company. Selling one, two or a few thousand units is not that big of a deal. Now, we can argue that scalability in terms of cloud services is an issue. Think Ste…
What about Intel, AMD, and other chip makers? Under the definition of tech company that you mentioned, they wouldn’t be.