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

WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 347 posts

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#281

Post by [deleted] »

pbalau wrote: post #261
kelnos wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would still maintain that the parent is correct and there is a large quantity of talented developers in SV who have never worked at FB/Google/MS/etc. I know quite a few of them (and would like to believe I'm talented, too).

A large fraction doesn't not mean "most". 1/4 is a large fraction. 1/10 is still a large fraction. Due to the large amount of people companies like fb, goog, apple etc employ, statistically you should expect that a SV startup on the verge of not being a startup anymore employs some ex-ers. Not having any, will raise questions. This doesn't mean the startup is bad, the answer to said questions might...

[deleted]

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#282

Post by kelnos »

pbalau wrote: post #261
kelnos wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would still maintain that the parent is correct and there is a large quantity of talented developers in SV who have never worked at FB/Google/MS/etc. I know quite a few of them (and would like to believe I'm talented, too).

A large fraction doesn't not mean "most". 1/4 is a large fraction. 1/10 is still a large fraction. Due to the large amount of people companies like fb, goog, apple etc employ, statistically you should expect that a SV startup on the verge of not being a startup anymore employs some ex-ers. Not having any, will raise questions. This doesn't mean the startup is bad, the answer to said questions might...

My perception is that even 1/10 is vastly overstating the number of engineers in SV who work for those companies. 1/20 might even be on the high side.

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#283

Post by kelnos »

jsjohnst wrote: post #247
kelnos wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would still maintain that the parent is correct and there is a large quantity of talented developers in SV who have never worked at FB/Google/MS/etc. I know quite a few of them (and would like to believe I'm talented, too).

You’re missing the point, not working at FB/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo!/Amazon/Apple doesn’t mean you aren’t a talented engineer, but the fact remains, having worked at one of those companies for several years or longer is a sure fire way to get recruiters to chase you. So not having any of those folks (which recruiters lust for) and yet being a “tech unicorn” is generally not a good sign.

No, I'm not missing anything. I agree with the point that you just made, but that wasn't the point that I was replying to.

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#284

Post by cbm-vic-20 »

twic wrote: post #228
kelnos wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twilio has been non-GAAP profitable for a year now with a positive EPS for the last four quarters (possibly five, but my brain is failing me and Yahoo Finance only lists the last four), but you list it as negative. So that leads me to wonder if many of the other figures you cite have similar issues. (Disclosure: I work at Twilio.)

> non-GAAP profitable Like how on my Tinder profile i'm a non-GAAP 10.

Has that been seasonally-adjusted?

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#285

Post by [deleted] »

chrischen wrote: post #47
robjan wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assumption: smart engineers only care about money.

His assumption is actually that smart engineers would chase good tech, high stock price increase potential. They already have good compensation being Facebook/Google engineers.

[deleted]

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#286

Post by kelnos »

Smirnoff wrote: post #235
kelnos wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously that happens when your product is so bad that you have to pay people to use it.

That’s called negative profits or earnings before taxes/depreciation/etc . By definition revenue can’t be negative.

Sorry, my comment was tongue-in-cheek. If revenue is defined as income from operations, having to pay people to use your product could be considered negative income, aka negative revenue (even if that's not how that actually works). I guess it was a bad joke if I have to explain it.

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#287

Post by marcinzm »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #231

IPO is back on. Not surprising when you look at their burn rate vs cash on hand. Or the fact that they entered into a $6B line of credit last month that is contingent on them raising at least $3B in an IPO by end of year. Beyond Adam and Softbank wanting to cash out eventually, the company needs this funding to continue to operate.

Hasn't Adam already cashed out $700 million during a previous round?

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#288

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

navigatesol wrote: post #258
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question if anyone knows more details. VCs these days are very focused on the "SaaS Quick Ratio": https://www.cobloom.com/blog/saas-quick-ratio-how-to-measure... (Blue Apron isn't quite a SaaS business but close enough for this metric). The idea is that it not only measures growth, but measures new customers in relation to churn, with the idea that it's a lot easier to have a long term successful business if y…

> VCs these days are very focused on the "SaaS Quick Ratio" VCs are focused on whatever metric reels in the next layer of suckers. GAAP exists for a reason.

Except that VCs themselves are highly focused on SaaS Quick Ratio to decide where to invest their own capital. That's quite different than coming up with some vanity metric to hoist a loser onto the public.

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#289

Post by H8crilA »

tempsy wrote: post #23

As someone living in SF, I don’t think anyone in SF or SV would ever consider WeWork to be a “Silicon Valley” company in the same way that Uber or Twitter or Slack is. The company has 0 tech brand among employees (how many ex-FB or ex-Google engineers work there?) and outside of Benchmark’s early round none of the VCs are SV-based. Point is the media is making this out to be an indictment on some SV tech bubble but p…

Why would it matter if it's "tech" or not? Being "tech" somehow makes companies magically better than being "not tech"? If so, that's a bubble right there - your valuation depends on whether or not you're considered "tech", rather than what the financial performance data says.

Here's a news headline: "Tech company" brand value damaged by WeWork; WeWork not in the club key investors say

Post reply on HN