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

341–347 of 347 posts

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#341

Post by stallmanite »

nkoren wrote: post #182
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…

It's not "Silicon Valley", it's Silicon Valley . As in the show. My wife just started a contract at a new WeWork office in London. The lobby features a giant but non-functional as skateboard ramp, and two DJ booths, both manned (at 9am on a Monday). The bathrooms feature the very latest in digital toilets, but they aren't flushing, and nobody can figure out how to reboot them. At an aesthetic level, this couldn't be…

What kind of music do djs play in a shared office at 9AM on a Monday morning? My imagination is failing me. You’d think it’d have to be brilliant to avoid an angry crowd.

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#342

Post by rockinghigh »

XJ6 wrote: post #192
rockinghigh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> -18.67 billion $ in revenue You’re confusing revenue and earnings/net income. Revenue is the sum of the sales. Net income, or earnings, is how much money is left after accounting for expenses. Uber alone has tens of billions of dollars in revenue.

You're not wrong about OP's confusion, but a quick note that uber recently reported quarterly revenue of ~3.1bn which means "tens of billions" annually is exaggerating a little. Does uber count it's fees as revenue or does it count fees and the fares (which get passed back to the drivers) as revenue? My opinionated take is that if uber wants to pretend that drivers are not employees and it's just a marketplace then t…

They only count their share, not the full fare (agent revenue recognition). I was referring to annual numbers.

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#344

Post by jsjohnst »

kelnos wrote: post #283
jsjohnst wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understood what you were replying too, just feel you focused to much on being literal with the “large majority”, hence my reply. Glad we agree on the other part, so cheers!

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#346

Post by perl4ever »

GCA10 wrote: post #278
kelnos wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general public's impression of WeWork isn't really relevant here, though. It's mainly the opinion of institutional investors that matters. And if they've had the wool pulled over their eyes and believe We to be a tech company, then... well, I'm even more worried than I thought for our financial system. Actually, my feeling here is that institutional investors have realized that We isn't a tech company. That's why…

All good points. At the same time, there's a bit of "No True Scotsman" going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Not every time when someone says "X is not an example of Y" is the "No True Scotsman fallacy".

Now you may accuse me of the "No true 'No True Scotsman fallacy' fallacy".

Re: WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

#347

Post by perl4ever »

Slartie wrote: post #304
H8crilA wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People work with prejudice, if they are aware of it or not. A bunch of companies from the tech sector have managed to earn absurdly high valuations in a short timespan by successfully monopolizing a winner-takes-all market for a service with high initial cost but very low additional cost per customer. This situation is pretty uniquely found only for a certain subset of digital services, but people have already genera…

"And since investors are just as stupid as anyone else and just as susceptible to fall for herd-like behavior as anybody"

Well, you're commenting in a thread about how they didn't. This is one of those instances where I read something and instantly invert it in my mind and think "that makes a lot more sense".

Post reply on HN