61–70 of 133 posts
A network of apartment complexes across the country that you can own equity in the entire enterprise instead of one single home. You can "freely" move between the apartments without having to go through financing etc.
This can be interesting with a massive capital and enough time to build out the network but seeing this cocaine addict's name in the mix make me feel this is going to fail fast. Real estate is a slow industry, VC money doesn't have patient for it
I bet most of the people here agree 100% with the problems and structural shifts this memo identified, and that technological innovation in the housing space to facilitate both social cohesion and affordability would be a *very good thing*.
Sure, Adam had some highly publicized issues at WeWork. Also, a16z is on a lot of people's shit list right now. Still, why do so few people seem to be rooting for their success? If you're prone to cynicism I get it - the only way this can end is grift - but personally I would like to see more companies trying to address these issues and Adam seems like he genuinely cares about it. Maybe a little too much, even.
I used to have a high opinion of venture capital, seeing them as tech visionaries and folks with access to deep pockets that fund the best technology that is truly changing the world. Maybe something has changed, but now all I see are just financial hustlers, working markets, trying to capture or corner spaces with "unicorns", looking for M&A activity that might have already been pre-negotiated looking for something…
The question is, is it trivial to take $22 billion dollars and create a $4 billion business? In some cases I would say yeah, its still valuable. I'm not entirely sure I could create a $4 billion business regardless how much money you gave me. On the other hand its real estate, so I could just buy $22 billion of real estate and hopefully come out somewhere just shy of that amount. I'm not sure but the spread between $22 and $4 leaves plenty of room for error.
But there is something to say about failing. Traders that have lost a lot of money are more valuable than those that have never had any downs. But from hearing Adam Neumann speak, it strikes me as though he hasn't learned any lessons. He's a master at deflection and has an excuse or explanation for everything. He has no self awareness or humility. You can listen to his interview from 2021 and it's really incredible.
Anyway, that's all to say I'm surprised anyone would give him another chance.
This is really gross. Andreessen, who’s used his sway to stop any slight increase in housing density in his own town, talks about the broken housing system and how investing billions into a failed scammer will revolutionize housing in a way that’s completely unstated, but presumably involves attempting to find ways to collect rent from people who need housing while also putting all the capital risk onto those individ…
Unfortunately, This scammer 'Adam Neumann' hasn't failed and still was able to exit out of WeWork with a ton of money. So he is not entirely a failed scammer and was able to get away with it and try again. An actual failed scammer is Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos.
I used to have a high opinion of venture capital, seeing them as tech visionaries and folks with access to deep pockets that fund the best technology that is truly changing the world. Maybe something has changed, but now all I see are just financial hustlers, working markets, trying to capture or corner spaces with "unicorns", looking for M&A activity that might have already been pre-negotiated looking for something…
I figured it's valuable that he did create something that's valued at nearly $4 billion dollars today, but then I looked at it and he did raise $22 billion. The question is, is it trivial to take $22 billion dollars and create a $4 billion business? In some cases I would say yeah, its still valuable. I'm not entirely sure I could create a $4 billion business regardless how much money you gave me. On the other hand it…
I am surprised to see so many negative responses. I bet most of the people here agree 100% with the problems and structural shifts this memo identified, and that technological innovation in the housing space to facilitate both social cohesion and affordability would be a *very good thing*. Sure, Adam had some highly publicized issues at WeWork. Also, a16z is on a lot of people's shit list right now. Still, why do so…
If you accept that the markets are inherently good and the most profitable outcome is the best outcome, then it’s easy enough to look at this as a positive move… but if you see capital + technology as a force for bad when unchecked, this is just more of the same — success for Flow could come at the expense of others.
Adam’s history is one of not caring about rules or expectations, he caused significant financial harm to a lot of people with WeWork and while I am not particularly cynical about Flow, I think the cynicism from others deserves more credit — it’s not just contrarianism, the housing market is very vulnerable (see all the private equity that pushed up American house prices recently).
I am surprised to see so many negative responses. I bet most of the people here agree 100% with the problems and structural shifts this memo identified, and that technological innovation in the housing space to facilitate both social cohesion and affordability would be a *very good thing*. Sure, Adam had some highly publicized issues at WeWork. Also, a16z is on a lot of people's shit list right now. Still, why do so…
Another point is that there is no concrete business or idea. The memo at least doesn't explain the actual business. It's vaporware. There are thousands of people with track records that want to open real cashflow businesses and can't get funding. And then there's someone like this that can manifest billion dollar companies with an idea. It just strikes them as unfair.
I am surprised to see so many negative responses. I bet most of the people here agree 100% with the problems and structural shifts this memo identified, and that technological innovation in the housing space to facilitate both social cohesion and affordability would be a *very good thing*. Sure, Adam had some highly publicized issues at WeWork. Also, a16z is on a lot of people's shit list right now. Still, why do so…
If this investment has some term that makes it so Neumann does not personally see one penny of this money unless the company is wildly successful and everyone else involved gets paid first, maybe it'd be worth considering. Instead, there is a very likely outcome here where he takes home tens to hundreds of millions while once again doing nothing of actual substance to change the market.
Basically, he's a huckster who enriched himself at the expense of others. People tend to root against people like that, and they don't like it when they're handed huge sums of money.