WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources

Post by echelon » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:16 AM UTC

robjan wrote: post #46

tempsy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really isn’t. FB/Goog compensation is still the benchmark as far as industry comp goes, so a private co really needs to be convincingly successful to attract smart, high paid engineers at top tech companies. If they can’t then it’s a completely valid signal that something is up - either comp is well below market, growth story is fishy, management is weak, or something else.

Assumption: smart engineers only care about money.

Post by semi-extrinsic » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:19 AM UTC

victor106 wrote: post #77

> The WeWork brand is strongly tied to Neumann, a freewheeling 40-year-old Israeli-born entrepreneur who has said that We Company’s mission is “to elevate the world’s consciousness”. "Elevate the world's consciousness" --> Dont mean to be negative but what the hell does that even mean? Imagine your landlord told you that. Been following this story closely and Adam Neumann is such a crook, from the outset he just want…

Post by gumby » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:23 AM UTC

untog wrote: post #70

ummonk wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a useful proxy metric, but not a metric to optimize for. I wouldn't want to work for a startup that focused on hiring ex-FB or ex-Google engineers, but given that a large fraction of talented engineers have worked at FB or Google, you'd expect to find plenty of them at any reputable large startup.

> large fraction of talented engineers have worked at FB or Google I'd actually dispute that. The tech world is really, really big. There are a great many extremely talented engineers that have never worked at FB or Google, but they're also the kind of engineers that don't write blog posts or attend conferences, so they're less visible.

Post by gumby » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:27 AM UTC

human20190310 wrote: post #71

urs2102 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally, I think this is great to think about as far as the entire story of IPOing a big tech company in 2019. You start with the story the bankers sell you. They all want to tell you you're going to be bigger than you ever thought possible, because, well... those fees are awfully nice. "We're going to IPO you at 20% of $PREVIOUS_VALUATION" The counter-argument was, well, "We don't think you're worth that much,…

> you're probably worth only $20B This is something I don't get. Pretty much all of these businesses are aiming at dominance on some sector. They entered into the game with the understanding that it's all or nothing. If they don't achieve that dominance, or if the sector itself turns out to be less than worthwhile, isn't it more likely that these companies are worth essentially zero, rather than some percentage of th…

Post by MrEldritch » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:29 AM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #31

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #21

Semi related but Blue Apron will forever be my favorite IPO. 5 stock splits and 3 CEOs later, day one investors will receive roughly 2 pennies back for every dollar invested just 2 years ago. Only people who won were those who dumped free shares on the market (insiders), and maybe consumers for getting subsidized food of questionable quality. Once valued at 2 billion USD, a paltry 150 million will get the job done no…

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…