WeWork Book: The $10T Mirage(axios.com)
axios.com
WeWork Book: The $10T Mirage
https://www.axios.com/10-trillion-mirage-wework-book-0ee98f74-5370-419e-81ea-e0914bdc0f00.html
113 comments
the criticism about WeWork wasn't the product itself, it was the fact that somehow it was being valued like a software startup despite being just a standard low margin real estate and co-working business
My wife was all excited about this company, and I'm like, it's an executive suite. There's already one in every business park.
But there's a selection bias for trendy folks, whereas many executive suites can be quite the opposite.
I wonder how much it would cost if SoftBank wasn't footing the bill haha.
I find it hilarious that you state no one is there even at these prices. I imagine an investor reading that.
His scribbling on the slide reminds me of the gnomes' plan for making major $$$ from collecting underpants on South Park. How was he going to get to those numbers?
I find it hilarious that you state no one is there even at these prices. I imagine an investor reading that.
His scribbling on the slide reminds me of the gnomes' plan for making major $$$ from collecting underpants on South Park. How was he going to get to those numbers?
The weworks here are 90%+ vacant
I assume with the pandemic that many companies aren't renewing any contracts they have. And relatively few individuals are going to pay for even a discounted co-working space out of their own pocket just so they don't need to work out of their apartments.
Yeah - a dedicated desk is usually >$400/m.
After taxes, this is >10% of income for >70% of the population.
If Americans in cities didn't already spend >60% of their after tax income on rent - I could see this being more popular.
There's just not enough people that make enough money and don't work at a good company that already has nice offices for this to make sense.
I agree, in theory, WeWork is a lot better to work at than most people's apartments. I'm not convinced enough people have enough money.
After taxes, this is >10% of income for >70% of the population.
If Americans in cities didn't already spend >60% of their after tax income on rent - I could see this being more popular.
There's just not enough people that make enough money and don't work at a good company that already has nice offices for this to make sense.
I agree, in theory, WeWork is a lot better to work at than most people's apartments. I'm not convinced enough people have enough money.
> After taxes, this is >10% of income for >70% of the population.
Wouldn’t this cost be a business expense and so best compared to pre-tax income?
Wouldn’t this cost be a business expense and so best compared to pre-tax income?
And, under normal circumstances, there are libraries, coffeeshops, parks with WiFi, etc. I live in an exurban house with an office and other space but even if I lived in the ~1 hr drive city away in a studio, I'd time-slice among free/cheap working options before I'd pay $400+/month for a dedicated co-working space for myself. I could afford to do so but I wouldn't.
I said this in another comment but the 3-month introductory rate I got is $150/month going up to $300/month after that.
The biggest advantage I’ve seen over libraries/coffeeshops is that I’m expected to be there working all day and it’s fine for me to hog a desk/space as long as I want to. I don’t have to think about whether I’m being selfish or bothering anybody else.
Plus the WeWorks have really great quiet booths for phone calls which very few free/cheap options have.
The biggest advantage I’ve seen over libraries/coffeeshops is that I’m expected to be there working all day and it’s fine for me to hog a desk/space as long as I want to. I don’t have to think about whether I’m being selfish or bothering anybody else.
Plus the WeWorks have really great quiet booths for phone calls which very few free/cheap options have.
WeWork has honestly always had a pretty great product. Their problems were terrible management that overspent and tremendous overinvestment acting like the demand for the product was enough to justify owning half the office space in major American cities. Similarly, McDonald's has a perfectly good product, but if the CEO was throwing penthouse parties with hookers, cocaine, and Dom every weekend, and they tried to open a McDonald's on every single street corner in the world's top 100 cities, they'd quickly go out of business.
Too many unicorns don't seem willing to accept that it's perfectly fine to have a niche product that serves its market, but it's a finite market and will never take over the world.
Too many unicorns don't seem willing to accept that it's perfectly fine to have a niche product that serves its market, but it's a finite market and will never take over the world.
> There’s almost nobody there
perhaps due to the pandemic?
perhaps due to the pandemic?
How long will it last before SB starts shutting everything down? Also how much are you paying? Really good deal I guess?
$150/month for 3 months for access to the common areas/shared workspaces (not a private room/office). After that it goes up to $300.
It’s about 3 miles from my apartment so I just jog there with my stuff (or bike). When I jog, I take a shower and change. So it’s a good way to make myself be more active than I was mid-pandemic.
I figure even at the full price, that’s like $15 per work day, and I usually have an espresso, a Stumptown cold brew, and a snack during the day (or meal if there’s something free/good). Plus on the days I don’t get free lunch, I’m more motivated to meal prep and take a healthy good lunch instead of just snacking while I work in my apartment.
It’s about 3 miles from my apartment so I just jog there with my stuff (or bike). When I jog, I take a shower and change. So it’s a good way to make myself be more active than I was mid-pandemic.
I figure even at the full price, that’s like $15 per work day, and I usually have an espresso, a Stumptown cold brew, and a snack during the day (or meal if there’s something free/good). Plus on the days I don’t get free lunch, I’m more motivated to meal prep and take a healthy good lunch instead of just snacking while I work in my apartment.
After all this, I’m surprised to hear they’re still providing the free things.
I think they’re getting sample-size stuff from brands to use for some of the giveaways, which is a smart approach. And they are a little stingy with the cold brew. They seem to disable the tap around lunchtime.
A few times there’s been free meals from local restaurants. I’m hoping they get some kind of discount in exchange for the marketing.
A few times there’s been free meals from local restaurants. I’m hoping they get some kind of discount in exchange for the marketing.
Absolutely, the Moviepass strategy
With Moviepass, they had to pay money to the movie theaters every time somebody went to see a movie. This isn’t quite the situation WeWork is in.
I think it’s more like a movie theater or gym.
They’re already paying for this big empty building. If they can drop the price a bit and get interest, the marginal cost of one more body isn’t that high. But drop the price too much and it hurts the brand/image/value to those willing to pay full price.
I think it’s more like a movie theater or gym.
They’re already paying for this big empty building. If they can drop the price a bit and get interest, the marginal cost of one more body isn’t that high. But drop the price too much and it hurts the brand/image/value to those willing to pay full price.
Fair point
I really like the idea of having more comfortable common spaces, and I would have no problem paying a fee for that. I miss being able sit in my college library's beautiful reading room any time I want. I guess WeWork's initial execution was bad, but I hope the general industry succeeds.
I don’t think their execution was ever bad to be honest, it’s just literally impossible to execute their business model in a way that justifies the insane valuation they were getting.
WeWork's initial execution wasn't bad, as far as I can tell. It was their business model that failed, not the product delivery.
It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable business model for anything other than an enormous startup. Not every thing can grow to a million billion, not everything should.
This is exactly what happened with moviepass- their success was their downfall as even VC money ain't endless.
Even though the VC bill will eventually come due, the moviepass analogy doesn’t quite hold up. Moviepass was in a situation where they were selling discount tickets and then paying the movie theaters for (essentially) full price tickets.
WeWork has these big empty buildings with the lights on, whether anybody uses them or not. Adding one more body doesn’t increase their costs that much. So discounting a membership at least helps bring some cash in and gets a new person interested in the service.
The more people used their service, the more money Moviepass lost. With WeWork, they need more people to sign up to have a chance at getting out of the mess they’re in.
WeWork has these big empty buildings with the lights on, whether anybody uses them or not. Adding one more body doesn’t increase their costs that much. So discounting a membership at least helps bring some cash in and gets a new person interested in the service.
The more people used their service, the more money Moviepass lost. With WeWork, they need more people to sign up to have a chance at getting out of the mess they’re in.
Very true, I take back my very flawed analogy.
This makes me want to watch the wework doc that just dropped. I obviously have much to learn about the whole deal.
This makes me want to watch the wework doc that just dropped. I obviously have much to learn about the whole deal.
Seems like WeWork will continue to be in trouble for a while. The pandemic has allowed them to renegotiate a lot of their lease agreements, which how's allowed them to eek out profitability in many locations, and they're trying to extricate themselves from their worst deals, but demand for their product is going to continue to look different when the pandemic ends (assuming it ends!). Less desire for shared/common working space. Less worker density. More WFH. They're going to need to invest even more to alter their workspaces to what their customers actually want.
They might actually positioned really well for companies that don't want to commit to their own space when the company is remote half the time.
Maybe. They'll still need to invest quite a bit to get there though both in how their space is set up and their operating model. Right now empty co-working spaces are quite attractive, but as the get back to a capacity that's actually profitable for WeWork, they are essentially selling 1) occasionally sitting in close proximity to a bunch strangers that changes every time you go in (the day pass), 2) or nicely furnished/designed but overpriced priced reserved offices (monthly subscription). Companies (and probably workers too) are generally going to be cautious about #1 due to covid long after the dust settles, and #2 is just not a great deal regardless of who's fronting the bill.
That's a fickle slice though.
They're only attractive to (a) individuals or (b) companies too small to just deal directly with standard office space brokers.
They need larger accounts to drive their COGS down, but larger accounts can bypass their service. So they're like a cloud provider, except without all the synergy and lock-in.
The only future where they're moderately successful is one where workforces are substantially more spread out (one employee in each different city) and they're a broker.
But even then... they'd face the challenge of scaling their business geographically (office in every city) vs having larger offices in hubs.
They're only attractive to (a) individuals or (b) companies too small to just deal directly with standard office space brokers.
They need larger accounts to drive their COGS down, but larger accounts can bypass their service. So they're like a cloud provider, except without all the synergy and lock-in.
The only future where they're moderately successful is one where workforces are substantially more spread out (one employee in each different city) and they're a broker.
But even then... they'd face the challenge of scaling their business geographically (office in every city) vs having larger offices in hubs.
>Less desire for shared/common working space.
At the individual company level, there's some level of common understanding of rules/protocols for coming into offices. That's not generally going to be the case with co-working spaces.
At the individual company level, there's some level of common understanding of rules/protocols for coming into offices. That's not generally going to be the case with co-working spaces.
Isn't WeWork uniquely positioned to accommodate employers who are looking for flexible post-COVID office setups?
As more workers go remote, some will still want a physical office to work out of. That's something WeWork should excel at.
As more workers go remote, some will still want a physical office to work out of. That's something WeWork should excel at.
But if employers don't pay for it (and I expect nonpaying will be the norm), they're now negotiating with very price-sensitive individual employees.
> In 1866 there was a bank called Overend, Gurney and Company [..] they went bust. They invested a whole bunch of money in the railway industry and then the railway bubble burst. Thing is, if you invest a bundle in railways and lose it, there are still railways, people can still use them. But that's increasingly not how investment works. A lot of companies, especially tech companies, borrow money not to make anything, just on the promise that they will eventually make it back.
> Let's take a case study: WeWork. WeWork are an American company that provide office space. They dress it up as revolutionizing your workplace and bringing people closer together(, but we're doing materialism, remember?) They own a bunch of offices, and if you need one you can rent it from them. They're landlords! [..] In summer of 2019, WeWork was valued at $47 billion. Now, just a few months later they're worth.. Well actually, it's not clear how much they're worth but nowhere near that.
> So what happened? Was there some kind of disaster? Did the offices burn down? No. The truth is, they were never worth 47 billion.
> [..]
> Their business model was just owning stuff and charging rent, and if nobody wants your stuff or nobody can afford the rent, then all the money that was invested in you can just vanish.
From: The Trouble with the Video Game Industry | Philosophy Tube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYkLVU5UGM8&t=1000s at 16m and 40s)
This was published in November 2019, before the pandemic. I am amazed that WeWork is still around.
Citation on that segment: Grace Blakely, Stolen: How to Save the World from Financialisation
> Let's take a case study: WeWork. WeWork are an American company that provide office space. They dress it up as revolutionizing your workplace and bringing people closer together(, but we're doing materialism, remember?) They own a bunch of offices, and if you need one you can rent it from them. They're landlords! [..] In summer of 2019, WeWork was valued at $47 billion. Now, just a few months later they're worth.. Well actually, it's not clear how much they're worth but nowhere near that.
> So what happened? Was there some kind of disaster? Did the offices burn down? No. The truth is, they were never worth 47 billion.
> [..]
> Their business model was just owning stuff and charging rent, and if nobody wants your stuff or nobody can afford the rent, then all the money that was invested in you can just vanish.
From: The Trouble with the Video Game Industry | Philosophy Tube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYkLVU5UGM8&t=1000s at 16m and 40s)
This was published in November 2019, before the pandemic. I am amazed that WeWork is still around.
Citation on that segment: Grace Blakely, Stolen: How to Save the World from Financialisation
> They [WeWork] own a bunch of offices, and if you need one you can rent it from them.
I always assumed that WeWork was mostly leasing their space (to acquire the space, I mean), rather than buying it.
I always assumed that WeWork was mostly leasing their space (to acquire the space, I mean), rather than buying it.
"... how grifters came to be called visionaries."
Yes.
Near-zero interest rates enabled the creation of "successful" companies that didn't actually make money. That era is coming to a close.
Yes.
Near-zero interest rates enabled the creation of "successful" companies that didn't actually make money. That era is coming to a close.
>that era is coming to a close
negative interest rates seem more likely than higher interest rates
negative interest rates seem more likely than higher interest rates
> Near-zero interest rates enabled the creation of "successful" companies that didn't actually make money. That era is coming to a close.
Rates seem to be going down again. What makes you think near-zero interest rates are going away?
Rates seem to be going down again. What makes you think near-zero interest rates are going away?
Inflation
That's putting a lot of faith in central banks. The current heads of those banks, at least in the US and EU, have telegraphed pretty clearly that they are willing to let inflation run hot for better or worse.
The wealthy deserve their low interest loans. Then the manna they generate will trickle down... Somehow.
Loans are for people without money. High interest is good for people with money who loan it out.
The wealthy only use the loans when it makes more sense to keep money earning returns somewhere else.
The wealthy only use the loans when it makes more sense to keep money earning returns somewhere else.
The wealthy are using loans backed by stocks to avoid capital gains taxes.
> Loans are for people without money
This is false. Filthy rich people are taking billions in loans right now because there is a chance the dollar crashes and they might have to repay their loans for way less than they have taken them.
This is false. Filthy rich people are taking billions in loans right now because there is a chance the dollar crashes and they might have to repay their loans for way less than they have taken them.
Read the rest of my post before replying.
> Read the rest of my post before replying.
Pretty sure you modified your message after I replied to you at first place. This isn't very honest.
Pretty sure you modified your message after I replied to you at first place. This isn't very honest.
Until something terrible happens they will keep rates low. The only people who care about high inflation are people who have salary jobs with low raise potential and people on fixed incomes like annuities. Those people have far less political influence than the rich. Obviously, there may be second order effects that cause another reason to raise rates, but that is TBD
is it me or has the word "grift" seen a large uptick in the last few years.
I used to really like this word now I see it all over the place, I wouldn't call anything what Gavin did a grift ... or a small time swindle.
I used to really like this word now I see it all over the place, I wouldn't call anything what Gavin did a grift ... or a small time swindle.
There has definitely been an uptick. You see it quite a bit in lefty and progressive media -- and I say this as a frequent consumer of such media. It seems like the term has lost a lot of its meaning and has become a synonym for "person I don't like." You especially often see it applied to someone from the other political side of the aisle who joined the media after leaving politics.
According to Google Trends there's been a rise in the usage in 2020 (similar to 2005) that's leveled off now. Similar for grifter but a lesser rise especially compared to a bigger one in 2010.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=grifter
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=grifter
Isn't google trends the wrong tool to use for this, since it only represents search traffic? If you want to compare usages in written works you'd need to use ngram viewer or something.
Looks to have been a recent uptick if you put any store in Google Trends:
https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=grift,...
https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?date=all&q=grift,...
The rise of YouTube and Patreon has made grifting a more profitable and common phenomenon.
How are YouTube and Patreon grifting? People watching someone's videos and someone making optional donations because they like some creative seems more or less the opposite of "grifting."
They aren't necessarily grifting, but they give a platform for grifters. That's not necessarily a bad thing. A more open media environment is worth the cost of a few bad actors.
I mean, telephones are a platform for grifters.
They are, just not as profitable as YouTube and Patreon.
Appropriate management of the money supply by the Fed also created the best economic circumstances for the middle and working classes in 20 years.
[deleted]
The current setup isn’t the Fed acting in isolation. The federal government is now using the zero percent interest rate to distribute cash via direct payments to workers on an unprecedented scale.
You could argue for cutting out the middlemen and simply having the fed issue credit cards.
You could argue for cutting out the middlemen and simply having the fed issue credit cards.
Yes, fiscal policy is important as well. It's also probably true that the federal government has overdone it a bit as we're now seeing supply side driven inflation. These sorts of things are rarely handled perfectly.
I don't know much about Axios, but I thought they tended towards impartial fact-based reporting, and I'm surprised at the emotionally charged language in this article
> "chronicling the wiles and humiliation of Adam Neumann, WeWork's day-drinking co-founder, former CEO, and chief snake-oil salesman"
> "chronicling the wiles and humiliation of Adam Neumann, WeWork's day-drinking co-founder, former CEO, and chief snake-oil salesman"
While the snake-oil salesman label is a bit too charged, the rest of the sentence is fact-based with just a bit of flourish.
Emotionally charged doesn't mean false.
I don't understand where this recent obsession about using neutral language in reporting is coming from. Using neutral language doesn't mean unbiased. Very convincing yet very biased pieces can be written in the most neutral language.
Emotionally-charged language is another way to create bias. An un-biased article must at least be written in an emotionally neutral tone - necessary, but not sufficient.
Do we actually want emotionally neutral articles? There's always a value judgement being made about what is important to report. That value judgement will correspond with emotions in most cases, so it's worthwhile to acknowledge that fact as well.
It's fine to describe situations where people lose their lives as "tragedies", for example. It's possible to go overboard by projecting emotions onto the audience that they don't actually have.
It's fine to describe situations where people lose their lives as "tragedies", for example. It's possible to go overboard by projecting emotions onto the audience that they don't actually have.
I would rather like the media companies to report the facts than spend too much time on the emotional part. Same goes for the history books. I've become alergic to different parties trying to hijack my emotional state by telling me who to hate and who to feel sorry for when all I want to read are facts not "opinions", "breaking views" etc
> Do we actually want emotionally neutral articles?
If they purport to be objective journalism (and not all articles need be that) then yes, definitely.
Seems that Axios plays a little loose with these guidelines outside of politics (their main wheelhouse). I think it's probably a mistake, to the extent that they are interested in keeping their reputation for good journalism.
If they purport to be objective journalism (and not all articles need be that) then yes, definitely.
Seems that Axios plays a little loose with these guidelines outside of politics (their main wheelhouse). I think it's probably a mistake, to the extent that they are interested in keeping their reputation for good journalism.
I used to watch a TV news show from DW called European Journal, which I believe no longer exists. The presentation was incredibly neutral. They told the facts, they asked people involved to tell their stories, etc. It was beyond refreshing to hear reporters who were not trying to manipulate me emotionally. But apparently it was not entertaining to a wide enough audience keep the lights on.
> Do we actually want emotionally neutral articles?
Yes. Articles written in an emotionally charged way in order to influence their readers are a flavor of brainwashing - telling the reader what to think, or even worse, trying to influence them without their knowledge or consent.
Furthermore, the fact that an individual or organization is trying to emotionally manipulate you at all is a huge red flag. The best possible scenario is that they're doing it because they think that they know what's good for you better than you do, and after that it's a toss-up between "they want to make money" (ads) and "they want to control you" (authoritarians).
Emotional manipulation is also a classic tool of tyrants, and is necessary in cases where suppression of the population through pure brute force isn't feasible.
Yes, "There's always a value judgement being made about what is important to report." - but that's unavoidable, because reporters have limited resources. Adding in emotionally-charged (or straight-up manipulative) language makes the bias strictly worse. The fact that totally unbiased reporting is impossible is not an excuse to embrace more bias than is necessary.
> It's fine to describe situations where people lose their lives as "tragedies", for example.
I respectfully disagree, for the reason that news organizations actively pick-and-choose words like this that are emotionally charged and don't have precise meanings in order to slant their articles. While most events that a news organization would describe as a "tragedy" are indeed so, some of them are not. Moreover, even if that word isn't used, readers will understand when events are tragedies anyway - the number of people who weren't aware that a plane crash was a "tragedy" unless it was explicitly pointed out to them (and who were then convinced by the use of that word) is an incredibly tiny sliver of the population.
Yes. Articles written in an emotionally charged way in order to influence their readers are a flavor of brainwashing - telling the reader what to think, or even worse, trying to influence them without their knowledge or consent.
Furthermore, the fact that an individual or organization is trying to emotionally manipulate you at all is a huge red flag. The best possible scenario is that they're doing it because they think that they know what's good for you better than you do, and after that it's a toss-up between "they want to make money" (ads) and "they want to control you" (authoritarians).
Emotional manipulation is also a classic tool of tyrants, and is necessary in cases where suppression of the population through pure brute force isn't feasible.
Yes, "There's always a value judgement being made about what is important to report." - but that's unavoidable, because reporters have limited resources. Adding in emotionally-charged (or straight-up manipulative) language makes the bias strictly worse. The fact that totally unbiased reporting is impossible is not an excuse to embrace more bias than is necessary.
> It's fine to describe situations where people lose their lives as "tragedies", for example.
I respectfully disagree, for the reason that news organizations actively pick-and-choose words like this that are emotionally charged and don't have precise meanings in order to slant their articles. While most events that a news organization would describe as a "tragedy" are indeed so, some of them are not. Moreover, even if that word isn't used, readers will understand when events are tragedies anyway - the number of people who weren't aware that a plane crash was a "tragedy" unless it was explicitly pointed out to them (and who were then convinced by the use of that word) is an incredibly tiny sliver of the population.
Then you can read Reuters.
I’m not sure what is biased about this. The book is about the wiles and humiliation of Adam Newman, who would day-drink and was a snake oil salesman.
That’s why we talk about Adam Newman. It’s not conjecture that he’s projections were delusional.
It doesn’t make the reporting any less objective because they are describing how a book portrays someone.
That’s why we talk about Adam Newman. It’s not conjecture that he’s projections were delusional.
It doesn’t make the reporting any less objective because they are describing how a book portrays someone.
Even if there was humiliation, it was humiliation with a $400M+ payout to Adam Neumann. Softbank set up a really bad example in the industry: you can get away with a hefty payout even if you screw your investors and employees with deceit and corruption. For that, Masayoshi Son is a co-conspirator and I think he should not be trusted by anyone and deserve bankruptcy, if not criminal charges.
SoftBank employs over 80,000 people. SoftBank’s investments don’t seem to rise to the level of corporate corruption where it seems reasonable to put the employees on the street.
Fair point. My grudge is toward Masayoshi Son. Edited accordingly.
But at some point (likely when interest rates shift up and/or the market crashes and/or lending tightens), those 80,000 people are going to be out of a job when the whole thing implodes.
And at that point, it's a solid argument that they all would have been better off if SoftBank's capital had instead been previously allocated to non-zombie / financial-engineering businesses.
And at that point, it's a solid argument that they all would have been better off if SoftBank's capital had instead been previously allocated to non-zombie / financial-engineering businesses.
The employees don't need to suffer. I can imagine a better world where the executives can be jailed and have their controlling shares stripped and given to new leaders. Maybe even the employees themselves.
The whole saga is fascinating, but I do wonder about the level of consternation over this. To oversimplify, it seems Adam Neumann was probably either deluded, dishonest, or a bit of both, and conned some rich people into giving him a bunch of money. Isn't this a bit of a morality play, though? These other rich people (i.e. investors in Softbank, Saudi Arabia, other venture firms, etc.) would have never had a problem in the first place if they weren't chasing outsized gains. If these people were happy to track the market, they would not have been conned in the first place.
As far as I can tell, your average Joe or Josephine not only does not invest in these vehicles, they cannot! Because they are not accredited investors and/or Softbank's Vision Fund is not accepting new capital. So if you're a normal person worrying about getting conned after reading about WeWork, don't! If you're a rich person, consider settling for the market average rather than trusting an individual like Masayoshi Son with your money.
As far Masayoshi Son going to jail, the payoff for Neumann was likely contractually obligated or negotiated to get better leadership into place. Unless some law was broken -- which I doubt, and almost certainly not provably -- criminal charges do not seem to be appropriate. Bankruptcy does not seem to be in the cards either considering he did not have that much exposure to WeWork.
As far as I can tell, your average Joe or Josephine not only does not invest in these vehicles, they cannot! Because they are not accredited investors and/or Softbank's Vision Fund is not accepting new capital. So if you're a normal person worrying about getting conned after reading about WeWork, don't! If you're a rich person, consider settling for the market average rather than trusting an individual like Masayoshi Son with your money.
As far Masayoshi Son going to jail, the payoff for Neumann was likely contractually obligated or negotiated to get better leadership into place. Unless some law was broken -- which I doubt, and almost certainly not provably -- criminal charges do not seem to be appropriate. Bankruptcy does not seem to be in the cards either considering he did not have that much exposure to WeWork.
> As far as I can tell, your average Joe or Josephine not only does not invest in these vehicles, they cannot!
The absolutely do, even if they might now realize it. The stickiest and most sought after capital for funds is typical from pensions or large asset managers.
The absolutely do, even if they might now realize it. The stickiest and most sought after capital for funds is typical from pensions or large asset managers.
I feel really bad for anyone whose pension is controlled by an active manager. They'd be much better off with that value in the S&P 500. Fortunately pension funds are insured to some degree in the US, so if a pension fund failed, the cost of making the pensioners whole would really be paid by the taxpayer, not the average person. But in the specific case of Softbank, Saudi Arabia and a few other named billionaires provided more than half of the seed capital.
“Insured to some degree” is not “insured”. The pensioners could take a huge cut.
From what I can read the amount of the guarantee is about 60k/year at standard retirement age. https://www.pbgc.gov/wr/benefits/guaranteed-benefits/maximum... Is my reading of this incorrect? Do a large fraction of pensioners draw more than this? I had assumed not but maybe I'm wrong?
I don't think so. Public sector pensions are a bigger deal than (mostly legacy) private sector pensions but the guarantees are still relatively high compared to typical payouts.
> Even if there was humiliation, it was humiliation with a $400M+ payout to Adam Neumann. Softbank set up a really bad example in the industry:
AFAIK has always been this way for at least a decade.
An example would be Docker , has raised more than 200M yet it had no decent stream of revenue , it's litterrally a dead man walking yet the CEO left the boat years ago with tens of millions...
Startups that failed and have their founders go "bankrupt" are startups that you never ever hear about... The rest of startups you'll find on HN or have raised 100M+ millions often have their founders pocket millions when they raise very large amount ( 50M+ )...
There no surprise here , once you manage to get a business to a certain valuation / run-rate it's worth a lot thus you can trade that for cash , regardless of the "humiliation"
AFAIK has always been this way for at least a decade.
An example would be Docker , has raised more than 200M yet it had no decent stream of revenue , it's litterrally a dead man walking yet the CEO left the boat years ago with tens of millions...
Startups that failed and have their founders go "bankrupt" are startups that you never ever hear about... The rest of startups you'll find on HN or have raised 100M+ millions often have their founders pocket millions when they raise very large amount ( 50M+ )...
There no surprise here , once you manage to get a business to a certain valuation / run-rate it's worth a lot thus you can trade that for cash , regardless of the "humiliation"
I was also a bit surprised at the language. I agree that Newman is indeed a "snake-oil salesman", but I don't think that that specific language is appropriate for a news organization.
I recall reading their mission statement a few years ago and getting the impression that they were trying to be impartial and fact-based. However, all of the articles that I've read from them recently (~6 over the past year) have been similarly emotionally charged. Perhaps their vision has changed?
I recall reading their mission statement a few years ago and getting the impression that they were trying to be impartial and fact-based. However, all of the articles that I've read from them recently (~6 over the past year) have been similarly emotionally charged. Perhaps their vision has changed?
Emotionally charged gets more likes. It is the fundamental problem of social media. You cannot avoid it because you will lose in the competition for attention against an organization that embraces it.
Mike Allen is Axios’s co-founder and chief newsletter writer. I’m guessing his posts are more akin to editorials than reported articles.
Bloomberg Podcasts did a 7-part deep dive into WeWork last year and its extremely entertaining and eye-opening:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-25/wework-po...
I believe Ellen Huet was the narrator and main journalist. One of the more fascinating podcast series I've listened to.
Hearing about Adam and all the wackiness surrounding him, I can totally recall some of the hyper charismatic people I've known. They can have this weird almost energy field around them that just turns people's brains off.
I believe Ellen Huet was the narrator and main journalist. One of the more fascinating podcast series I've listened to.
Hearing about Adam and all the wackiness surrounding him, I can totally recall some of the hyper charismatic people I've known. They can have this weird almost energy field around them that just turns people's brains off.
There was a guy I worked for, I had to quit three times, because he could always paint a picture of the cool things we were going to work on, and on the first two occasions I got a field promotion out of it.
The last time I literally did not make eye contact with him and I kept interrupting his train of thought before he could spin up into a speech.
The last time I literally did not make eye contact with him and I kept interrupting his train of thought before he could spin up into a speech.
Doesn't we work still exist? I wouldn't say it is worthless or a total loss just yet.
Not worthless, but last I heard it was at a $9 billion valuation after receiving around $20 billion in venture capital, so not exactly a success story either.
I got a WeWork mask in a FedEx package about a year ago. Such a weird promotion. I have no idea how they got my info as I've never used WeWork or any other coworking space. But I did take a class in one. Maybe that was it.
lol the shipping cost more than the mask
But it got me to open the package! And then free advertising when I wore the mask (which I never did).
Clearly a company with more money to burn than they know what to do with.
Like when Boston Market expanded everywhere - including neighborhoods in SF that had zero other chain restaurants/fast food places. The hubris.
Clearly a company with more money to burn than they know what to do with.
Like when Boston Market expanded everywhere - including neighborhoods in SF that had zero other chain restaurants/fast food places. The hubris.
Yes. WeWork is still alive.
Even better, they are going public via a SPAC. So the CEO won anyway, got their billions and the exit scam still succeeded. Theranos tried to do the same thing but the scam was detected and stopped before they could try to get away with it.
Like many blog posts, this one is just parroting and hyping the 'Cult of We' book and telling the story of its failed IPO and overvaluation in 2019.
It would be more interesting if this failed IPO was the start of a gigantic crash, destroyed WeWork and took the tech industry with it.
But given that they are still IPOing and exiting for billions and more overvalued companies are still going through SPACs and IPOs like business as usual; that 'failure' has become ancient history.
Even better, they are going public via a SPAC. So the CEO won anyway, got their billions and the exit scam still succeeded. Theranos tried to do the same thing but the scam was detected and stopped before they could try to get away with it.
Like many blog posts, this one is just parroting and hyping the 'Cult of We' book and telling the story of its failed IPO and overvaluation in 2019.
It would be more interesting if this failed IPO was the start of a gigantic crash, destroyed WeWork and took the tech industry with it.
But given that they are still IPOing and exiting for billions and more overvalued companies are still going through SPACs and IPOs like business as usual; that 'failure' has become ancient history.
Are you saying Neumann got his exit payment? I hadn't seen that story, and speculation was although it was agreed to, he would never see the money.
My understanding is that it's not the company they're trying to keep alive as much as preventing the devastating effects its closing would have on commercial real estate.
Are their investors heavily invested in commercial real estate? I’d have thought for most VCs crashing commercial real estate would be a plus for most of their portfolio, but WeWork had some weird investors.
Because capital is fungible, all markets are linked in some form.
A collapse in commercial property would roil all markets, including VC.
A collapse in commercial property would roil all markets, including VC.
Wasn't more money invested into it at this point than it's current valuation?
A lot more. Current valuation is fuzzy, but the SPAC deal announced earlier this year was publicly putting the valuation at around $9B, and the total cash invested is around $15B, plus there's around $7B in debt (mostly lease obligations). There's also the issue that WeWork is bleeding cash and their revenue has fallen off a cliff. IMO $0 is as plausible a value as any other.
Yeah they are in the middle of a SPAC deal!
People just need to catch up to modern methods of making money.
If: interest rate environment = low
Then: act this way
If: interest rate environment = high
Then: act this other way
There is zero utility in worrying about Neumann’s actual financial success, the cult-like employees who got burned after segregated themselves from how the entire finance sector was making fun of wework pitches. Softbank want to pump and risk limited partners infinite money, so be it.
People just need to catch up to modern methods of making money.
If: interest rate environment = low
Then: act this way
If: interest rate environment = high
Then: act this other way
There is zero utility in worrying about Neumann’s actual financial success, the cult-like employees who got burned after segregated themselves from how the entire finance sector was making fun of wework pitches. Softbank want to pump and risk limited partners infinite money, so be it.
The way this article is structured is bizarre, I don't know how I'm supposed to read it or what it's supposed to be telling me. Is this a book review or advertisement?
So far, I’ve loved it compared to working out of my apartment. There’s almost nobody there. Work areas are comfortable, furniture is great, building is really fancy, it’s secure, there’s really good free food and coffee, shower, bike room.
I’m telling everybody I know to take advantage of it now while SoftBank is still footing most of the bill.