6 ms·
If it were strategically important for the company the company should have bought the properties. It's a direct conflict of interest - and one that has been ser
by Traster 7y ago
If it were strategically important for the company the company should have bought the properties. It's a direct conflict of interest - and one that has been serious enough that they've ended up having to build an entire corporate strategy to deal with. Also, this is not the only conflict of interest: WeWork bought part of an artificial surfing wave pool in 2016 and the only reason anyone can find to do that is the CEO likes surfing.
- sprafa 7y agoIf this is true then I’m increasingly surprised at how bad VC returns must be for them to think this is a good investment.
- maxerickson 7y agoIt's perhaps the other way around. VC returns are so good that they can make lots of mistakes.
- rficcaglia 7y agoNo it’s not: “achieved an overall return of 11.1% for the year.” https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/10/15/1621269/0/en/US-Venture-Capital-Achieved-Respectable-Double-Digit-Return-in-2017.html https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/10/15/1621269/0/... See also: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/the-meeting-that-showed-me-the-truth-about-vcs/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/the-meeting-that-showed-me...