3 ms·

> Upon completion of this offering, Adam Neumann will own or control more than 50% of the total voting power of our capital stock Another Zuckerberg style IPO.

by rbrtl 7y ago

> Upon completion of this offering, Adam Neumann will own or control more than 50% of the total voting power of our capital stock Another Zuckerberg style IPO. Activist investors beware...

Traster 7y ago
It's actually a good thing, they can't be included in a lot of indexes because of that clause which means only people truly intent on setting fire to their cash will ever buy the stock.
- tuyguntn 7y ago
  This is dangerous in case of WeWork, since founder is leasing property to WeWork. Founder knows how much profit is company generating, he can increase rent prices and make WeWork zero profitable all the time, but his other company earns all profit, because he has >50% voting power, he might decide to stay with his own company even if he increases rent
nova22033 7y ago
FB opened at 38 and is now close to 200..so maybe not the best comparison. FB actually makes money.
- martin_bech 7y ago
  But stille completely crazy, that you can buy up, most of the company, and Zuckerberg still controls it.
  - vikramkr 7y ago
    You know what you're buying. You're buying a share of the earnings/monetary value of the company, and are valuing it based on your belief in zuck as a leader. You are not buying any control in the company, and that's pruiced in. I'm sure shares would be worth more if zuck didn't control the company and you could gain control by buying shares.
    - martin_bech 7y ago
      So in the best interrest of shareholders, if you believe that shares would be worth more, if they they didnt have this class segregation, then they shouldn't.. Thats what would be best for shareholders..
      - vikramkr 7y ago
        Zuckerberg would argue that even if shirt term the value if the stock is lower, his judgement abilities are superior to that of the shareholders, and that it is better for the shareholders if he maintains control. He is also a shareholder after all, and he's doing what he believes will optimize the value of the shares since that is what he's encouraged to do. And who cares if it's in the best interest of shareholders? Shareholders know what they bought. They bought a share of the earnings generated by a company fully controlled by Zuckerberg. If they bought it, then they are fine with these terms. And zuck is clearly happy with things the way they are. If shareholders dont think zuck is maximizing their value, they dont have to own his shares, and if people cared and sold, that would incentivize zuck to change things.
martin_bech 7y ago
I thought the NYSE was against this crazy Classes of stock insanity?

by rbrtl 7y ago

> Upon completion of this offering, Adam Neumann will own or control more than 50% of the total voting power of our capital stock Another Zuckerberg style IPO. Activist investors beware...

Traster 7y ago

It's actually a good thing, they can't be included in a lot of indexes because of that clause which means only people truly intent on setting fire to their cash will ever buy the stock.

tuyguntn 7y ago
This is dangerous in case of WeWork, since founder is leasing property to WeWork. Founder knows how much profit is company generating, he can increase rent prices and make WeWork zero profitable all the time, but his other company earns all profit, because he has >50% voting power, he might decide to stay with his own company even if he increases rent

nova22033 7y ago

FB opened at 38 and is now close to 200..so maybe not the best comparison. FB actually makes money.

martin_bech 7y ago
But stille completely crazy, that you can buy up, most of the company, and Zuckerberg still controls it.
- vikramkr 7y ago
  You know what you're buying. You're buying a share of the earnings/monetary value of the company, and are valuing it based on your belief in zuck as a leader. You are not buying any control in the company, and that's pruiced in. I'm sure shares would be worth more if zuck didn't control the company and you could gain control by buying shares.
  - martin_bech 7y ago
    So in the best interrest of shareholders, if you believe that shares would be worth more, if they they didnt have this class segregation, then they shouldn't.. Thats what would be best for shareholders..
    - vikramkr 7y ago
      Zuckerberg would argue that even if shirt term the value if the stock is lower, his judgement abilities are superior to that of the shareholders, and that it is better for the shareholders if he maintains control. He is also a shareholder after all, and he's doing what he believes will optimize the value of the shares since that is what he's encouraged to do. And who cares if it's in the best interest of shareholders? Shareholders know what they bought. They bought a share of the earnings generated by a company fully controlled by Zuckerberg. If they bought it, then they are fine with these terms. And zuck is clearly happy with things the way they are. If shareholders dont think zuck is maximizing their value, they dont have to own his shares, and if people cared and sold, that would incentivize zuck to change things.

martin_bech 7y ago

I thought the NYSE was against this crazy Classes of stock insanity?