7 ms·

Adam Neumann is a genius at finding ways to increase his net worth as founder of a VC backed company. [0] WeWork’s CEO Makes Millions as Landlord to WeWork - h

Adam Neumann is a genius at finding ways to increase his net worth as founder of a VC backed company. [0] WeWork’s CEO Makes Millions as Landlord to WeWork - https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/01/16/wework-ceo-neumann-property-owned-ipo.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/01/16/wework-c...

october_sky 7y ago
> ... is a genius at I'm reminded of the title of a book I read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smartest_Guys_in_the_Room_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smartest_Guys_in_the_Room_...
- degenerate 7y ago
  The documentary with the same title is also excellent, if you're more inclined to watch something than read it.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    I'd strongly suggest the book. It goes into amazing detail and is super well written. I'm generally more into literature when not reading work related things. This was just fun to read.
philwelch 7y ago
A true genius would increase his net worth by building a successful business. If you're not clever enough to do that though, there's always self-dealing.
- draw_down 7y ago
  He is building a successful business, it's just that that business isn't necessarily WeWork. I don't hold their stock, I'm not one of their VCs, what he and WeWork do is not my business, I have no quarrel with it.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Precisely, the successful business may be him acting as vendor to which WeWork outsources various things. So he's the CEO, and uses company resources to outsource some of his responsibilities. It's just that he's also the person that is receiving those outsourced responsibilities. I'd like to try that myself-- "Hey boss, I can't do all of this work. I think we should outsource it, and I know just the person for the job, he's already familiar with the work, has free time, and is standing right in front of you!"
  - rajacombinator 7y ago
    You will hold their stock soon if you own any mutual or index funds.
- vkou 7y ago
  It's not clear that it's possible to build a successful, long-term business by shouldering all the long-term risks of owning office space, and leasing it out at short-term rates to startups. In that situation, the smartest move is to plunder your investors and shareholders for everything they are worth.
  - sutterbomb 7y ago
    > the smartest move interesting definition of "smart" you're using
    - moate 7y ago
      "smart" =/= "moral" in all instances. "Smart Decisions" are especially subjective.
      - ineedasername 7y ago
        Sure, but in this case "smart" may also != "legal". Breach of fiduciary duty would seem to come into play, especially after an IPO when activist shareholders may rise up and make a stink about it.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    I think that line of reasoning might take us to a realm where plundering is always the smart option, offering certainty where the alternative is risky. It is not completely legal though. Someone like a CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the company. "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" is a real thing, and opens you up to liability for actual loses as well as punitive damages. So while I understand why the CEO would do this, it's probably a good idea to step back from that activity, especially on the verge of an IPO where the investor market might take a hard pass at a company whose CEO appeared ready to strip the enterprise for parts and abscond with the proceeds.
    - javajosh 7y ago
      "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" sounds like one of those things that you're supposed to do, but which is almost impossible to prove (after all you just have to claim "I thought it was a good idea" and you're covered), and so is basically never enforced. It's the kind of rule that ethical, good CEOs worry about, and the kind of rule successful CEOs don't waste energy on. BTW, I notice that commenters often have wildly different views of what rules mean. To some, they mean something intrinsically, and it's the players duty to understand and abide by them. To others, rules mean nothing unless they are enforced, and even then you have tons of wiggle room (roughly proportional to the money you spend on your defense). (And these days there's a vocal third crowd that says the government shouldn't enforce rules against businesses of a certain size "because it makes us vulnerable".)
- rolltiide 7y ago
  > A true genius would increase his net worth by building a successful business. Which would mean not having pesky VC's with massive liquidity preferences. Neumann is playing very efficient cards, his problem is trying to simultaneously portray this as something the public market should invest in. Everyone gullible enough to consider WeWork shares on the public markets as validation - aka ALL the employees - should re-evaluate. Let the shares float, but no need for the lead underwriters to hold up syndicate bid, just let it float to its natural share price without the window dressing.
ghobs91 7y ago
"Genius" is a very generous way to describe the slimy crap he does.
ur-whale 7y ago
He's a genius in the same way Ponzi was a genius. I don't find this type of "Genius" particularly commendable.

october_sky 7y ago

> ... is a genius at I'm reminded of the title of a book I read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smartest_Guys_in_the_Room_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Smartest_Guys_in_the_Room_...

degenerate 7y ago
The documentary with the same title is also excellent, if you're more inclined to watch something than read it.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  I'd strongly suggest the book. It goes into amazing detail and is super well written. I'm generally more into literature when not reading work related things. This was just fun to read.

philwelch 7y ago

A true genius would increase his net worth by building a successful business. If you're not clever enough to do that though, there's always self-dealing.

draw_down 7y ago
He is building a successful business, it's just that that business isn't necessarily WeWork. I don't hold their stock, I'm not one of their VCs, what he and WeWork do is not my business, I have no quarrel with it.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Precisely, the successful business may be him acting as vendor to which WeWork outsources various things. So he's the CEO, and uses company resources to outsource some of his responsibilities. It's just that he's also the person that is receiving those outsourced responsibilities. I'd like to try that myself-- "Hey boss, I can't do all of this work. I think we should outsource it, and I know just the person for the job, he's already familiar with the work, has free time, and is standing right in front of you!"
- rajacombinator 7y ago
  You will hold their stock soon if you own any mutual or index funds.
vkou 7y ago
It's not clear that it's possible to build a successful, long-term business by shouldering all the long-term risks of owning office space, and leasing it out at short-term rates to startups. In that situation, the smartest move is to plunder your investors and shareholders for everything they are worth.
- sutterbomb 7y ago
  > the smartest move interesting definition of "smart" you're using
  - moate 7y ago
    "smart" =/= "moral" in all instances. "Smart Decisions" are especially subjective.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      Sure, but in this case "smart" may also != "legal". Breach of fiduciary duty would seem to come into play, especially after an IPO when activist shareholders may rise up and make a stink about it.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  I think that line of reasoning might take us to a realm where plundering is always the smart option, offering certainty where the alternative is risky. It is not completely legal though. Someone like a CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the company. "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" is a real thing, and opens you up to liability for actual loses as well as punitive damages. So while I understand why the CEO would do this, it's probably a good idea to step back from that activity, especially on the verge of an IPO where the investor market might take a hard pass at a company whose CEO appeared ready to strip the enterprise for parts and abscond with the proceeds.
  - javajosh 7y ago
    "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" sounds like one of those things that you're supposed to do, but which is almost impossible to prove (after all you just have to claim "I thought it was a good idea" and you're covered), and so is basically never enforced. It's the kind of rule that ethical, good CEOs worry about, and the kind of rule successful CEOs don't waste energy on. BTW, I notice that commenters often have wildly different views of what rules mean. To some, they mean something intrinsically, and it's the players duty to understand and abide by them. To others, rules mean nothing unless they are enforced, and even then you have tons of wiggle room (roughly proportional to the money you spend on your defense). (And these days there's a vocal third crowd that says the government shouldn't enforce rules against businesses of a certain size "because it makes us vulnerable".)
rolltiide 7y ago
> A true genius would increase his net worth by building a successful business. Which would mean not having pesky VC's with massive liquidity preferences. Neumann is playing very efficient cards, his problem is trying to simultaneously portray this as something the public market should invest in. Everyone gullible enough to consider WeWork shares on the public markets as validation - aka ALL the employees - should re-evaluate. Let the shares float, but no need for the lead underwriters to hold up syndicate bid, just let it float to its natural share price without the window dressing.

ghobs91 7y ago

"Genius" is a very generous way to describe the slimy crap he does.

ur-whale 7y ago

He's a genius in the same way Ponzi was a genius. I don't find this type of "Genius" particularly commendable.