Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

WeWork Files For Bankruptcy (techcrunch.com) 32

Flexible office-space firm WeWork has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, listing over $18.6 billion of debts in a remarkable collapse for the once high-flying startup co-founded by Adam Neumann and bankrolled by SoftBank, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs. From a report: The New York-based firm, which raised over $22 billion and was valued at $47 billion at its peak, has listed assets of over $15 billion in the petition it filed in a New Jersey federal court.

WeWork chief executive David Tolley said about 90% of the company's lenders have agreed to convert their $3 billion of debt into equity. WeWork's bankruptcy filing is limited to locations in the U.S. and Canada, it said. WeWork India has emerged as one of the strongest units in the WeWork franchise, and is largely insulated from the bankruptcy as majority of it is owned by Embassy Group. The India unit makes money and doesn't need external capital to operate, the India head said in a statement today.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WeWork Files For Bankruptcy

Comments Filter:
  • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @09:06AM (#63987034) Journal

    They "reinvented" subletting by giving it a thin veneer of tech and calling it tech. Trouble it is was still subletting.

    Fundamentally, though, it's subletting. Maaaaybe there was room post covid as working in fixed offices seemed less common but they kind of flubbed on that presumably because its promises were modest not pie in the sky astronomical growth claims.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Wait, I thought this was a hipster technology company?!? He was going to be the Steve Jobs of office space and the first trillionaire.
    • by drhamad ( 868567 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @09:35AM (#63987092)
      They didn't really reinvent anything, not even that thin veneer. I mean, Regus and others have been doing it for longer. All they did was create a brand out of their style.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Regus just has little office suites while We Work has giant open areas in the best buildings with fully stocked snack rooms. Basically Regus is like working at a traditional 1980s office and We Work is like working at a high-flying tech company's HQ. The basic business model is sound as long as demand remains steady, problem is it's not, they are making long-term leases and improvements using borrowed money and renting out on a short-term basis. Hotels are in the same business (build long term rent short te
        • by DarkVader ( 121278 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @11:06AM (#63987272)

          The basic business model isn't sound because the open plan office is a stupid idea.

          Even before a communicable disease showed everybody just how stupid it was, work from home was taking off because it's impossible to get any kind of office work done with any efficiency in a giant noisy room.

          • Once you have a spot in your home set up well for work, these off-site places are a lot less attractive.

      • They didn't really reinvent anything

        Quite. That's why I said the "reinvented" it, rather than saying they reinvented it.

        not even that thin veneer.

        The veneer was thick enough to get tech levels of growth prediction and VC money. It's like subletting, but on the INTERNET! Quick someone patent that!

    • I'm guessing it was offloaded to public pensions in corrupt states, typically down south (though NYC's Mayor has been dodgy as hell for a while now).

      A common pattern is to take something like this, hype it up, do an IPO, sell to a bunch of pension plans and 401ks owned by small guys, the 1%ers make out like bandits and we all get screwed.

      The Stock Market is the pillar of our economy and it's rigged. Nobody talks about that. Hell, the only thing I see anyone doing is bitching about a little insider t
      • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        I am glad you recognize that

        1) government employees to many people.
        2) that government should be trusted to run pension plans because it necessarily politicizes what should be either an individual or fiduciary responsibility driven decisions.

        There might be hope for you yet rsilvergun!

        • I trust Government to run pensions way, *way* more than I trust private corporations. I'm literally saying that we shouldn't use stock market gambling to fund pensions. The exact opposite of what you're hinting at...

          I can't vote out the board of directors at a corporation. If I'm very, very rich I can buy into it.

          But I _can_ vote out the corrupt politicians. Literally all you have to do is show up to your primary election. Barely anyone does, so you've got 20-50 times more voting power there. Look a
        • government employees to many people.

          *Too* And yes, the government does employ too many contractors at rates which can be ten times what an employee gets yet do nothing more. Get rid of those contractors and hire permanent people in their place and watch the state budgets shrink.

          that government should be trusted to run pension plans because it necessarily politicizes what should be either an individual or fiduciary responsibility driven decisions.

          As a rule, government run pensions are not r
      • by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

        I would say why are pensions even allowed to gamble on the stock market but realistically, where else would the interest come from if not stocks?

        If they go invest in real estate, that creates a completely different set of problems unfortunately...

    • by RonVNX ( 55322 )

      Remember this whenever people say how smart Masayoshi Son is. He is just more proof that being rich and being smart have very little to do with each other. Also note the money crowd is throwing money at Adam Neumann still, like the dumber than a bag of rocks, Marc Andreessen.

  • No Problem! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by coofercat ( 719737 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @09:32AM (#63987084) Homepage Journal

    They can sell off their staircases! https://www.wework.com/en-GB/i... [wework.com]

    Lets be honest... wework was largely a bit of a scam (to investors). To you and I they didn't really do us any harm, if you paid them for their service, you got it. Maybe a bit pretentious, but you got it. If you were an investor though... well, you got screwed. Caveat emptor on that one - selling a bit of physical space is all well and good, but it doesn't warrant the sky-high valuations. Also, you've got to wonder if it's all above board when the CEO owns the physical buildings and Wework leases them off him, then sublets them down to ordinary people. Surely one link too many in that chain to be completely solid, no? Then there was that whole thing about trying to trademark/protect "we" - a pretty strong signal they're not working terribly hard on their (supposed) core competence.

    • by haruchai ( 17472 )

      "wework was largely a bit of a scam (to investors)"

      "SoftBank, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs"
      How do *these* fuckers stay in business with all the bad investments they've made, especially SoftBank & Goldman Sachs?

      • Simple. They invest in them when their valuations are going up and they recommend their clients invest in them when their valuations are going down. These investment firms have no legal fiduciary responsibility to their clients, so they can recommend bad stocks to them day in, day out and not get in trouble. So, they increase their portfolio values at their clients' expense.

      • They require a secured investment with guaranteed interest while normal stocks to you and me are unsecured, guess which one has priority at bankruptcy?
    • you've got to wonder if it's all above board when the CEO owns the physical buildings and Wework leases them off him

      For real? The only reason this idea should have gotten investment is if the company was actually investing in real estate where there would be equity and assets when the whole thing comes crashing down.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      pretty much - I am not sure why this remains such a news story, here or in the financial press.

      Its a perfectly reasonable business plan - but the execution was piss poor (unsurprising money was cheap so they focused on all the wrong aspects) and then covid timing ensured that even after some adults entered the room, there was not fixing it.

      There is a lot unpack and maybe learn from it but only if you in a 400-level Treasury Management, 101-level Business Ethics, or maybe a 200-level entrepreneurship course.

  • Apropos of nothing, there's a lot of office space going unused. All kinds. Everywhere that I see in America anyway. From little storefronts to large buildings. Now, I bet, that with some talking (not filling out an online form, or clicking or swiping, you have to lift more than just a finger.) one might secure a fine little deal.

    That is, should one want to, for one reason or another, have an office that is not at home. Or have a hobby place even. A garage/workspace/workshop/showroom for physical cre

    • by HBI ( 10338492 )

      The point you are making essentially is why WeWork is going Chapter 11. Who needs a lubricant for subletting office space when there's a glut of it?

    • You won't get a deal.

      Most of those empty spaces are owned by real estate investors. The 'value' of the space is based on them being able to charge exorbitant rents. It's more valuable for the space to sit empty, thus maintaining the theoretical 'value' on the books based on the high rent than it is to rent it at a lower rate. They care much more about potential capital gains and using the real estate as book value to get loans than they do about generating actual income from the property.

      The only way tha

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      The crazy part is that even spaces that haven't been occupied for a decade are not seeing even a slight reduction in the rent demanded. Not even after rats and junkies move in. That's why there are ex-malls with wildlife inside. In one case I have seen pictures of, actual tumbleweeds.

  • by paul_engr ( 6280294 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @10:53AM (#63987244)
    Why did it take so long?
  • American Greed (Score:4, Informative)

    by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @11:01AM (#63987260) Journal

    They were the subject of an American Greed episode. The snake oil salesman/founder, Adam Neumann, made out like a bandit. He peddled it as some bullshit "technology" that was world changing when it was just subletting.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1... [imdb.com]

  • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2023 @11:21AM (#63987330) Journal

    The real question is, what took so long?

    As I understand it, it was an unsustainable venture from the start and the more level-headed potential investors shied away from it for that very reason.

    So what took so long for it to finally tip over? Lack of new suckers with cash, or incoming legal repercussions? (I mean, do you think no one is going to file suit over this slo-mo debacle?)

  • In wake of the filing, NASDAQ has assigned them a new stock ticker symbol.

    They are now known as "WEBROKE"

    hawk

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Working...