SoftBank Backers Rethink Role in Next Vision Fund on WeWork (bloomberg.com) 23
The biggest backers of SoftBank's gargantuan Vision Fund are reconsidering how much to commit to its next investment vehicle as an oversized bet on flexible workspace provider WeWork sours. From a report: Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, which contributed $45 billion to the $100 billion Vision Fund, is now only planning to reinvest profits from that vehicle into its successor, according to people familiar with the talks. Abu Dhabi's Mubadala Investment, which invested $15 billion, is considering paring its future commitment to below $10 billion, the people said, asking not to be identified in disclosing internal deliberations.
A partial retreat of the two anchor investors would complicate fundraising for SoftBank Chief Executive Officer Masayoshi Son, who upended venture capital by making huge bets on promising yet unproven companies and spurring others to follow suit. Perhaps more than any other startup, WeWork has come to symbolize that brash style, and the success or failure of its IPO is likely to impact Son's ability to raise cash for future deals.
A partial retreat of the two anchor investors would complicate fundraising for SoftBank Chief Executive Officer Masayoshi Son, who upended venture capital by making huge bets on promising yet unproven companies and spurring others to follow suit. Perhaps more than any other startup, WeWork has come to symbolize that brash style, and the success or failure of its IPO is likely to impact Son's ability to raise cash for future deals.
Maybe the bet was good but WeWork not quite right? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think betting on remote work seems like a really smart idea - I just disagree with the WeWork approach.
That is to say, large buildings in large cities. Why trade one giant office building for another?
Instead, what if you had a company like WeWork that had spear you could use in lots of outlying areas, or very small cities. Suddenly it's maybe much easier to chose to work remote in someplace where living is much cheaper and more pleasant. Now truly remote work becomes an easier option.
Maybe even some international locations so you could realistically and easily combine work and travel.
Some company could really bring some creativity to remote working spaces and have resounding success, maybe it's just not WeWork.
Re: (Score:3)
To say that WeWork is not quite right is something of an understatement. I can't believe investors would give this company a dime, much less billions.
Happen to see this article while looking at the linked articles in this tread: https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Interesting...
Re: (Score:2)
I think betting on remote work seems like a really smart idea - I just disagree with the WeWork approach.
That is to say, large buildings in large cities. Why trade one giant office building for another?
Instead, what if you had a company like WeWork that had spear you could use in lots of outlying areas, or very small cities. Suddenly it's maybe much easier to chose to work remote in someplace where living is much cheaper and more pleasant. Now truly remote work becomes an easier option.
Maybe even some international locations so you could realistically and easily combine work and travel.
Some company could really bring some creativity to remote working spaces and have resounding success, maybe it's just not WeWork.
I agree remote work does sound really nice. It would be most ideal i think if people had a space in their home they could use. If that doesn't work I hear some people work out of Starbucks or similar places. Usually for free or the price of a cup of coffee. Some people will even hold meetings in Starbucks or similar places. But coffee shops are the highbrow "cost of cup of coffee" places, the poor people meet at / work out of, the public library.
But this WeWork thing is really innovative. They allow f
Re:Maybe the bet was good but WeWork not quite rig (Score:4, Informative)
It would be most ideal i think if people had a space in their home they could use.
I think that is kind of good, but lots of people seem to like working around others, or home is too distracting.
If that doesn't work I hear some people work out of Starbucks or similar places.
I've tried working out of places like that, and I think it's really bad conditions. The furniture is not meant at all for working, plugs can be difficult to locate, and of course you are taking up space the place might be able to use for more customers if it's really crowded. Not to mention usually the WiFi is horrific.
Co-Working spaces are really nice because you generally have good access to power, some things like water to drink and maybe other snacks, some people but not too close, and desks/chairs meant for working - plus rooms you can make a call in or have a meeting.
A space like that in a small city could make a huge difference for many people finding it practical to work from remotely. Especially so if it had a strong reliable internet connection.
In fact, if I were composing the list of places to put working center I would find out the small towns with the worst broadband access and put co-working spaces there. Maybe this idea is even predicated on the rise of the satellite internet networks being built.
Re: (Score:2)
"Co-Working spaces are really nice because you generally have good access to power, some things like water to drink and maybe other snacks, some people but not too close, and desks/chairs meant for working - plus rooms you can make a call in or have a meeting."
We used to call these places "office buildings". You could even rent them short-term and long-term. Crazy, I know.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you 100%; coworking facilities in suburban peripheries make a lot of sense. They can make a huge impact on traffic, increase employers’ access to talent, and allow a bedroom community to develop some anchor commercial activity for long term stability.
The business challenges I see are the fact that if you live in the suburban periphery you are more likely to have sufficient space in your home that you could use that instead, especially when times get tight, and the minimum size of facilit
Lets consider places like Rumford, Maine! (Score:4, Informative)
Rumford's real estate is very cheap. It is surviving on one remaining paper mill.
it also has a quality of life that in my humble opinion (IMHO) is superior to that of San Francisco. I am will to bet there is **MUCH** less public urination in Rumford per capita than in San Francisco.
Mark Allyn
Bellingham, Washington - another place with less public urination per capita than San Francisco
Great example (Score:2)
Lets put remote work places in cities such as Rumford, Maine.
That's a really great example.
One reason why it's so good I think, is that traditionally people have been reluctant to move to more Northern cities because the winters are more extreme.
But if you are working at home, or very close to a remote work center an extreme winter is no longer that much of a problem anymore - as long as power and internet is stable, it can make for an excellent place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to live in rural Maine. Your definition of "quality of life" is just a typical suburbanite. Some people want different things out of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, there's no requirement that ALL people agree with you about what makes a nice place to live.
It's just barely possible that the kind of people who like rural Maine could work there, while the people who prefer New York City worked in New York City....
Re: Lets consider places like Rumford, Maine! (Score:3)
Cheap housing means you should be able to afford the extra bedroom or even build out an attached office space to work from home. Why would you pay rent for some office space elsewhere if it's only for you, and you can just work at home? If there are more people working in the same location from the same team and the employer is paying for rent, it's called a sattelite office and those already exist today.
It's really simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's really simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only bet on companies with a clear, well-defined path to profitability. If their solution is "well figure out how to make profit once we get big" - they won't. You end up with Uber, Lyft, and WeWork, scrambling around trying to figure out how to make a profit after they go public - and their stock prices tank...
It also helps to make sure the founder of the company you are investing is isn't paying himself millions from the company coffers to license a trademark or renting space in buildings he owns.
Re: (Score:2)
Only bet on companies with a clear, well-defined path to profitability.
That investment philosophy would have missed Google and Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm - Google's original plan was to monetize searches like Yahoo and Lycos were doing at the time. Google exploded in use, and their profitability was ensured. In fact, Google was making profit before it even IPO'd [techcrunch.com]
Likewise Facebook, which planned to sell ads from day one, and use user-driven content to grow itself (thereby keeping it's own costs minimized as it focused strictly on infrastructure). It wouldn't take many Facebook was profitable before IPO [theatlantic.com] as well.
Both had a defined revenue and profitab
Pets.com (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'll buy your shares, but only if I can pay in Flooz.
Re: (Score:1)
Concept ok but not the investment setup (Score:2)
So many better alternatives to WeWork (Score:2)
Alternatives that are profitable, three times the size of WeWork and have a realistic valuation.
And still WeWork finds people like Son to eagerly throw (other people's) money at their scam.
WeLooseAlotOfMoney.
Story about Billy joe and Bobby Sue (Score:2)