How the Issues Unfolded

WeWork attracted substantial investments, most notably from SoftBank, which saw the company's potential to disrupt the traditional office market. SoftBank's Vision Fund invested over $10 billion into WeWork. This investment allowed WeWork to lease property at never seen before rates in the co-working space sector.

Softbank saw WeWork's value not just as a real estate venture but as a tech-driven, global platform. This meant that the investments were predicated on the belief that it was fundamentally a tech company that had the potential to scale like a tech company and achieve tech-like market dominance. This influx of capital is consistent with the premise that, like all other successful tech startups, early aggressive expansion plays a part in securing a dominant market position eventually leaving to hefty returns. Similar to platforms like Airbnb or Uber, part of WeWork's value proposition was its global network of spaces. The more locations it had, the more valuable its membership became for nomadic entrepreneurs and businesses with global needs, potentially creating a self-reinforcing growth cycle.
‍
WeWork's business model involved leasing large office spaces, renovating them into co-working areas, and then subleasing them to individual members or companies. While this model allowed rapid scaling, it also led to substantial upfront costs and long-term lease obligations. The company faced high operational costs, including rent, renovations, and amenities offered to members, which significantly outstripped its short-term revenue gains from memberships. In the pursuit of rapid expansion, WeWork prioritized growth over profitability. The assumption was that scale would eventually lead to market dominance and, subsequently, profitability.

By quickly increasing its number of locations, WeWork aimed to benefit from economies of scale, where the costs per unit (or per coworking space, in this context) would decrease as the scale of operations grows. This would theoretically improve margins over time.

The Fundamental Flaws:  
‍The fundamental flaw in this approach was the assumption that the growth in memberships and the premium that WeWork could charge for its spaces would indefinitely outpace these costs. Another flawed assumption was that, despite their easy to replicate business, they would continue to be the biggest market player for years to come - giving them sufficient room to break even and turn profitable.
However, as the company expanded, the costs associated with leases and refurbishments grew exponentially, creating a financial burden that the revenue from memberships struggled to cover, especially in markets that were slower to adopt the co-working model or during economic downturns as we saw when the pandemic hit and lockdowns were imposed. This made the financial operations of WeWork unsustainable.
‍
As WeWork pursued aggressive expansion, it increasingly faced challenges from market saturation and competitive pressure. The co-working space, once a niche market, became crowded with competitors, including other co-working startups, traditional commercial real estate companies developing their co-working offerings, and even hotels and cafes offering flexible workspaces. This competition put pressure on WeWork to continually innovate and differentiate its offering, adding to its operational costs without necessarily leading to proportional increases in revenue.
‍

Further Issues: The founder, Adam Neumann

Venture capital and entrepreneurship goes beyond investing in an idea –VCs also invest in people, ambitious and capable founders build successful businesses. This is something Softbank subscribes to, their website included the words "We believe a founder's ambition determines a company's potential."
‍
Then enters Adam Neumann's leadership style – Charismatic and Visionary driving WeWork's ambitious mission to "elevate the world's consciousness" and radically transform the workplace. While his charisma was a critical factor in the company's rapid growth and ability to secure significant investment, it also contributed to a corporate culture that prized growth and vision over financial discipline and operational sustainability. Reports of erratic behavior and excessive spending without clear returns further exacerbated concerns about leadership's impact on the company's direction and financial health.

Central to the governance issues at WeWork were the concerns over its corporate governance structure, which was seen as heavily favoring Neumann. For instance, Neumann possessed a disproportionate amount of voting power, which raised red flags about the company's checks and balances. This concentration of power meant that Neumann could make unilateral decisions without sufficient oversight, a risky proposition for potential investors and a red flag for good corporate governance practices. Reports surfaced that Neumann had engaged in transactions that raised questions about his financial dealings with WeWork, including leasing properties he owned to the company.

Neumann's excessive spending on behalf of WeWork, including lavish parties, expensive leases for headquarters, and a flamboyant lifestyle, further contributed to the image of a company that lacked financial discipline. As WeWork was burning through cash at an alarming rate, such spending raised doubts about its path to profitability and long-term sustainability. This behavior was particularly concerning given the company's business model, which required careful management of expenses to balance against its revenue from flexible office spaces.

2019 Failed IPO Attempt

The IPO documents also exposed various questionable financial practices, including the complex organizational structure and the previously mentioned conflicts of interest involving Neumann. There were also concerns about the sustainability of WeWork's business model, which relied heavily on continuous investment to fund its expansion, rather than generating profit from operations. Perhaps most strikingly, the S-1 filing highlighted Adam Neumann's outsized control over WeWork, including a controversial share structure that granted him disproportionate voting power. This raised alarms about the company's corporate governance and the balance of power within its leadership, contributing to the perception that WeWork was being managed without sufficient checks and balances.

The fallout from the failed IPO attempt culminated in AdamNeumann's ouster from the company. His departure was seen as a necessary step to restore confidence among investors and stakeholders and to potentially salvage the company's future. Neumann's leadership, once a driving force behind WeWork's rise, had become a liability in the eyes of many.The S-1 filing required for the IPO process laid bare the company's financial health, revealing significant and mounting losses. While rapid growth and expansion had been hallmarks of WeWork's strategy, the costs associated with this growth were far outstripping revenues. The scale of these losses raised fundamental questions about the viability of WeWork's business model and its path to profitability.

Private Equity or Venture Capital - The Restructing

Following the failed IPO, SoftBank's intervention resembled a rescue operation more than traditional VC support. This involved a significant financial commitment and a hands-on approach to restructuring the company

Key Changes:
- Leadership changes:
- Financial Stabilization (Increased Funding)

- Divesting Non-Core Businesses

Gaps Through The Value Add Lens

Lack of Strategic Guidance
‍
WeWork's ambitious expansion strategy, characterized by rapid global growth and a transformative vision for the future of work, brings into sharp focus the critical role of strategic oversight from venture capital. The absence of effective strategizing from WeWork's primary VC, SoftBank, is evident in the company's trajectory, which, while initially meteoric, ultimately encountered significant turbulence.

The business model of leasing and subleasing spaces, though innovative, required a nuanced approach to scaling that balanced aggressive growth with financial sustainability. Herein lies the gap: SoftBank's support, while generous in financial terms, fell short in providing the strategic guidance necessary for WeWork to navigate the complexities of its expansion. The VC's role should have extended beyond funding to include rigorous iteration and reassessment of the business model, ensuring that each step of growth was aligned with long-term viability.

The rapid opening of new locations across diverse markets, while impressive, underscored a lack of market prioritization and a failure to adapt to local conditions. This oversight led to operational complexities and financial sustainability concerns that could have been mitigated with more strategic input from SoftBank. The VC's expertise in business and financial acumen should have been leveraged to guide WeWork in developing a more measured and adaptable expansion strategy, one that accounted for market saturation risks and operational challenges. SoftBank's role should have encompassed guiding WeWork towards a self-sustaining revenue model, rather than perpetuating a cycle of investment-dependent growth. The lack of strategic oversight in this regard left WeWork exposed to external economic factors and investor sentiment shifts, as evidenced by the fallout from its failed IPO.

Lack of Operational Involvement
WeWork's trajectory presents a case study in the critical importance of operational involvement by venture capitalists (VCs), particularly in light of the challenges posed by CEO Adam Neumann's conduct and the company's governance structure. The absence of sufficient operational oversight from VCs, such as SoftBank, allowed for a corporate culture that prioritized rapid expansion and the personal extravagance of its CEO over financial prudence and sustainable growth.

The VC's operational involvement fell short in overseeing WeWork's financial management. Neumann's extravagant spending and the company's aggressive leasing strategy required a level of financial oversight that was evidently lacking. The VC could have played a more active role in implementing financial controls, scrutinizing expenditures, and ensuring that investments were aligned with long-term value creation rather than short-term expansion.
‍Neumann's practice of leasing his own properties to WeWork is a glaring example of conflicts of interest that were not adequately addressed by the VC. Effective operational involvement would have entailed establishing robust governance structures to prevent such conflicts and protect the interests of all stakeholders, including investors and employees.

The VC's operational involvement should have extended to active participation in strategic decision-making, particularly in assessing the viability of WeWork's business model and expansion strategy. The lack of critical examination of the company's rapid scaling, market saturation risks, and the sustainability of its financial model suggests a shortfall in strategic oversight.