WeWork delays its IPO amid tepid investor interest | TribLIVE.com

WeWork delays its IPO amid tepid investor interest

Associated Press
Adam Neumann, co-founder and CEO of WeWork, attends the opening bell ceremony at Nasdaq in New York on Jan. 16, 2018.

NEW YORK — WeWork’s parent company put its stock market debut on the backburner Tuesday, struggling to drum up investor enthusiasm for a fast-growing enterprise that spread trendy communal office spaces across the globe while piling up massive losses and drawing concerns about its CEO’s corporate governance practices.

The We Company dropped plans to begin a so-called road show this week to market its shares for an initial public offering that had been widely expected this month. The company said it still expects to launch its IPO by the end of the year, but it was unclear what steps the company might take in the months ahead to dispel concerns that led to the delay.

“The We Company is looking forward to our upcoming IPO, which we expect to be completed by the end of the year,” the company said in a brief statement. “We want to thank all of our employees, members and partners for their ongoing commitment.”

Already, the We Company had announced sweeping corporate governance changes intended to address conflict of interest and commitment concerns surrounding CEO Adam Neumann. And it had been considering pricing its shares in the IPO at a valuation of less than half the estimated $47 billion that private investors have assigned to it.

The delay was striking in a year marked by healthy investor appetite for IPOs. WeWork had filed confidentially for an IPO in December of 2018 and gave investors a detailed look at its finances in a public regulatory filing last month. Last week, it announced plans to list its shares on the Nasdaq.

“It’s a big deal,” said Kathleen Smith, principal at Renaissance Capital, a provider of institutional research and IPO exchange-traded funds. “If the market for IPOs were really bad, then maybe it wouldn’t be, but the IPO market is in fairly good health.”

However, Smith said investors have become more discerning about big companies that are growing quickly but also bleeding losses. The ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft came to the market earlier this year with large losses, for example, and both are still trading well below their IPO prices.

Skepticism about the sustainability of WeWork’s business model has deepened since the company publicly provided its most detailed look to date at its finances. The company’s revenue has more than doubled annually over the last few years, reaching $1.8 billion in 2018. But its losses have mounted almost as quickly, reaching $1.6 billion last year.

WeWork makes money by leasing buildings and dividing them into office spaces to sublet to members, who use an app to book ready-made offices or desks and get access to front-desk service, trendy lounges, conference rooms, free coffee and other services.

Founded as a co-working space in Manhattan in 2010, WeWork now has 527,000 members in 111 cities around the world, nearly double the number of members it had last year.

The brand appeals to small businesses, start-ups and freelancers who can’t afford permanent office space. And a growing part of its customer base includes larger corporations looking for cost-efficient ways to enter new markets.

But critics say WeWork has given little indication of how it can eventually become profitable.

With location operating expenses — mostly rent — amounting to some 80% of revenue, WeWork has been heavily reliant on cash infusions from its private investors, particularly the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank, which valued the company at a $47 billion in a January round of funding.

WeWork has billions of dollars riding on a successful IPO. The company struck a deal last month that would give it access to $6 billion in financing raised by a group of banks as long as it raises at least $3 billion in the IPO.

“They need this IPO otherwise they need to go back to the Softbanks of the world and say we need another infusion or open up another line of credit. Otherwise, they are going to be in trouble,” said Dan Morgan, senior portfolio manager for Synovus Trust.

Also looming over WeWork are concerns about Neumann, who created a stir by using some of his WeWork stock to secure a $500 million personal loan, and selling some of his shares. He has raised conflict of interest concerns because he owns four buildings that WeWork leases. And a backlash prompted Neumann to return $6 million that We Company paid for the trademark “We.”

In an attempt to reassure investors, WeWork said last week it plans to appoint two directors, including a lead independent board member, within the next year and said that no member of Neumann’s family will sit on the board.

The company also said its full board of directors will have the power to remove Neumann as CEO and appoint a successor. Further, it would re-organize its shares in a way that would reduce Neumann’s voting power, though he would still control a majority of its outstanding voting power.

Morgan, of Synovus, said WeWork seems to have few options for improving its image within the next couple of months, though he said the company could give investors more details about its financing.

At look at revenue flowing from some of its older and fully occupied properties might point to a pathway toward profitability, Morgan said. Those details have been missing from WeWork’s regulatory filings.

“The consensus is so negative. Now you are allowing another couple of months. To me, it just festers,” he said.

Categories: Business | Wire stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.