I do not understand why Adam Neumann got that massive exit settlement from We Work?
> WeWork founder Adam Neumann received $245m in company stock [....] In addition to the $245m grant, Neumann received $200m in cash, was able to refinance $432m in debt on favorable terms, and allowed a finance company controlled by the former chief executive to sell $578m in WeWork stock. [1]
That guy got incredibly rich creating a company that was clearly not viable and seems likely to bankrupt. Corporate government seems to be non-existent here.
Who are the people that are left holding the bag? Hopefully it is mostly just private money like the Saudis + SoftBank (if they screw up, they suffer the consequences, that is great) and not public pension funds. Otherwise, the public fund managers should go after this complete lack of governance and oversight.
>That guy got incredibly rich creating a company that was clearly not viable and seems likely to bankrupt.
WeWork is an extreme case, but this kind of thing happens with tech companies all the time.
Why do you think people in Silicon Valley equate an "exit" with success? Because at that point the insiders are paid out. What else matters?
Look at companies like Uber, Coinbase or Snap. Even Tesla. Insiders have accumulated billions in compensation that dwarves the value generated by the companies themselves (as measured by earnings).
"Neumann’s ability to negotiate such rich terms was helped by the fact that his shareholdings controlled 10 times the votes of a normal shareholder, and he was able to argue for a higher price to cede control."
Correctly or, more likely, not - it seems the payoff was made in early 2021 at a time when valuations were soaring and there was a renewed push for an IPO. Neumann could have blocked that.
If I'm parsing a quick read of the data correctly, they backdoored an IPO in October 2021 at an $8bn valuation - and shares jumped 13% (so + $1Bn). A snapshot at that time could be used to argue they paid Neumann $x00 million to realise a multi-Billion dollar valuation and $1Bn+ growth in market cap.
Could they have forecast the rapid decline thereafter? Maybe some of those investors didn't care, as long as they got some return? If Neumann had dragged the battle out for another year, into 2022 when the markets went South, it probably would have cost WeWork a lot more on paper than whatever they paid him.
Still more amazing to me is that he got a16z to invest 350 million into his new real estate debacle just after all this. This dude must really be a master hypnotist or something.
He built an enormous global business and brand, and the investors wanted to buy his shares and push him out in a transparent negotiated commercial transaction.
He deserved every penny of it as far as I can see.
What’s the alternative? That his stock and voting rights went to SoftBank for free?
In my opinion the writing for a way out of this mess has been on the wall for a long time now, post-Covid. This is with the only viable, but still heavily under-utilized product they have left: hot-desking and community workspaces.
Having rented multiple dedicated offices from WeWork I can attest that the corridors are become more and more like a post-apocalyptic landscape as the tenants — no longer taking advantage of introductory rents — move out one after the other. Go to the hot-desking spaces floors and you’ll find it bustling and sometimes not even possible to get a seat somewhere.
Why they haven’t aggressively cut underperforming locations and consolidated more hot-desking space into the better buildings is beyond me. Especially in the current work environment where arrangements with companies are flexible and the line between home and work becomes ever blurred. It seems like the perfect base to start on to build a new offering for companies that can provide employees with hot-desks on a flexible basis.
Their dedicated office space is just absurdly expensive. I'd pay $2000/month for a 10sqm office when I can get a 20sqm office from the market for $1000/month. Of course the locations are not equivalent, but it's just not really relevant for those of us working remote anyway.
> Go to the hot-desking spaces floors and you’ll find it bustling and sometimes not even possible to get a seat somewhere.
Weirdly I'm writing from a WeWork floor in central London that has about 3 people in a room sized for about 30. I've never seen it even half full, though I don't drop by very often.
Even the common areas have enough space to go sit in and have a meeting on demand.
Interesting. If companies are fleeing WeWork, it might explain a phenomenon that I've noticed over the past couple months: every cafe in my area has increasingly become a loud crowded hellscape of video chats, in-person meetings, phone calls, and groups working together for hours.
This is especially apparent on Tue/Wed/Thu, when previously cafes were recently less busy, due to these days commonly being in-office days for hybrid workers.
Should have happened in 2021 but our "brightest VC minds" thought it would be a good idea to burn even more "free" money on this pit.
To be fair, WeWork is just another roll of the dice company from the Uber era of free money. Let's pump it up and become too-big-to-fail! It appears WeWork wasn't big enough..
And they can blame COVID all they want, but the business model was already showing sights of failure before 2020. Yes, COVID accelerated this but it was not the cause.
We need to be more detailed about this as it highlights a demographics problem underlying it....
1. Free Money was the tail end of boomers investments pools
2. There will be a 12-year gap until the next investments pools increase from the new
workers entering the working market.
3. Next investments pool increase from the new worker cohorts group will
be smaller than the boomers.
All this indicates that the strategy of throw money at getting monopoly of
market is sun setting and VCs will now have to have the slow growth strategy
in their toolbox.
That also means potential founders now need to have that in their toolbox, things to look for:
1. Founders getting creative and partnering up with older experienced
people in the domain they are creating their product in.
What is crazy is that he was able to raise 350 millions from a16z for what is basically a simple property management company. After all the sh*t he did. And then you go to a16z with an idea, and they reject it because it is not innovative enough. Then VCs wonder why 80% of their investments fail to produce the expected money on average.
I had several WeWork employees in my friend groups in SF
they were gullible as hell and were educated people that couldn't understand a single word of Wall Street Journal and the investment banking community's dunking and pile-ons about WeWork
they couldn't understand the tech community's dunking and pile-ons about WeWork
everyone was saying "why are investors buying shares of this company at prices as if its a tech company"
employees were like "my first tech company omg guys I love shares and family"
just collect a paycheck, its fine, but the hopium was flat out dumb. its one thing to be at a startup that never tells you its valuation or gives you a clear answer about the strike price of your options in a way for you to model an outcome, its another thing for the financials to be presented clear as day and put blinders on.
Company I work at went from a trashy long and cramped room in a WeWork where the toilets were always breaking and the elevator buttons didn't line up with the floor numbering because it was two buildings stuck together to a two floor small warehouse style building, same area for less than WeWork cost.
Even without the push from some to WFH WeWork was a terrible product in the 3 WeWorks I've had to work in.
> The spectacular collapse of a company once valued by SoftBank at $40 billion has been years in the making, but is still surprising given the number of large commercial buildings around the world that don the company’s name.
Is it actually surprising? If you too many assets that you bought with variable interest rate debt, then going bankrupt in a higher-interest-rate environment is exactly what I would expect.
Did they actually buy buildings? I thought they just took long term leases from owners and sold short term to their customers? I once read an article saying that for all the tech bs, weworks was basically just a (at the well timed) commercial rent play: fix low rent and then charge rising rents as the market goes up.
I might be wrong though?
I remember thinking it was like a bank (exposed to time risk) but with property...
Several years ago while hustling as a single founder, I hoped to get a desk in a private office (anything but open-space), so I would have a place to come to to focus on work, socialize and feel at work.. So I went to see what WeWork have to offer.
There I saw a nice floor with nice looking private offices, finally taken to what they thought might be relevant for me, they showed me a tiny space where half a diner table is hung on the wall and over a diner sofa with the second wall behind the sofa, (now-days these types of rooms are used for private 1 on 1 meetings and zoom calls..) for the price of what I would pay a private office of say 2/3 people (pre-WeWork shared office spaces).
Just the audacity of the person showing me this for this price struck me how greedy and disconnected WeWork are, got me so insulted I would never check them out again.
This is what you get when you get an MBA type business management constantly looking for ways to up the contract prices like its a B2B SaaS business (not that I'm saying this makes more sense there..)
>This is what you get when you get an MBA type business management constantly
I love how HN blames MBAs for everything.
This was greedy "tech people", nothing more nothing less. Maybe if a few of the characters in this saga had MBAs they would have been able to better judge the value of the business, as opposed to gut and vibes. After all, it was the MBAs who pulled the IPO, while the tech crew continued to push this garbage on the public.
I'm somewhat surprised by this. I'm currently working out of a WeWork and not only was it hard to get an office there, but they are constantly expanding the location I'm in and just opened the fourth location in a 1.5km radius. Cost is also rather high for a very small office (supposed to be for 4 persons, but if with 3 people it feels very crowded). The business of renting office space en masse and renting it out in smaller, much more expensive parts seems rather lucrative to me.
Let's say I start a lemonade stand. I sell lemonade for a pretty big markup... say €3 a cup. I add lots of ice to it as well, this is not a good deal for lemonade for the customer... but people seem REALLY thirsty and I am getting a good flow of customers. A local businessman approaches me and says he will lend me money to expand operations. He offers me €5 million. I take his money and I use €1 million to expand operations, I use €3 million to invest in the rights to every street corner in town, and I pocket €1 million. Then the value of the contracts for every street corner in town plummets. Suddenly these street corner contracts are worth €700,000 and I paid €3 million.
Now my business is worth €1.7 million. €3.3 million disappeared and I owe that businessman + interest.
If I sell lemonade for €3 a cup, but I'm only getting 50 customers a day with my expanded operations it will take me 60 YEARS just to pay down the principle.
Even if my product is expensive. Even if it seems like, for a lemonade stand, I'm doing well. Debt, the value of my assets, and mismanagement or corruption can vastly outweigh these factors.
I got 3 month for free with WeWork just before covid (hotdesking only). I went there 2-3 times and found it to be a significantly worse working environment than even a starbucks. The chairs were extremely uncomfortable, the acoustics of the room made it noisy. Really didn't see the point and can't imagine how they can get people to use them.
It might be different in other locations but at least the two locations I've visited in Hong Kong were really not great.
Same. Got a subscription from work. Never really used it. The few times I tried them in HK they were horrible. Only the New Street building was nice enough but for some reason they were allegedly always 'full' (they clearly weren't) and wouldn't let me in. Enough nice cafes in the area that are more comfy and have friendlier personal.
It makes sense to divide late-stage, large-cheque VC from classic early-stage, small-cheque VC in the same way we separate money-losing, unlevered PE from classic cash-flow positive, leveraged PE. (Hint: the latter are the same.)
The similarities are startling, it's all a consequence of reducing power to a small set of people who progressively lose touch with what the market actually needs.
It doesn't matter if its "public" or "private" it's the concentration that causes the negative effects.
Made more annoying by how difficult it is to explain that simple concept to the pseudo libertarian crowd that tends to congregate here.
It doesn't matter what happens to WeWork. Adam Neumann and the other VCs already exit scammed out of it with their millions and additionally dumped on retail.
They successfully got away with it, despite knowing that the business has hundreds of millions of dollars of losses pre-IPO, which was over $900M+ [0]; the biggest of all red flags as I said 4 years ago. [1]
This company could only exist in a cheap money era with decades long quantitate easing. Now just look at the ship sinking faster as the interest rates are now much higher with no cheap money this time.
WeWork is the gold standard of unprofitable companies who are good at losing money whilst pretending to be a 'tech company' or 'tech startup' and was just used as a vehicle for an IPO at an extremely inflated valuation before the bubble burst.
The era of cheap money is frequently invoked to explain this grand fiasco but macroeconomic variables have the same relation with any specific project that climate change has with an unusual heat wave.
Due diligence, focus on good governance etc are more directly influential in weeding out dodgy propositions and these behavioral aspects need not be closely correlated with any risk-free momey rate.
I go to one about once a week to get out of the house (paying the ad-hoc rate), and they make it impossible to get a membership or even talk about how much a single person office would be (guessing out of my price range, but I actually have money to spend on it so I'd like to talk). Maybe if you could give them money they wouldn't be in trouble.
My company has an office in a London WeWork. They are drastically attempting to control costs, e.g. things like the air con "not working", more like they don't want to turn it on because it's expensive.
I expect that they will renegotiate the lease on this building to more favourable terms. It's either that or the building goes empty.
This company is an anomaly in the capital markets. Investors should do their due diligence or they’ll get taken in by an idiot or charlatan and lose their shirt.
Just look at their financials: $3.7b in the hole and continual losses pulling them ever further into the red. Even operating cashflow is negative. [0]
They also carry long overvalued leases on their books at a time commercial real estate is in the dumps still.
Some of my friends have been climbing hard into Commercial REITS now for a few years, hoping for that big upswing in office work to boost them.
It's not like temp office space companies didn't exist no one knew the risks. They'd been around for years and the pitfalls were well known. But this is what happens when you have lots of cheap money, low returns and massive fomo. Will they learn from this? Of course not, the AI bubble is currently being pumped up and I'm sure there's going to be a few more wonder industries to lose a fortune in just round the corner.
I secretly root for Adam Neumann or any other entrepreneur that hustled their way into hundreds of millions and left VCs holding the bag in the free money era circa 2020...VCs were the ones doing the pump and dump for too long, and someone needed to give them a taste of their medicine.
I'll never admire Neumann because he squandered over $18bn(!), but there's a bit of poetic justice in how he took SoftBank for a ride..
Working space. You can rent a single desk or multiple, and they charge you money every month. Bog standard stuff, has been done a million times all over the world.
The problem for WeWork is that they chose to grow incredibly fast, positioned themselves a a very high-end premium type of service, and funded it all with lots of debt and VC (mostly SoftBank) investments, despite nearly every financial professional warning them that they were over-exposed and any small disruption to their earnings would cause huge troubles for the company.
Then COVID happened, interest rates started rising and the demand for expensive rented offices dried up. Now they have a ton of bills and not enough paying customers to cover them all.
Funny you mention paying more, but they actually cut prices for many members recently.
In the past 6 months, WeWork split their buildings into 2 tiers. The All-Access pass at one tier is $149 and the other is $299. $299 also gets you access to both tiers of buildings.
I only go to the locations here in Portland and went from paying $299 a month to $149. They didn’t advertise this change to me, I had to find out from a friend who just signed up. I emailed the salesperson and asked why I wouldn’t make the change given my situation. He just replied defeatedly, “I’ll start the paperwork.”
I have had 4 or 5 attempts with them at upgrading offices. For instance, from the ad-hoc membership to on-demand, then from on-demand to a small office. Their sales staff just don’t seem interested. It’s been a “please take my money” situation for much of the last 3 years.
My company recently moved from a wework equivalent to a much cheaper serviced office. A few less of the flashy features and perhaps a slightly less prestigious address (5 minutes down the road) for a third of the price.
You mean SPACs that actually acquired a company? SPACs where the initial SPAC investors (pre-acquisition) made money? Those that have a solid company behind them, regardless of if investors made/lost money on the price movement since it announced? People who bought SPAC shares post-acquisition where the price went up?
(For pre/post acquisition investors, I assume you mean retail investors).
bhouston|2 years ago
> WeWork founder Adam Neumann received $245m in company stock [....] In addition to the $245m grant, Neumann received $200m in cash, was able to refinance $432m in debt on favorable terms, and allowed a finance company controlled by the former chief executive to sell $578m in WeWork stock. [1]
That guy got incredibly rich creating a company that was clearly not viable and seems likely to bankrupt. Corporate government seems to be non-existent here.
Who are the people that are left holding the bag? Hopefully it is mostly just private money like the Saudis + SoftBank (if they screw up, they suffer the consequences, that is great) and not public pension funds. Otherwise, the public fund managers should go after this complete lack of governance and oversight.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/27/wework-foun...
itsoktocry|2 years ago
WeWork is an extreme case, but this kind of thing happens with tech companies all the time.
Why do you think people in Silicon Valley equate an "exit" with success? Because at that point the insiders are paid out. What else matters?
Look at companies like Uber, Coinbase or Snap. Even Tesla. Insiders have accumulated billions in compensation that dwarves the value generated by the companies themselves (as measured by earnings).
JacobAldridge|2 years ago
Correctly or, more likely, not - it seems the payoff was made in early 2021 at a time when valuations were soaring and there was a renewed push for an IPO. Neumann could have blocked that.
If I'm parsing a quick read of the data correctly, they backdoored an IPO in October 2021 at an $8bn valuation - and shares jumped 13% (so + $1Bn). A snapshot at that time could be used to argue they paid Neumann $x00 million to realise a multi-Billion dollar valuation and $1Bn+ growth in market cap.
Could they have forecast the rapid decline thereafter? Maybe some of those investors didn't care, as long as they got some return? If Neumann had dragged the battle out for another year, into 2022 when the markets went South, it probably would have cost WeWork a lot more on paper than whatever they paid him.
hn_throwaway_99|2 years ago
lotsofpulp|2 years ago
The public fund managers would be the ones guilty of not doing their due diligence.
anagri|2 years ago
RGamma|2 years ago
benjaminwootton|2 years ago
He deserved every penny of it as far as I can see.
What’s the alternative? That his stock and voting rights went to SoftBank for free?
sarreph|2 years ago
Having rented multiple dedicated offices from WeWork I can attest that the corridors are become more and more like a post-apocalyptic landscape as the tenants — no longer taking advantage of introductory rents — move out one after the other. Go to the hot-desking spaces floors and you’ll find it bustling and sometimes not even possible to get a seat somewhere.
Why they haven’t aggressively cut underperforming locations and consolidated more hot-desking space into the better buildings is beyond me. Especially in the current work environment where arrangements with companies are flexible and the line between home and work becomes ever blurred. It seems like the perfect base to start on to build a new offering for companies that can provide employees with hot-desks on a flexible basis.
mirekrusin|2 years ago
Aeolun|2 years ago
lordnacho|2 years ago
Weirdly I'm writing from a WeWork floor in central London that has about 3 people in a room sized for about 30. I've never seen it even half full, though I don't drop by very often.
Even the common areas have enough space to go sit in and have a meeting on demand.
The conference rooms are pretty busy however.
evanelias|2 years ago
This is especially apparent on Tue/Wed/Thu, when previously cafes were recently less busy, due to these days commonly being in-office days for hybrid workers.
PedroBatista|2 years ago
To be fair, WeWork is just another roll of the dice company from the Uber era of free money. Let's pump it up and become too-big-to-fail! It appears WeWork wasn't big enough..
And they can blame COVID all they want, but the business model was already showing sights of failure before 2020. Yes, COVID accelerated this but it was not the cause.
fredgrott|2 years ago
1. Free Money was the tail end of boomers investments pools 2. There will be a 12-year gap until the next investments pools increase from the new workers entering the working market. 3. Next investments pool increase from the new worker cohorts group will be smaller than the boomers.
All this indicates that the strategy of throw money at getting monopoly of market is sun setting and VCs will now have to have the slow growth strategy in their toolbox.
That also means potential founders now need to have that in their toolbox, things to look for:
1. Founders getting creative and partnering up with older experienced people in the domain they are creating their product in.
throwoutway|2 years ago
The financial numbers are pretty sad too.
- Market cap below $500 million.
- Lost $700 million in 6 months this year
- Lost $2.3 billion in 2022
- Roughly 3 billion in debt
- Total liquidity of only $680 million (only 1/3 is cash).
kwanbix|2 years ago
https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/16/how-a16zs-investment-into-...
ramraj07|2 years ago
1. https://fortune.com/2023/07/11/adam-neumann-new-company-flow...
resolutebat|2 years ago
- Adam Neumann's exit package $445 million
yieldcrv|2 years ago
they were gullible as hell and were educated people that couldn't understand a single word of Wall Street Journal and the investment banking community's dunking and pile-ons about WeWork
they couldn't understand the tech community's dunking and pile-ons about WeWork
everyone was saying "why are investors buying shares of this company at prices as if its a tech company"
employees were like "my first tech company omg guys I love shares and family"
just collect a paycheck, its fine, but the hopium was flat out dumb. its one thing to be at a startup that never tells you its valuation or gives you a clear answer about the strike price of your options in a way for you to model an outcome, its another thing for the financials to be presented clear as day and put blinders on.
miohtama|2 years ago
whywhywhywhy|2 years ago
Even without the push from some to WFH WeWork was a terrible product in the 3 WeWorks I've had to work in.
voxadam|2 years ago
WJW|2 years ago
Is it actually surprising? If you too many assets that you bought with variable interest rate debt, then going bankrupt in a higher-interest-rate environment is exactly what I would expect.
LatteLazy|2 years ago
I might be wrong though?
I remember thinking it was like a bank (exposed to time risk) but with property...
leroman|2 years ago
itsoktocry|2 years ago
I love how HN blames MBAs for everything.
This was greedy "tech people", nothing more nothing less. Maybe if a few of the characters in this saga had MBAs they would have been able to better judge the value of the business, as opposed to gut and vibes. After all, it was the MBAs who pulled the IPO, while the tech crew continued to push this garbage on the public.
JumpCrisscross|2 years ago
Apparently not greedy nor MBA enough!
Eddygandr|2 years ago
93po|2 years ago
cgeier|2 years ago
I'm in Hamburg, Germany for reference.
weard_beard|2 years ago
Now my business is worth €1.7 million. €3.3 million disappeared and I owe that businessman + interest.
If I sell lemonade for €3 a cup, but I'm only getting 50 customers a day with my expanded operations it will take me 60 YEARS just to pay down the principle.
Even if my product is expensive. Even if it seems like, for a lemonade stand, I'm doing well. Debt, the value of my assets, and mismanagement or corruption can vastly outweigh these factors.
mertbio|2 years ago
sersi|2 years ago
It might be different in other locations but at least the two locations I've visited in Hong Kong were really not great.
ulfw|2 years ago
rchaud|2 years ago
1) Dump enormous amounts of zero-interest capital into {{ sector }}
2) Entrust leadership to charismatic politicians rather than domain experts (Adam Neumann)
3) Craft a PR narrative emphasizing innovation and diminishing critics (Softbank "Vision Fund", "swinging for the fences", "transformational" )
4) Construct Potemkin villages to show the world that all is well (going public)
5) ...followed by eventual rapid decline and collapse
WeWork is the most egregious example, but the same fate awaits the likes of UberEats and Lime and what have you.
JumpCrisscross|2 years ago
shrubble|2 years ago
thisgoesnowhere|2 years ago
It doesn't matter if its "public" or "private" it's the concentration that causes the negative effects.
Made more annoying by how difficult it is to explain that simple concept to the pseudo libertarian crowd that tends to congregate here.
rvz|2 years ago
They successfully got away with it, despite knowing that the business has hundreds of millions of dollars of losses pre-IPO, which was over $900M+ [0]; the biggest of all red flags as I said 4 years ago. [1]
This company could only exist in a cheap money era with decades long quantitate easing. Now just look at the ship sinking faster as the interest rates are now much higher with no cheap money this time.
WeWork is the gold standard of unprofitable companies who are good at losing money whilst pretending to be a 'tech company' or 'tech startup' and was just used as a vehicle for an IPO at an extremely inflated valuation before the bubble burst.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/14/wework-releases-s-1-filing-f...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21213365
JumpCrisscross|2 years ago
Given the outright fraud prevalent in today’s tech landscape, it’s difficult to call WeWork a scam. Stupid, yes. But fraud; for that we lack evidence.
nologic01|2 years ago
Due diligence, focus on good governance etc are more directly influential in weeding out dodgy propositions and these behavioral aspects need not be closely correlated with any risk-free momey rate.
NoGravitas|2 years ago
easton|2 years ago
walthamstow|2 years ago
I expect that they will renegotiate the lease on this building to more favourable terms. It's either that or the building goes empty.
marcopicentini|2 years ago
FredPret|2 years ago
Just look at their financials: $3.7b in the hole and continual losses pulling them ever further into the red. Even operating cashflow is negative. [0]
[0] valustox.com/WE
goeiedaggoeie|2 years ago
drumhead|2 years ago
boeingUH60|2 years ago
I'll never admire Neumann because he squandered over $18bn(!), but there's a bit of poetic justice in how he took SoftBank for a ride..
dschuetz|2 years ago
WJW|2 years ago
The problem for WeWork is that they chose to grow incredibly fast, positioned themselves a a very high-end premium type of service, and funded it all with lots of debt and VC (mostly SoftBank) investments, despite nearly every financial professional warning them that they were over-exposed and any small disruption to their earnings would cause huge troubles for the company.
Then COVID happened, interest rates started rising and the demand for expensive rented offices dried up. Now they have a ton of bills and not enough paying customers to cover them all.
abi|2 years ago
paulcole|2 years ago
In the past 6 months, WeWork split their buildings into 2 tiers. The All-Access pass at one tier is $149 and the other is $299. $299 also gets you access to both tiers of buildings.
I only go to the locations here in Portland and went from paying $299 a month to $149. They didn’t advertise this change to me, I had to find out from a friend who just signed up. I emailed the salesperson and asked why I wouldn’t make the change given my situation. He just replied defeatedly, “I’ll start the paperwork.”
idontwantthis|2 years ago
benjaminwootton|2 years ago
shaoonb|2 years ago
thisgoesnowhere|2 years ago
The multiples were ridiculous for what basically is a internet connected REIT.
ChrisArchitect|2 years ago
More discussion over here yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37055563
catboybotnet|2 years ago
seydor|2 years ago
Ajay-p|2 years ago
danvoell|2 years ago
HWR_14|2 years ago
You mean SPACs that actually acquired a company? SPACs where the initial SPAC investors (pre-acquisition) made money? Those that have a solid company behind them, regardless of if investors made/lost money on the price movement since it announced? People who bought SPAC shares post-acquisition where the price went up?
(For pre/post acquisition investors, I assume you mean retail investors).
mnd999|2 years ago