Serious investment thinking that doesn’t take itself too seriously.

HOME

LOGIN

ABOUT THE CURIOUS INVESTOR GROUP

SUBSCRIBE

SIGN UP TO THE WEEKLY

PARTNERS

TESTIMONIALS

CONTRIBUTORS

CONTACT US

MAGAZINE ARCHIVE

PRIVACY POLICY

SEARCH

-- CATEGORIES --

GREEN CHRONICLE

PODCASTS

THE AGENT

ALTERNATIVE ASSETS

THE ANALYST

THE ARCHITECT

ASTROPHYSIST

THE AUCTIONEER

THE ECONOMIST

EDITORIAL NOTES

FACE TO FACE

THE FARMER

THE FUND MANAGER

THE GUEST ESSAY

THE HEAD HUNTER

HEAD OF RESEARCH

THE HISTORIAN

INVESTORS NOTEBOOK

THE MACRO VIEW

POLITICAL INSIDER

THE PROFESSOR

PROP NOTES

RESIDENTIAL INVESTOR

TECHNOLOGY

UNCORKED

Working out WeWork

by | Sep 18, 2019

The Analyst

Working out WeWork

by | Sep 18, 2019

As We Co, the parent of flexible office provider WeWork, prepares to now IPO later this year after postponing its September launch, many in the property industry are still struggling to define WeWork: is it a competitor, a client or just a hype?

Let’s first address the postponement for which there appear to be two main reasons. Firstly, the disappointing performance of other tech IPOs (think Uber/Lyft) which have adversely affected We Co’s pricing prospects. The second reason is the conflict of interest between We Co needing the IPO proceeds to keep growing and We Co’s largest investor Vision Fund avoiding taking a loss on its investment, just as it is raising its second fund. Nevertheless, let’s assume they find a route out of this and can relaunch later this year. 

Here are five points to help you working out WeWork.

(I) if you are old enough to remember Netscape and Lotus 123, you will know that inventions can outlive their inventors, i.e. even if WeWork fails, its business model could survive.

(II) like what McDonald’s did to burger joints, what WeWork has done is not new, but it also has standardised processes, scaled globally at a relentless pace and created a slick modern branding.

(III) unlike traditional office landlords, WeWork did something different: it listened to its customers and created a product that suited their needs which allowed it to ask a higher price for it. In marketing this is called a pull strategy which contrasts with the push strategy of mass-selling identical commodity products often competing on price alone. Hence, WeWork is selling a service which allows corporates to improve productivity by offering workstations in multiple flexible locations rather than helping the corporate services department reducing its fixed costs by 10% every year.

(IV) its market segmentation is smart. WeWork focuses on growth SMEs and business units within larger entities which need flexibility on cost structures in order to facilitate their uncertain growth paths. In our modern network society this customer group appears to be a growth sector.

(V) WeWork’s model is anchored on technology which measures and optimises the use of space. WeWork believes the technology is scalable and it can use its results throughout its global network as well as sell it directly to corporate office users and do to corporate real estate management what Salesforce did to corporate CRM. This idea of course, if substantiated, would justify its tech status and valuation.

Hence the analysts covering We Co are not so much questioning the business model (as many in the property industry do), but are focusing on two elements: (1) the mature stabilised assets’ cash flow profile and resilience and (2) WeWork’s access to future funding, its financial discipline and governance to sustain its rapid cash-burning growth path.

In 2000, amazon.com as it was then known, was valued at $23bn, c. 17x sales. Today its market cap tops $900bn. No wonder Adam Neumann refers to Amazon as his example for We Co. Like WeWork, Amazon was burning cash to finance fast growth. It could do so because its stabilised mature operations were cash flow positive.

So, while the equity analysts are figuring out if We Co can be the next Amazon, what would We Co’s successful IPO mean for the property industry. Well, if WeWork is not a property company but instead an asset manager, then its relation to office landlords would be like hotel and healthcare operators to their sector landlords. However, there is a one difference, many office landlords do have asset manager subsidiaries, and several have even copied the WeWork model already.

As a result, maybe a successful We Co IPO is an acknowledgement that technology and more intensive asset management can yield significant efficiency gains for office assets in general and that these benefits could lead to higher valuations. It also means that active asset management will become increasingly important for office asset owners, in other words it will force a choice upon landlords whether to engage in active asset management or to outsource it to a specialist.

And as the competition heats up, WeWork maybe just be another signal that the era of bond-like passive property investment is behind us and that the property industry has become a bit more equities and bit less bonds.

About Robert Stassen

About Robert Stassen

Robert Stassen is a London-based pan-European real estate market analyst with both public and private market experience who dresses up in orange when Holland plays.

INVESTOR'S NOTEBOOK

Smart people from around the world share their thoughts

READ MORE >

THE MACRO VIEW

Recent financial news and how it connects across all asset classes

READ MORE >

TECHNOLOGY

Fintech, proptech and what it all means

READ MORE >

PODCASTS

Engaging conversations with strategic thinkers

READ MORE >

THE ARCHITECT

Some of the profession’s best minds

READ MORE >

RESIDENTIAL ADVISOR

Making money from residential property investment

READ MORE >

THE PROFESSOR

Analysis and opinion from the academic sphere

READ MORE >

FACE-TO-FACE

In-depth interviews with leading figures in the real estate/investment world.

READ MORE >