Help me understand how this is a coherent argument. I could see making the argument that investors share some of the blame for what the CEO did. How could they have more of the blame?
A CEO trying to run a small little nothing company in a weird way isn't a big deal. It's only a problem because of the scale.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-06/wework-ip...
This is the fundamental conundrum. Softbank has invested a total of $10.65B for a 29% stake in a company that (if valued like the commercial real estate firm it actually is instead of the tech unicorn that it isn't) is probably worth $5-6B if we're being generous. Further complicating matters, We is posting losses and burning cash at an incredible rate and will need additional financing in the very near future. It only makes sense for Softbank to continue to prop We up if they believe they can dump it on a greater fool in the very near future, which is looking less and less likely by the day.
I think SoftBank is probably pushing things further enough until they raise money for their next vision fund.
The point of the board is in part to keep the CEO in check. They had many opportunities to do so well before weeks before the now shelved IPO roadshow.
One of the things about blame is that it’s never zero sum, and in this case there’s more than enough to go around.
> if he’d acted responsibly
> if
The "if" is the point. SoftBank had the ability to eliminate the risk of this "if", and didn't.
But what about the perspective of SoftBank's shareholders? If they're unhappy about this, they ought to be unhappy with the dealmakers at SoftBank for creating a situation where SoftBank is exposed to volatility of this kind.
This is what people say when they give the executive branch of the United States unchecked power to unilaterally do things and sidestep the legislative and judicial branches. Presidents don't always do that sort of thing, and neither do CEOs or.... normal people.