It almost went to IPO too...what does that say about the kind of garbage that can get pushed off onto the unwitting public so the original investors can cash out?
Some people believe most of the VC industry is just a ponzi scheme, where you try to find a greater fool until eventually the final fool is the public. Of course by then all of the VC investors have made enormous returns on a company that was clearly never that great to begin with.
I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's an interesting theory. It seems pretty obvious that this sometimes happens, as evidenced by Softbank and WeWork, the question is how pervasive is this mentality?
I guess I should probably attempt to answer my own question and analyze how many VC firms hold onto stock after the company goes public, although that will only provide data for late stage investors.
Newmann will likely end up making billions for investors, so it makes sense.
The $47 IPO crash is not a matter of accounting fraud, rather, a failure to project when the hype train would end.
The thing is there's incredibly leverage in some of these plays - they require funding for each successive step - if they don't get it, then even a spectacular business can 'crash'.
Like a rocket to the moon, each stage needs more fuel until it's 'in orbit' and without that even a 'great mission' can crash.
You could argue they could have conserved their dollars etc. but then they would just be some small, local business.
So the 'game' being played is/was all around what future of the business will materially look like. Because there's so much grey area in it, it's ripe for shenanigans but on the other hand, most fast flyers will look something like that.
My bet is that the rocket fuel for WW stops at stage 4 instead of stage 5 and they never really had a plan for 'orbit' (i.e. normalized profitability) so it's going to be a painful down-ratchet, but it will be turned into a normal company.
Paradoxically - we can't write off out important the hype was for inspiring people into their work. That inspiration was maybe poorly derived, but it was not fake. Rebecca Newman was apparently head designer and most of the aesthetic was probably her vision. Those things are not easily reproduced in a board room: without leadership that understands design, branding, such elements of marketing - it will crash due to a kind of ignorant negligence of a key part of the appeal. Maybe they should have kept her. Even the possibly money-loosing 'elementary school' is part of their brand vision without which they might have even more trouble getting the buzz and premium.