Tag Archives: exchangecover

Apple Makes Plans to Move Production Out of China

In recent weeks,

Apple Inc.

AAPL -0.34%

has accelerated plans to shift some of its production outside China, long the dominant country in the supply chain that built the world’s most valuable company, say people involved in the discussions. It is telling suppliers to plan more actively for assembling Apple products elsewhere in Asia, particularly India and Vietnam, they say, and looking to reduce dependence on Taiwanese assemblers led by

Foxconn

2354 4.05%

Technology Group.

Turmoil at a place called iPhone City helped propel Apple’s shift. At the giant city-within-a-city in Zhengzhou, China, as many as 300,000 workers work at a factory run by Foxconn to make iPhones and other Apple products. At one point, it alone made about 85% of the Pro lineup of iPhones, according to market-research firm Counterpoint Research. 

The Zhengzhou factory was convulsed in late November by violent protests. In videos posted online, workers upset about wages and Covid-19 restrictions could be seen throwing items and shouting “Stand up for your rights!” Riot police were present, the videos show. The location of one of the videos was verified by the news agency and video-verification service Storyful. The Wall Street Journal corroborated events shown in the videos with workers at the site.

Coming after a year of events that weakened China’s status as a stable manufacturing center, the upheaval means Apple no longer feels comfortable having so much of its business tied up in one place, according to analysts and people in the Apple supply chain.

“In the past, people didn’t pay attention to concentration risks,” said Alan Yeung, a former U.S. executive for Foxconn. “Free trade was the norm and things were very predictable. Now we’ve entered a new world.”

Footage shows police beating workers at Foxconn’s facility in Zhengzhou, China. The world’s biggest site making Apple smartphones had been under Covid-19 lockdowns in recent weeks. Screenshot: Associated Press

One response, say the people involved in Apple’s supply chain, is to draw from a bigger pool of assemblers—even if those companies are themselves based in China. Two Chinese companies that are in line to get more Apple business, they say, are Luxshare Precision Industry Co. and

Wingtech Technology Co.

 

On calls with investors earlier this year, Luxshare executives said some consumer-electronics clients, which they didn’t name, were worried about Chinese supply-chain snafus caused by Covid-19 prevention measures, power shortages and other issues. They said these clients wanted Luxshare to help them do more work outside China.

The executives referred to what is known as new product introduction, or NPI, when Apple assigns teams to work with contractors in translating its product blueprints and prototypes into a detailed manufacturing plan. 

It is the guts of what it takes to actually build hundreds of millions of gadgets, and an area where China, with its concentration of production engineers and suppliers, has excelled.

Apple has told its manufacturing partners that it wants them to start trying to do more of this work outside of China, according to people involved in the discussions. Unless places such as India and Vietnam can do NPI too, they will remain stuck playing second fiddle, say supply-chain specialists. However, the slowing global economy and slowing hiring at Apple have made it hard for the tech giant to allocate personnel for NPI work with new suppliers and new countries, said some of the people in the discussions.

Apple and China have spent decades tying themselves together in a relationship that, until now, has mostly been mutually beneficial. Change won’t come overnight. Apple still puts out new iPhone models every year, alongside steady updates of its iPads, laptops and other products. It must keep flying the plane while replacing an engine.

“Finding all the pieces to build at the scale Apple needs is not easy,” said Kate Whitehead, a former Apple operations manager who now owns her own supply-chain consulting firm.  

Yet the transition is under way, driven by two causes that are feeding on each other to threaten China’s historic economic strength. Some Chinese youth are no longer eager to work for modest wages assembling electronics for the affluent. They are seething in part because of Beijing’s heavy-handed Covid-19 approach, itself a concern for Apple and many other Western companies. Three years after Covid-19 started circulating, China is still trying to crush outbreaks with measures such as quarantines, as many other countries have returned to prepandemic norms.

Zhengzhou, China, is home to a giant Foxconn facility known as iPhone City. Shang Ji/Future Publishing/Getty Images
A worker is shown disinfecting equipment at iPhone City in Zhengzhou, China. VCG/Getty Images

Zhengzhou, left, is home to a giant Foxconn facility known as iPhone City, where a worker is shown at right disinfecting equipment. Shang Ji/Future Publishing/Getty Images; VCG/Getty Images

Protests in Chinese cities over the past week, during which some demonstrators called for the ouster of President

Xi Jinping,

suggested criticism over Covid-19 restrictions could build into a larger movement against the government.

All this comes on top of more than five years of heightened U.S.-China military and economic tensions under the Trump and Biden administrations over China’s rapidly expanding military footprint and U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, among other disputes. 

Apple’s longer-term goal is to ship 40% to 45% of iPhones from India, compared with a single-digit percentage currently, according to Ming-chi Kuo, an analyst at TF International Securities who follows the supply chain. Suppliers say Vietnam is expected to shoulder more of the manufacturing for other Apple products such as AirPods, smartwatches and laptops.

For now, consumers doing Christmas shopping are stuck with some of the longest wait times for high-end iPhones in the product’s 15-year history, stretching until after Christmas. Apple issued a rare midquarter warning in November that shipments of the Pro models would be hurt by Covid-19 restrictions at the Zhengzhou facility.

In November, as the worker protests in the facility grew, Apple issued a statement assuring it was on the ground looking to resolve the issue. “We are reviewing the situation and working closely with Foxconn to ensure their employees’ concerns are addressed,” a spokesman said at the time.

The risk of too much concentration in China has long been known to Apple executives, yet for years they did little to lessen it. China supplied a literate and diligent workforce, political stability and a huge local market for Apple’s products.

Taiwan-based Foxconn, under founder

Terry Gou,

became an essential link between Apple in California and the Chinese assembly plants where iPhones get put together. Foxconn managers share a language and cultural background with mainland workers.

Pegatron Corp.

, another Taiwan-based contractor, has played a smaller but similar role.

Apple is looking to manufacture more in Vietnam, where a facility of China-based Luxshare, an Apple supplier, is located.



Photo:

Linh Pham/Bloomberg News

And both the government in Beijing and local governments in places such as Henan province, home to the Zhengzhou plant, have enthusiastically supported Apple’s business, seeing it as an engine of jobs and growth.

Even now, when ever-harsher anti-American rhetoric flows each day from Beijing over issues such as Taiwan and human rights, that backing remains strong.

People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, hailed the Apple production site in a Nov. 20 video, saying it accounted directly or indirectly for more than a million local jobs. Foxconn shipped about $32 billion in products overseas from Zhengzhou in 2019, according to a Chinese government-linked think tank. All told, the Foxconn group accounted for 3.9% of China’s exports in 2021, according to the company.

“The government’s timely assistance…continuously provides a sense of certainty for multinational companies like Apple, as well as for the world’s supply chain,” the People’s Daily video said.

Yet such words ring hollow to many U.S. businesses in light of stringent anti-Covid measures by the government that have hampered production and roused worker unrest. A survey by the U.S.-China Business Council this year found American companies’ confidence in China has fallen to a record low, with about a quarter of respondents saying they have at least temporarily moved parts of their supply chain out of China over the past year.

To keep operating during government Covid-19 measures, the Zhengzhou factory is among those compelled to adopt a system in which workers stay on-site and contact with the outside world is limited to the bare minimum to keep the goods flowing. Foxconn has sealed smoking areas, switched off vending machines and closed dining halls in favor of carryout meals that workers bring back to their dormitories, often a half-hour walk away, workers said.

Many have escaped, jumping fences and walking along empty highways to get back to their hometowns. In November, the pandemic policies and pay disputes further fueled workers’ grievances. Some clashed with police at the site and left smashed glass doors.

Many of those abandoning the factory were young people who said on social media that they decided wages equivalent to $5 or less an hour weren’t enough to compensate for tedious production work, exacerbated by Covid-19 restrictions.

People protested throughout China this past week against the country’s strict anti-Covid protocols. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images
Beijing residents waited in line last month to be tested for Covid-19. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

People protested throughout China this past week, left, against the country’s strict anti-Covid protocols. Beijing residents, right, waited in line to be tested for the disease. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images (2)

“It’s better for us to skate by at home than to be sucked dry by capitalists,” one person who identified herself as a departed Foxconn worker posted on her social-media account after the protests.

Asked for comment, a Foxconn spokesman referred to earlier statements in which the company blamed a computer error for some of the pay issues raised by new hires. It said it guaranteed recruits would be paid what was promised in recruitment ads. The spokesman declined to comment further.

China’s Covid-19 policy “has been an absolute gut punch to Apple’s supply chain,” said Wedbush Securities analyst

Daniel Ives.

“This last month in China has been the straw that broke the camel’s back for Apple in China.”

Mr. Kuo, the supply-chain analyst, said iPhone shipments in the fourth quarter of this year were likely to reach around 70 million to 75 million units, which he said was around 10 million fewer than market projections before the Zhengzhou turmoil. The top-of-the-line iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max models have been particularly hard-hit, he said.

Accounts vary about how many workers are missing from the Zhengzhou factory, with estimates ranging from the thousands to the tens of thousands. Mr. Kuo said it was running at about 20% capacity in November, a figure expected to improve to 30% to 40% in December. One positive sign came Wednesday, when the local government in Zhengzhou lifted lockdown restrictions.

One Foxconn manager said hundreds of workers were mobilized to move machinery and components by truck and plane nearly 1,000 miles from Zhengzhou in central China to Shenzhen in the south, where Foxconn has its other main factories in China. The Shenzhen factories have made up some, but not all, of the production gap. 

Meanwhile, Foxconn is offering money to get workers to come back and stay for a while. One of its offers is a bonus of up to $1,800 for January to full-time workers in Zhengzhou who joined at the start of November or earlier. Those who wanted to quit have gotten $1,400. 

India and Vietnam have their own challenges.

People in Beijing protested this past week against stringent anti-Covid measures.



Photo:

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

Dan Panzica, a former Foxconn executive who now advises companies on supply-chain issues, said Vietnam’s manufacturing was growing quickly but was short of workers. The country has just under 100 million people, less than a 10th of China’s population. It can handle 60,000-person manufacturing sites but not places such as Zhengzhou that reach into the hundreds of thousands, he said.

“They’re not doing high-end phones in India and Vietnam,” said Mr. Panzica. “No other places can do them.”

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Do you think U.S. companies have grown overreliant on Chinese manufacturing? Join the conversation below.

India has a population nearly the size of China’s but not the same level of governmental coordination. Apple has found it hard to navigate India because each state is run differently and regional governments saddle the company with obligations before letting it build products there.

“India is the Wild West in terms of consistent rules and getting stuff in and out,” said Mr. Panzica.

The U.S. embassies of India and Vietnam didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Nonetheless, “Apple is going to have to find multiple places to replace iPhone City,” Mr. Panzica said. “They’re going to have to spread it around and make more villages instead of big cities.”

—Selina Cheng contributed to this article.

Write to Yang Jie at jie.yang@wsj.com and Aaron Tilley at aaron.tilley@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

The Hidden Ways Companies Raise Prices

Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises Inc., a Chicago-based restaurant group, has added a 3% “processing fee” to checks at many of its restaurants.

Harley-Davidson Inc.

added a charge last year to its motorcycles to cover rising material costs.

Peloton Interactive Inc.

in January began charging $250 for delivery and setup of some of its indoor bikes, a service that was previously included free.

Companies are finding all kinds of ways to make consumers pay for rising costs. Often that is not reflected in the posted price.

The Labor Department’s consumer-price index, which measures how much consumers pay for goods and services, rose to 7.5% in January compared with the same month a year earlier—the biggest rise since February 1982.

The index accounts for some changes that raise consumers’ costs, such as smaller package sizes and some fees attached to hotel packages or car purchases. But it can miss other ways in which dollars don’t stretch as far– a hotel that changes sheets only between guests, a theme park that cancels its free airport shuttle, or an auto dealer that requires customers to buy a protective paint coating with a car.

With supply-chain challenges, pent-up demand and a tight labor market leading to inflation, businesses are looking for subtle ways to pass along rising costs. Particularly in the food business, companies have long used what the industry calls weight-outs, or shrinking package contents instead of raising prices, during economic distress periods such as the 2007-2009 recession.

“There is a lot more to come,” said

Doug Baker,

head of industry relations for FMI, a food-industry trade organization. “Everything is on the table in an effort to deal with those cost increases, and at the same time, not make it too difficult for consumers to shop.”

A global computer-chip shortage has reduced vehicle inventories just as Americans were buying cars in record numbers, pushing up prices for new vehicles. In many cases, they are selling for thousands of dollars above manufacturers’ suggested retail prices, said Tom McParland, founder of Automatch Consulting, which helps consumers find vehicles.

“They’re calling it a market adjustment fee,” said Mr. McParland. “That’s the new thing they are doing: hiding markups with substantially overpriced accessories like mud flaps and cargo protectors.”

Ford Motor Co.

and

General Motors Co.

have said they are cracking down on dealerships using that tactic.

Harley fees

Base prices on Harley-Davidson’s motorcycles haven’t gone up much in recent years, the Milwaukee company said. But to cover rising costs, it added a mandatory materials surcharge last year, which dealers are passing on to customers. Dealers said the fee, which varies based on the model, is easier for the company to adjust than base motorcycle prices when costs decrease.

Dealers said the fee is $850 to $1,500 a bike. Harley this week told analysts that the surcharges helped boost revenue during the fourth quarter last year.

Harley-Davidson added a fee to its motorcycles to cover rising material costs; a dealership in Louisville, Ky., this week.



Photo:

Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg News

Some restaurants are adding new fees in response to escalating costs for food and packaging, and for wage increases executives say are needed to keep cooks and servers.

Brinker International Inc.’s

Maggiano’s Little Italy in October 2020 started charging $5 for a second, to-go pasta dish offered as part of a two-entree deal. For about a decade before the pandemic, the chain had offered a second classic pasta dish free.

“We’ve had no push back,” Maggiano’s president Steve Provost told investors last October. A Brinker spokeswoman said the price change allowed the company to invest more in the value of its carry-out offerings.

When Michael Pfeifer, a marketing professional, picked up the check for his meal at

RPM

Seafood in Chicago this week, he was surprised to find a 3% Covid surcharge added to the bill. “What’s next?” he said. “A dishware rental fee?”

The fee, added in the spring of 2020, offsets the cost of pandemic-related government regulations and mandates, said RJ Melman, president of Lettuce Entertain You, which owns RPM. “These fees can be removed and refunded for any guest that requests,” he said, “no questions asked.”

Peloton, according to its website, is adding the new $250 fees on bikes and a $350 delivery-and-setup fee for some of its treadmills. It cut the price of its original stationary bike in August to $1,495 from $1,895. With the added fees, the total price is now back up to about $1,745, as the company dealt with slowing demand and its own rising costs.

Peloton declined to comment on the fees. In an earnings call on Tuesday, Peloton CFO

Jill Woodworth

said that the fees could cut into consumer demand but that they were part of a “critical learning” process as the company restructures and cuts costs for the post-pandemic era.

Walt Disney Co.

’s Disney World in Orlando stopped offering free airport shuttles—known as the Magical Express—this year, leaving Disney guests to pay for their own transportation. The parks added several fees last year while keeping the base ticket price at $109. A fast-pass system that let park guests make reservations for rides, which used to be free, was discontinued and replaced by a new system that costs $15. And some popular rides, like Star Wars: Rise of the Resistance and Space Mountain, now cost between $7 and $15, on top of the park admission ticket.

Disney offers “a wide range of options to match different budgets and interests,” said Disney spokesman Avery Maehrer.

At its theme-park restaurants, Disney is trying to avoid across-the-board price increases, Disney CFO

Christine McCarthy

told analysts in November. “We can substitute products. We can cut portion size, which is probably good for some people’s waistlines,” she said. “But we aren’t going to go just straight across and increase prices.”

Consumer backlash

Consumer pressure has led some companies to back off added fees, including

Frontier Group Holdings Inc.

The airline, which uses a la carte pricing that lets frugal travelers choose to forgo amenities, in May 2021 added a $1.59-per-flight-segment Covid-related fee. After consumer backlash, Frontier in June stopped breaking it out as a component of its base fare but it didn’t stop charging it. Frontier didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In a press release it said: “The charge, which was included in the airline’s total promoted fare versus an add-on fee, was meant to provide transparency and delineate what portion of the fare was going toward COVID-related business recovery.”

Some of

Marriott International Inc.’s

Autograph Collection hotels had been charging a “sustainability fee” of about $5 a night. The company that manages the properties, Innkeeper Hospitality Services LLC, says it covered things like more-efficient HVAC systems.

They stopped charging the fee several weeks ago, “because we understand that while we believe in environmentally responsible stewardship, not everyone cares about our planet’s health,” IHS CEO Amrit Gill said. He said Marriott had asked the company to stop charging the fee. Marriott declined to comment.

The Biden administration has begun to look into some forms of hidden fees, which it calls “junk fees.” The administration says the amount being charged is not always tied to the costs faced by the company providing the goods or services. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is seeking public input on financial services, such as bank overdraft fees, while the Transportation Department is planning actions on airline baggage fees.

John Fiorello, a father of four in Torrington, Conn., was dismayed to see prices rising in his local grocery-store aisles but was initially pleased to see that the blocks of cheese he usually buys hadn’t gone up much in price—perhaps 10 cents, he said. Then he noticed that the package had shrunk, to 12 ounces from 16.

“I picked up the block and said, ‘this is definitely smaller,’ ” Mr. Fiorello said. “It just adds an extra layer of stress.”

Shrinkflation, as economists call it, tends to be easier for companies to pass on to consumers. Despite labels that show price by weight, research shows that most customers look at only the overall price.

The food industry has long shrunk package contents instead of raising prices during economic-distress periods; a Salt Lake City grocery store in October.



Photo:

George Frey/Bloomberg News

“There are sizes that people remember, like a half gallon of ice cream,” said John Gourville, a Harvard Business School professor. “Once you break from iconic sizes, it’s pretty easy to move from 13 ounces to 12 ounces.”

Over the years, tuna cans have come to contain less tuna and toilet-paper rolls less tissue, said

Burt Flickinger III,

managing director of Strategic Resource Group, a consulting firm that works with consumer-product companies. “Historically,” he said, “it’s called a ‘cheater pack.’ ”

Companies have become more sophisticated and use multiple tactics to protect their profitability, he said. They can pull back on discounts, stop making low-selling products and create new varieties that sell for higher prices

Downsized Oreos

Oreo-maker Mondelez International Inc. raised prices by an average of 6% to 7% in the U.S. last month, but it wasn’t enough to make up for its higher costs, the company said. So Mondelez has been introducing new sizes and flavors it says are more profitable.

Oreo’s new 110th Birthday chocolate confetti-cake cookies cost about 10 cents more than regular Double Stuf Oreos at several grocery stores, even though the new flavor comes in a slightly smaller package. At a

Target Corp.

store in Chicago, the limited-edition birthday Oreos, which came out January, cost $3.79 for a 24-cookie package and the Double Stuf ones cost $3.69 for a 30-cookie package.

Retailers set the final prices. Mondelez said it charges the same for the two products, and its limited edition flavors are typically different-sized packages than regular ones. A Target spokesperson said: “We’re priced competitively throughout the markets we do business.”

Economists and analysts at the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics monitor prices of thousands of goods and services. They can account for shrinkflation, because they track the cost of certain products by weight and quantity—so a cereal box that costs the same amount but now has 30% less volume would be registered as a price increase.

They said their efforts can’t identify every fee or dropped amenity, such as a hotel room rate that remains the same but that no longer includes fresh towels or a hot breakfast. “We do not capture the decrease in service quality associated with cleaning a room every two days rather than one,” said Jonathan Church, a BLS economist.

Disney World in Florida added several fees last year while keeping the base ticket price at $109; the Magic Kingdom last summer.



Photo:

Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/Associated Press

Jeremiah Mayfield and Carlos Larrea stayed at Alohilani Resort in Honolulu in December and opted for a $75 a-night upgrade to “club level” for free food and drinks. But they said they could rarely use it because the resort didn’t have enough staff to replenish the club-level amenities. After complaining, they were offered free dinner.

Alohilani General Manager Matthew Grauso said that quality and efficient guest service are top priorities and that he tries to remedy any shortfalls immediately, adding, “The pandemic has presented a unique set of challenges within the hospitality industry.”

“We gave them hell for it,” Mr. Mayfield said. “We paid $800 a night. We never expected it would be so scarce in terms of service and amenities.”

Many hotel chains are replacing complimentary hot breakfast buffets with a snack bag. Some fitness centers and pools remain closed, and housekeeping doesn’t refresh rooms daily. Some guests feel like they are getting less for their money.

InterContinental Hotels Group

PLC, which owns Holiday Inn, said it has been working with hotels to return amenities and make it right if guests aren’t satisfied. “Hotel teams have been overcoming many challenges including supply chain and labor shortages, changing health guidance and regulatory requirements,” an IHG spokesperson said.

On a recent trip to St. Louis, Meg Hinkley booked a Holiday Inn because it said online that it offered room service. When she arrived, the restaurant was closed, so there was no room service. She said she would have stayed at a lower-priced hotel if she had known. “I was paying for that convenience.”

Write to Annie Gasparro at annie.gasparro@wsj.com and Gabriel T. Rubin at gabriel.rubin@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Remote Workers Can Live Anywhere. These Cities (and Small Towns) Are Luring Them With Perks.

Shara Gaona didn’t know much about Topeka when the pandemic struck. But the remote-working United Airlines analyst, untethered from her Chicago office, decided to move to the Kansas capital and collect $10,000 in local government incentives.

Topeka is on a growing list of locations—from Bemidji, Minn., to the state of West Virginia—dangling incentives to entice remote workers. Many companies are offering office-free jobs, and some workers are willing to relocate for cash, cheaper housing or other perks.

“I’ve had a lot of people ask me, ‘What the hell are you doing in Topeka?’ ” Ms. Gaona said. “Well, they’re giving me $10,000.”

The 41-year-old sold her Chicago condo early this year, and she and her fiancé, Matt Gordon, are renovating a house in Topeka they plan to move to soon. The couple, who had office-based jobs at

United Airlines Holdings Inc.

UAL -0.73%

before the pandemic, can continue working remotely, Ms. Gaona said.

Similar incentive programs existed before the Covid-19 pandemic, including in Vermont and Tulsa, Okla., while others were in the works. But they started sprouting up quickly after Covid-19 shut down traditional offices, including a Paducah, Ky., program that launched in August.

Shara Gaona and her fiancé, Matt Gordon, are in the process of moving to Topeka after leaving Chicago. They plan to continue working remotely for United Airlines, as they have since the pandemic began.



Photo:

Christopher Smith for the Wall Street Journal

Ms. Gaona sold her condo in Chicago and plans to move in to a new home in Topeka once renovations are complete.



Photo:

Christopher Smith for the Wall Street Journal

In addition to financial offers, some places are offering extra perks, like a free year at a co-working space in Bemidji, free coffee and martial arts classes in Stillwater, Okla., and subsidized rafting and rock climbing in West Virginia. A new program in Greensburg, Ind., includes a couple in town who offered to serve as “grandparents on demand” to help with babysitting and Grandparents Day at school. In Topeka, the sandwich chain Jimmy John’s had kicked in $1,000 for remote workers who moved to one of its local delivery zones, though this promotion just ended, according to an economic-development spokesman.

These incentive programs mark a shift from an older economic-development model: trying to persuade companies, rather than individuals, to relocate. In some cases, communities say they are hurting more for people than for jobs. They also hope an influx of skilled workers will make them look more appealing to large employers. It is also hard not to join the fray.

“Is this the new arms race? I would say yes,” said Justin Minges, chief executive at Stillwater’s chamber of commerce.

An Indianapolis-based company called MakeMyMove debuted a website in December that acts as a listing site and portal for such incentive programs. The company said there are now at least 24 programs specifically targeting remote workers in the U.S., including 19 launched since the pandemic began. The company also acts as a paid consultant to help create some of these programs.

Cash payments can have requirements pegged to people staying a certain amount of time or making enough money, and bigger paychecks can mean bigger payments. Topeka pays $10,000 to home buyers making at least $60,000, but less to those with lower salaries. Officials with several programs say they believe that paying to attract people with high-salary jobs will pay off as the movers spend in their new communities.

A farmers market in downtown Topeka.



Photo:

Christopher Smith for the Wall Street Journal

Officials running these programs are betting the U.S. will never completely return to pre-pandemic office life. Remote job listings in the U.S. with salaries topping $80,000 reached about 15% of all job listings in the third quarter of this year, up from about 13% in the prior quarter and 4% in late 2019, before the pandemic started, according to Ladders Inc., which runs the job site theladders.com.

“This is a real, structural permanent change in the American workforce,” said Ladders CEO Marc Cenedella.

While the mobile workforce grows, so does the competition. Stillwater, a city of 48,000 people, has thus far made offers to four people after launching a program in July that uses city funding to offer $5,000 in home-buying assistance. No one has moved yet, and at least two of these applicants are weighing other incentive programs, according to the chamber of commerce.

One is Torin Dougherty, a 27-year-old

3M Co.

employee in Minneapolis, who plans to visit Stillwater for the first time this weekend. But he may also apply to a few other programs, including in Tulsa and a regional program covering part of Alabama, he said. He’s going to visit Tulsa, too, after a week and a half in Stillwater.

Torin Dougherty, 27 years old, is weighing various options as he makes plans to take his permanently remote job with him to a new city.



Photo:

Ackerman + Gruber for The Wall Street Journal

Mr. Dougherty built a spreadsheet to rank municipalities he is considering making his new home, based on factors from financial incentives to access to outdoor activities.



Photo:

Ackerman + Gruber for The Wall Street Journal

Mr. Dougherty has made a spreadsheet to rank the various places, comparing them on fields like presentation on their websites, length of applications and access to activities like hunting and fishing. He’s weighing not just the money, but also opportunities to help build the programs and put a stamp on the local community, he said. If he were to move to Stillwater, he would first rent a place to live, and is talking to the chamber of commerce about potential rental assistance.

The San Francisco native has spent most of his life in California and Minnesota, and said he wants to experience more of the country.

“It’s really important for your own experience to see what else is out there,” Mr. Dougherty said.

Wish You Were Here

Some of the incentives available to remote workers who move to selected locales:

Topeka, Kan.

Incentives include: Up to $10,000 in cash, with the highest amount available to home buyers making at least $60,000, and lesser amounts for lower salaries and renters.

Requirements: Applicants have to come from outside Topeka and Shawnee County, must stay a year or money can be clawed back. Minimum salary for program is $35,000.

Bemidji, Minn.

Incentives include: Up to $2,500 in reimbursement for expenses such as moving, one-year membership at co-working space and chamber of commerce, a “Community Concierge” program to introduce new arrivals to the community.

Requirements: Applicants must come from at least 60 miles away.

West Virginia

Incentives include: $12,000 in cash, with $10,000 paid over the first 12 months and $2,000 after a second year. Other perks include free co-working space and a year of free outdoor recreation, with the total incentive package valued at more than $20,000, according to the program.

Requirements: Applicants must come from out of state and participate in interviews. Program is currently aimed at bringing people to the cities of Morgantown and Lewisburg, with a third community to be added next year.

Stillwater, Okla.

Incentives include: $5,000 toward a home purchase within city limits, estimated $2,000 in free coffee for a year from a local company, free martial arts classes, other gifts from local stores and restaurants via the chamber of commerce.

Requirements: Requires a job with full-time work at home, but chamber says hybrid workers who commute may also be eligible.

The Shoals (Alabama)

Incentives include: A reimbursement of up to $10,000 based on salary, with the highest amount paying to people who make above $124,800.

Requirements: Salary of at least $52,000, staying in the region a year to collect the full amount.

Several communities say early demand is strong. Tulsa’s three-year old program has already brought in more than 1,100 people. A two-county Alabama program in a region dubbed the Shoals has received roughly 1,800 applications since launching in mid-2019. So far 71 newcomers have arrived. The screening process there requires making sure applicants meet qualifications, such as salary and employment requirements. Program administrators also interview applicants to make sure they understand the community, including that they would be moving to an area with small towns, where they will rely on a car and not public transit.

“We don’t want someone to move here and regret it,” said Mackenzie Cottles, a spokeswoman for the Shoals Economic Development Authority, which runs the program.

This Alabama program is funded thus far with about $600,000 through a half-cent in sales taxes already collected to cover economic development, Ms. Cottles said. Payments to people moving in can reach up to $10,000 depending on salary.

In West Virginia, a program offering up to $12,000 in cash along with outdoorsy perks has netted 50 remote workers and another 60 family members, though not all have moved yet. Launched in April, it is funded by a $25 million gift from Brad Smith, a native of the state and executive chairman at TurboTax maker Intuit Inc., and his wife Alys.

The program is currently aimed at sending people to the cities of Morgantown and Lewisburg. The program is sponsoring a picnic and kayaking event for recent relocators this weekend.

Quintina Mengyan, 29, director of customer experience at Chicago-based ticket marketplace Vivid Seats, moved to Morgantown with her boyfriend in August. West Virginia was new to her, but she has already added a side job coaching lacrosse at West Virginia University. She also said she has considerably more space to work in a new townhouse, where she has a dedicated office.

In Chicago, Ms. Mengyan said, office closures “quickly evolved to me feeling suffocated in a 618-square-foot apartment with my boyfriend and 80-pound dog.”

Paying to lure new residents has drawn some skeptics. In Vermont, some lawmakers have questioned whether payments are really the deciding factor when people move there, though its programs have paid out money for hundreds of people who moved to the state, including recipients and their family members. Lawmakers this year re-funded the program but also called for a study on its effectiveness.

“I can see where this is going to end up going to people who were going to move to a community anyway,” said Tessa Conroy, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies economic development. “Or maybe you do manage to attract someone. Is that really the ideal resident, someone who was paid?”

Communities should also invest in keeping people who already live there, and who might be disgruntled to see money spent on luring newcomers, Ms. Conroy said.

Jack Calcutt, who manages a global sales team for financial-information firm

FactSet Research Systems Inc.

and used to work from a Norwalk, Conn., office, received Topeka’s incentive for taking his job and family, including six children, there in late 2020. The family would have gone anyway, he said, as his wife is from the area. They had long thought about moving there and he suddenly had the chance to take his job on the road.

But the family is also grateful for the support, and Topeka has proven to be an excellent fit, Mr. Calcutt said. “It feels like Topeka wants me here, and that gives me a degree of loyalty for the community,” he said.

Jack and Katie-Scarlett Calcutt accepted Topeka’s incentive to move from Connecticut with their six children—and Mr. Calcutt’s remote job.



Photo:

Christopher Smith for the Wall Street Journal

‘It feels like Topeka wants me here,’ Mr. Calcutt said, calling the city an excellent fit for his sprawling family.



Photo:

Christopher Smith for the Wall Street Journal

The city of 127,000 and surrounding county first launched an incentive program in late 2019, aimed at helping local companies fill jobs. They added remote-worker incentives last year.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

If you moved to work remotely during the pandemic, how did you decide where to go? Join the conversation below.

The program, with funding to cover roughly 15 to 20 new remote workers a year, has fielded some 535 applications since it rolled out in August of 2020 and approved 19 remote workers, according to Bob Ross, a spokesman for the local economic-development agency. Requirements include proof of employment outside the local county; if a recipient doesn’t stay a year, the program can claw the money back.

Ms. Gaona is temporarily living in Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula while organizing renovations on her Topeka house. She said she welcomed the change from Chicago but has some concerns about life in a smaller city, including things like easy access to a gym and grocery store.

“We don’t have to stay forever,” she said. “But if we like it, we can.”

Write to Jon Kamp at jon.kamp@wsj.com

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Everything Must Go! The American Car Dealership Is for Sale.

For nearly a century, the American car dealership has retained its iconic appearance even as technology transformed every corner of the business landscape. In towns across the country, local business titans lured customers to glass-walled showrooms and large asphalt lots, where buyers bargained for the best price. That model is showing its age.

The way people buy and sell cars is changing. More of it is happening online as buyers get comfortable with completing transactions remotely. It is a shift that started before the pandemic but accelerated over the last 18 months as Covid-19 spurred people to do more of their shopping from home and demand for cars unexpectedly surged.

Read original article here

The We That Didn’t Work at WeWork

Adam Neumann

and

Masayoshi Son

were negotiating a possible $20 billion check when Mr. Son pulled up an image of Yoda on his iPad.

It was summer 2018 and Mr. Son’s tech conglomerate,

SoftBank Group Corp.

9984 -0.70%

, had already pumped over $4 billion into WeWork, the shared office space startup Mr. Neumann co-founded eight years earlier. Now Mr. Neumann was trying to get Mr. Son to buy a majority stake in WeWork. It would have been the largest acquisition ever of a startup, part of a bid to turbocharge a three-pronged strategy to dominate global real estate.

Mr. Son, a risk-taking investor who likened his gut-based strategy of “use the force” to that of the bat-eared Star Wars Jedi, was visibly excited that his new disciple was pushing for such an ambitious plan. Mr. Neumann, more than 20 years younger than Mr. Son and roughly a foot taller, charted out gargantuan growth projections in presentation after presentation throughout the summer. Mr. Son, scribbling on his iPad, calculated WeWork would be worth $10 trillion in a decade, more than 10 times the price tag of Apple at the time, the world’s most valuable company.

Still, Mr. Son kept urging Mr. Neumann to think bigger.

WeWork’s salespeople, real estate professionals and buildings numbered in the low hundreds. Mr. Son, though, told Mr. Neumann each category needed to grow—to 10,000. On his iPad, he commemorated the dictate.

“10k, 10k, 10k!” Mr. Son wrote in yellow, above Yoda grasping a green lightsaber. He signed below: “Masa.”

Mr. Son left a signature and evidence of his WeWork optimism next to an image of Yoda.

Fourteen months later, WeWork underwent one of the most spectacular corporate meltdowns of the decade. It aborted an initial public offering, Mr. Neumann was ousted as chief executive, the company’s valuation tumbled by nearly $40 billion and Mr. Son—having never completed the $20 billion deal—saw his tech-oracle image become fodder for jokes. This account is based on interviews with numerous former and current employees at both WeWork and

SoftBank,

as well as friends of Mr. Neumann and WeWork investors. WeWork declined to comment, a SoftBank spokesman for Mr. Son declined to comment and Mr. Neumann didn’t respond to a request for comment through a spokesman.

The high profile immolation of the country’s most valuable startup was caused by an array of factors including loose corporate governance, loose money and a financial sector thirsty for founders promising vision and innovation.

But playing a starring role in WeWork’s rise and fall was the relationship between the two entrepreneurs, Mr. Son and Mr. Neumann. The pair often relied on erratic decision making as they made highly consequential decisions with billions of dollars—decisions that ultimately paved the way for WeWork’s implosion.

It was a mix of mentor and disciple, competitive rivalry, and some father-and-son dynamics—resulting in a battle of one upmanship that left both men humiliated and furious with each other, said former and current employees of WeWork and SoftBank.

Today, the company is still grappling with the hangover. Now worth $8 billion, down from $47 billion, WeWork is on track to go public, this time through a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company. It exited some leases taken on by Mr. Neumann with SoftBank’s money but must still absorb an enormous amount of office space. Occupancy is at a once-unthinkable 53%.

Burning hot

The union of Mr. Son and Mr. Neumann came about largely as a result of geopolitical luck that married two unflinching techno-optimists with extraordinary ambition at the exact right time.

Mr. Neumann, a long-haired, energetic entrepreneur, started WeWork after struggling to build a baby-clothes business in New York, where he moved from Israel in 2001. He proved a gifted fundraiser, positioning the office-space company first as a social network, then as a product of the sharing economy—and raised $1.7 billion from a top roster of the world’s investors.

Mr. Neumann moved to New York City from Israel in 2001 and started WeWork after struggling to build a baby clothes business. He proved a gifted fundraiser.



Photo:

Mark Lennihan/Associated Press

To keep up his rapid growth and attain his sky-high visions for the company, he needed far more funding, and Mr. Son was known for writing giant checks. The Tokyo-based investor built up a set of tech and media businesses to become, briefly, the world’s richest man in the dot-com boom, before losing nearly everything, he has said. Having rebuilt his empire in the decade-and-a-half since, he was eager to take big swings.

Prior attempts by Mr. Neumann and Mr. Son to make a partnership work ended without success. As early as 2014, SoftBank pondered an investment in WeWork, but Mr. Son’s subordinates determined it was an overvalued real-estate company, and quickly discarded the concept.

That changed by late 2016, when Mr. Son received commitments for more than $60 billion to help fund the worlds’ largest ever private investment fund, the SoftBank Vision Fund. The main backer was Mohammed bin Salman, the then-deputy crown prince of Saudi Arabia who had unexpectedly risen to power in the Al Saud family and wanted to make big moves of the country’s wealth away from oil and toward the tech sector. Mr. Son was out fundraising for a fund roughly 30 times the size of the next largest venture capital fund at the exact right moment.

Armed with the Saudi commitments, Mr. Son went hunting for big fish—startups that could absorb billions of investment and turn them into tens of billions. He met up with Mr. Neumann—almost a stereotype of the confident, vision heavy tech startup founder—after mutual associate

Mark Schwartz,

a former Goldman Sachs banker, vouched for him. Mr. Son quickly committed to invest over $4 billion after a 12 minute tour of WeWork in late 2016—a brief pit stop on his way to meet the president-elect at Trump Tower.

By 2018, WeWork’s explosive growth engine was burning hot, fueled by SoftBank’s cash. The investment made WeWork worth $20 billion, one of the most valuable startups in the country, and WeWork’s reach extended across the globe. WeWork’s serif-font logo was on buildings in 73 cities in 22 countries. The company that had a single Manhattan office in 2010 now was a global brand, it rented more than 200,000 desks, and it was on track to take in nearly $2 billion in annual revenue.

As WeWork grew, aides said they saw Mr. Neumann’s sense of self importance grow too.

The excitable salesman had always talked a big game about growth; when WeWork had just a few locations, he told employees it would be worth billions one day. But after SoftBank’s investment in 2017, his aspirations soared to a new level.

WeWork spent $63 million on a Gulfstream G650ER—the same type of aircraft as pictured here at Hongqiao International Airport in Shanghai.



Photo:

Aly Song/REUTERS

He talked more to aides and friends about WeWork’s growing valuation—and how WeWork would be worth trillions. His lifestyle turned more grandiose. His roster of homes grew to seven, including a $21 million house in the San Francisco Bay Area with a racquetball court and a room shaped like a guitar. He began telling others that he hoped to live forever, and funded the startup Life Biosciences, which researches aging-related diseases.

He talked to his employees about WeWork as a company that would last for three hundred years. Or a millennium.

He directed SoftBank’s cash into a WeWork elementary school that started after he and his wife were frustrated with the lack of suitable options for their children, they told WeWork staff. When a WeWork board member asked Mr. Neumann why the company needed to spend $63 million on a top of the line private jet—the Gulfstream G650ER—he responded that Mr. Son had a jet and told him he backed the move. Acquisitions were scattershot; he bought event planning website Meetup.com. In 2016, Mr. Neumann directed WeWork buy a 42% stake in a company that makes surfing pools.

Following a dinner with

Walter Isaacson,

biographer of

Steve Jobs,

he gathered staff around to read a complimentary email from the author. He told his employees he wanted Mr. Isaacson to write a biography about him.

After he met U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer in the Capitol, he turned to his staff. “No more mayors,” he said. “Only senators from now on.”

After meeting Chuck Schumer, above, Mr. Neumann said to his staff that he only wanted to meet with senators.



Photo:

Al Drago/Bloomberg News

To one startup founder, he talked about a link between global affairs and WeWork’s size. It wasn’t enough for WeWork just to have a big valuation, he told the founder. It needed to have the biggest valuation. That way, he said, when countries started shooting at one another, he would be the one they would have to call to solve their problems.

The triangle

Playing a role in Mr. Neumann’s growing ambitions was Mr. Son, who was frequently needling Mr. Neumann to think bigger.

At a meal in Tokyo with Mr. Son and

Cheng Wei,

CEO of Chinese ridehail giant Didi Global Inc., Mr. Son told Mr. Neumann that the Didi CEO beat out

Uber Technologies Inc.

in China not because he was smarter than Uber CEO

Travis Kalanick.

Mr. Cheng was crazier, Mr. Son said.

On the same Tokyo trip, Mr. Son asked Mr. Neumann who would win a fight between a smart guy and a crazy guy, according to people familiar with the conversation. He told Mr. Neumann that being crazy is how you win and that Mr. Neumann was not crazy enough, according to these people.

Roughly a year later at another meeting in Tokyo, Mr. Son clicked on a promotional video of SoftBank-backed Oyo Hotels & Homes, led by the then 24-year-old

Ritesh Agarwal.

Oyo was growing far faster than WeWork, Mr. Son told Mr. Neumann, ribbing him about lagging behind his SoftBank-backed counterpart, whom Mr. Son equated with a sibling.

“Your little brother is going to beat you,” Mr. Son told Mr. Neumann, according to people familiar with the conversation. “He is being bolder than you.”

Following meetings like this, Mr. Neumann often pushed for bigger ideas, aides said. One was a plan to dive head first into the business of owning buildings—a change from WeWork’s business model of leasing from other landlords. To do this, Mr. Neumann wanted to raise by far the world’s largest real-estate fund overnight—$100 billion by the end of the year. He called it ARK—inspired in part by Noah’s Ark—and he initially asked to have a personal stake in the fund, until lawyers convinced him it would be too messy a conflict to have WeWork effectively leasing so many properties from its CEO. With the fund, he planned to co-develop the final office tower at the World Trade Center site, among other ambitious projects.

In the late spring of 2018, Mr. Neumann called a few senior executives into a meeting. He took out a sheet of paper and a pen. He scrawled out three lines—forming a simple triangle. This, he told them, was WeWork’s future.

Mr. Neumann’s triangle strategy, as rendered in a 2018 presentation to SoftBank.

One corner of the triangle signified WeWork’s main office business. Another was ARK, the real estate ownership arm. And then on the third corner were services—the sprawling set of businesses such as brokerages and cleaners that help the real-estate sector hum.

Next to each corner, attendees watched as he wrote “$1 trillion.” Each arm of WeWork, he said, would be a $1 trillion business on its own.

Mr. Neumann had recently had an epiphany, he told those assembled. What if someone owned the whole system? What if WeWork vertically integrated it all? WeWork would own buildings, it would build buildings, it would lease buildings. It would rent apartments. WeWork would advise companies on their office space—becoming the sole solution. If companies wanted to stay in their own buildings, WeWork would design them; then it would lease them desks, run their coffee machines, sell them software. A WeWork ID could open WeWork-run security gates. If tenants wanted to lease with someone else, WeWork would find them space and get a broker’s fee. It could be huge.

Unlike his earlier scattershot acquisition strategy, executives around him said they saw in this vision real potential to disrupt the entire real estate sector.

The triangle strategy would require truckloads of money, but it could reshape everything if it worked.

‘Chicken first!!’

In late spring of 2018, Mr. Neumann and some deputies traveled to Tokyo for another meeting with Mr. Son. Initially unsure whether to spill the beans on his big plan, Mr. Neumann sensed Mr. Son was in a good mood, aides said.

It was time to drop the bigger idea. He laid out his triangle plan. Together, he made clear, they could build something worth trillions, by far the largest company on earth.

It was the exact type of big-thinking vision Mr. Son was looking for. He was intrigued. He wanted to learn more—to think about how to do a deal.

The Tokyo pitch kicked off a series of meetings throughout the summer involving senior staff from both companies who raced into high gear putting together a giant plan code-named Project Fortitude. In June and July, in Tokyo, in New York, and in San Francisco, Mr. Neumann, Mr. Son, and their respective staffs repeatedly met up to hash out just what the plan would look like and just how much money WeWork would need.

It was a lot. To accomplish what he envisioned, Mr. Neumann told Mr. Son in a meeting in New York at the start of July, he wanted $70 billion, according to a copy of his presentation. It was a gargantuan number. The entire Vision Fund was $100 billion. Uber—which raised more than any startup ever—had raised about $12 billion total in its existence.

Mr. Neumann and his team showered Mr. Son with projections of voracious growth that WeWork was planning, should a deal come together. He sketched out how WeWork was set to have 14 million people working in its offices in 2023—more than the population of Belgium—up from 420,000 in 2018. It would mean upward of one billion square feet of real estate, more than twice the size of the entire Manhattan office market.

The WeWork unit that rented space to large corporations was thriving, according to data in a presentation he showed Mr. Son. If its largest subtenant,

Amazon.

com Inc., kept its growth rate up, it would have 200,000 desks with WeWork by 2023—a rather heady projection for any company.

All of this would be lucrative, Mr. Neumann explained in his presentation. WeWork’s main business alone would hit $101 billion in revenue by 2023, up from the $2.3 billion planned in 2018.

Together with ARK and the services arms of WeWork, the projections called for a jaw-dropping $358 billion in revenue in 2023. (Apple, by comparison, had $266 billion in revenue in 2018.)

An estimate given to Mr. Son projected a jaw-dropping $358 billion in revenue for WeWork in 2023.



Photo:

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The giant numbers—the requests for unprecedented sums—didn’t scare off Mr. Son.

Investment in growth was often necessary before the demand was clear, Mr. Son told Mr. Neumann. In the midst of the negotiations, before he drew the Yoda picture, he offered an analogy for the WeWork team relating to the chicken and the egg, attendees said. WeWork had to build first—show the world a finished product—and then demand would follow. The chicken—the finished product—came before the egg.

As with the “10k” dictate, this advice was memorialized on the Yoda image: “Chicken First!!”

As Mr. Son pushed Mr. Neumann for more, and as the two charted out the future, their plans tested the boundaries of the world’s financial system. One slide from a presentation about ARK, for instance, showed how ARK’s growth plans depended on $593 billion from investors and lenders—an amount that would represent a sizable chunk of the United States’s entire commercial real estate finance system.

The prize would be extraordinary growth in value that the world had never seen. In a room in WeWork’s headquarters, working alongside Mr. Neumann, Mr. Son pulled up on his iPad WeWork’s chart that showed a hockey-stick-like growth curve for WeWork’s main business. By 2028, he wrote, WeWork’s main business would have 100 million members and hit $500 billion in revenue. Then he assigned it a valuation, adding together what he projected for ARK and services.

He scribbled in yellow ink, “$10 T,” and underlined it twice. The value of the entire U.S. stock market was about $30 trillion. But Mr. Son had big plans: WeWork would be worth $10 trillion by 2028.

Mr. Son wrote ‘$10T,’ in yellow, referring to a projection that WeWork would be worth $10 trillion by 2028.

Sufficiently bullish on WeWork’s future, Mr. Son agreed to a deal. It wouldn’t be as big as the $70 billion Mr. Neumann wanted, but it would be something giant.

Negotiating through the summer and into the fall, they eventually settled on a plan: Mr. Son would buy out all of Mr. Neumann’s existing investors for about $10 billion and put another $10 billion into WeWork, giving SoftBank ownership of most of the company while leaving Mr. Neumann as the only other large owner remaining.

To get the deal in motion, WeWork had SoftBank commit to giving it $3 billion up front—a nonrefundable deposit of sorts.

Christmas Eve surprise

Negotiations carried on through the fall of 2018. WeWork executives said Mr. Neumann was confident the deal was going to go through, so he began accelerating WeWork’s plans before SoftBank’s check arrived. The company began to invest heavily in building out the third point of the triangle—services. Staff ballooned, especially in departments that helped companies manage their own office space. Mr. Neumann pushed staff for more acquisitions, and pondered buying rival real-estate companies.

A main goal he emphasized with aides: revenue growth. Almost anything could fit the bill. Mr. Neumann held talks to buy Sweetgreen. He told aides he wanted to buy ride-hailing company

Lyft Inc.,

and began negotiating an investment in them, according to people familiar with the situation. Mr. Son, a backer of Uber, found out and told WeWork executives he was upset. WeWork’s losses, already monstrous, continued to march upward.

By Thanksgiving, the deal was nearly done, but the talks dragged on partly because Mr. Neumann and his lawyers continued to renegotiate his part of the deal—his compensation and his contract.

Mr. Neumann wanted the right to own an additional 9% of the company if he hit certain targets—an amount that could mean tens of billions of dollars based on the targets they were discussing, people involved in the talks said.

Beyond compensation, he wanted assurances that he would stay in control—even though Mr. Son was putting up all the money.

It was SoftBank CFO Yoshimitsu Goto, pictured at far right in 2018, who warned Mr. Son, far left, that shareholders would revolt further if a WeWork deal went ahead.



Photo:

Kiyoshi Ota/Bloomberg News

SoftBank, however, wanted clauses so it could remove him under certain circumstances. Mr. Neumann negotiated to the point where SoftBank wouldn’t be able to remove him—without paying a large penalty—if he went to jail on just any felony, for example. His lawyers pushed for a provision where he would have to commit a violent felony before SoftBank could remove him without penalty, people familiar with the talks said.

As the end of 2018 neared, as Mr. Neumann’s personal negotiations finished up, everything looked on track.

Then, the stock markets began to rattle.

Already, SoftBank’s own shareholders were growing wary. SoftBank’s biggest backers—sovereign-wealth funds in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi—weren’t interested in the WeWork buyout. They viewed WeWork as overvalued and not in line with the tech-focused strategy of the Vision Fund, among other factors, people familiar with the deal said. That meant that SoftBank would need to put up the $20 billion itself—an enormous check even for SoftBank.

Adding to concerns was a broad pullback of tech stocks across the globe and a poorly-timed spinout of SoftBank’s Japanese telecom unit that had one of the worst-ever stock-market performances immediately post-IPO in Japan.

SoftBank’s shares began to fall, and fall.

SoftBank’s chief financial officer,

Yoshimitsu Goto,

warned Mr. Son that shareholders would revolt further if the WeWork deal went ahead, people familiar with the conversations said. It could send SoftBank’s stock into a downward spiral. The WeWork buyout was simply untenable, he told him. The deal had to be called off.

On Christmas Eve, Mr. Neumann was in Hawaii, surfing, readying for the deal to close—for his next chapter as a private company.

His iPhone rang. It was Mr. Son.

The deal was dead, Mr. Son told him, as Mr. Neumann later relayed to staff. SoftBank simply couldn’t make it happen.

Mr. Neumann tried to rescue the patient. But Mr. Son was unwilling—the moment had passed. Instead, he gave him a small consolation prize: a $1 billion investment at a $47 billion valuation.

As Mr. Neumann chatted by phone with his deputies soon after, multiple aides said they realized the unspoken reality: One billion dollars wouldn’t go far.

Without SoftBank’s continued largess, WeWork was going to need a new way to find billions. SoftBank was the biggest fish in the private markets; there simply weren’t others with billions to shower on them.

There was only one clear place to turn for that much cash: the public markets. So staff began laying the groundwork for an initial public offering. Nine months later, the attempted IPO would roil the financial world as investors balked at WeWork. It was the beginning of the unraveling of the $47 billion startup.

Adapted from “The Cult of We: WeWork, Adam Neumann, and the Great Startup Delusion” by Wall Street Journal reporters Eliot Brown and Maureen Farrell, to be published on July 20, 2021, by Crown, an imprint of Random House, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. Copyright © 2021 by Eliot Brown and MMF Creative Inc.

Write to Eliot Brown at eliot.brown@wsj.com and Maureen Farrell at maureen.farrell@wsj.com

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

When SPAC-Man Chamath Palihapitiya Speaks, Reddit and Wall Street Listen

It was Jan. 4, and Chamath Palihapitiya was ready to tease another deal. “Shooters Shoot,” he tweeted to his followers, along with a GIF of Alec Baldwin berating weary salesmen to “Always Be Closing.” The retweets and likes for the “Glengarry Glen Ross” reference came fast and furious. “We’re ready,” one follower replied.

Three days later, when Mr. Palihapitiya announced his intention to take online lender Social Finance Inc. public via a “blank-check” company, Reddit message boards popular with the day-trading crowd lit up. One fan called it a “stock that you buy with hopes of transforming you into a millionaire”—even though SoFi did not expect to be profitable until 2023 and faced stiff competition.

Mr. Palihapitiya is the man of the market moment. The founder of tech-investing firm Social Capital Holdings Inc. has charmed Wall Street to raise billions of dollars to bring startups public. Amateur traders hang on his every word for clues about his next target—and for the insults he hurls at the high-finance elite. (Hedge funds, he said last April, deserved to get wiped out when coronavirus shutdowns devastated the economy.)

Wall Street has always had its rock stars.

Warren Buffett’s

carnival-like annual meeting, after all, is nicknamed “Woodstock for Capitalists.” But Mr. Palihapitiya, a former

Facebook Inc.

executive who now has 1.4 million

Twitter

followers, belongs to a new class of market influencers—social-media savants who’ve figured out how to take shots at the establishment while taking its money.

Mr. Palihapitiya, left, is a Sri Lankan immigrant to Canada whose family got by on welfare payments when he was a child. He moved to the U.S. during the dot-com era and eventually worked for Facebook Inc.



Photo:

Brian Ach/Getty Images for TechCrunch

No one has marshaled the twin forces reshaping markets—the blank-check boom and the retail-trading surge—quite like Mr. Palihapitiya. So far this year, as of Thursday, 225 companies that use money from initial public offerings to buy established businesses have raised roughly $71 billion—a figure that accounts for more than 70% of all public stock sales, according to Dealogic data. These outfits are known as “blank-check” firms or SPACs, an acronym that stands for special-purpose acquisition companies.

Ordinary investors, homebound and flush with cash, are fueling the surge. Social Capital raised $3.7 billion for five SPACs last year and filed confidentially to raise money for seven more, according to people familiar with the matter. They have helped make Mr. Palihapitiya a fortune—at least on paper. Their structure gives Mr. Palihapitiya the right to buy one-fifth of its outstanding shares at discount prices. That means he is sitting on a mountain of gains.

SoFi, a decade-old startup that made its name refinancing student loans, is his latest prize. He and his bankers pitched some of Wall Street’s top firms to participate in the deal, and Mr. Palihapitiya’s pull with stalwarts like money manager

BlackRock Inc.

was a big reason why the lender spurned other SPAC suitors and accepted Mr. Palihapitiya’s offer, according to people familiar with the matter.

He unveiled the $8.7 billion deal to the public on Jan. 7—on CNBC and on Twitter, naturally. Nearly 65 million shares of Mr. Palihapitiya’s

Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.

V changed hands that day, more than all but 22 U.S.-listed stocks, according to Dow Jones Market Data. IPOE, as it is known, closed up 58% at $19.14, even though the deal wasn’t final and the SPAC had no real assets yet.

Leaving Facebook

A Sri Lankan immigrant to Canada whose family got by on welfare payments when he was a child, Mr. Palihapitiya graduated from the University of Waterloo and worked at

Bank of Montreal

before moving to the U.S. during the dot-com era. He joined Facebook in 2007 to help grow its user base after stints at a venture-capital firm and America Online; he left in 2011 after he said Mark Zuckerberg denied his request to start a mobile-phone business and later emerged as a critic of his former employer.

He used the money he made at Facebook to fund a lifestyle of billionaire whimsy. He is a partial owner of the Golden State Warriors, a three-time contestant in the World Series of Poker and a cryptocurrency evangelist who said he paid $1.6 million in bitcoin for an undeveloped property in Lake Tahoe. “When BTC hits $100k, I’m going to buy @GoldmanSachs and rename it Chamathman Sachs,” he recently tweeted the weekend before he also publicly toyed with running for governor of California.

Chamath Palihapitiya, far left, is a partial owner of the NBA team Golden State Warriors and a three-time contestant in the World Series of Poker.



Photo:

Poker Go

Recently, Mr. Palihapitiya has been touting a plan to “fix climate change,” as he tweeted last month. He has approached potential investors about raising billions of dollars for a partnership with tech giants on climate efforts, people familiar with the matter said.

The year he left Facebook, he founded Social Capital with a mission of backing young startups that want to solve the world’s toughest problems. He gravitated to SPACs as a way to provide an alternative path to the public markets for startups that didn’t want to deal with the costs, hassle and uncertainty of a prolonged registration process.

Mr. Palihapitiya called the idea “IPO 2.0.” A SPAC avoids many of the rules governing a traditional IPO by executing a reverse merger between a corporate shell that raised the money and a private company that takes both the cash and the shell’s stock listing. Mr. Palihapitiya raised money for his first SPAC, Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp., in 2017.

Not everyone was enamored with that first SPAC attempt. Tech companies, including

Slack Technologies Inc.

where Social Capital was an early investor, rebuffed Mr. Palihapitiya’s efforts to take them public via his SPAC, according to people familiar with the matter.

During this period Mr. Palihapitiya often frustrated his colleagues with his extended absences from the office and meetings. Those absences would occasionally cause him to miss fundraising meetings he had set up for himself and

Tony Bates,

a former Skype CEO who joined Social Capital to lead a growth-investing unit Mr. Palihapitiya launched in 2017, some of the people said.

Mr. Palihapitiya’s now ex-wife was a partner at Social Capital. While they were still married, he traveled with a new woman he was dating, according to people familiar with the matter. Partners left. Many other projects, including a credit-investing fund, fell by the wayside. Nonetheless, Social Capital was able to earn an annualized internal rate of return of 33% in its first eight years, it said in its most recent annual letter.

Mr. Palihapitiya got his big break as a SPAC investor from billionaire Richard Branson.

Mr. Palihapitiya, fourth from left, got his big break as a SPAC investor from billionaire Richard Branson, pictured here with a gavel in his hand.



Photo:

Richard Drew/Associated Press

Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc., Mr. Branson’s space-tourism company, called off a roughly $1 billion financing deal with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund in October 2018, after the Saudi government was linked to the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Throughout 2019, Mr. Palihapitiya, Mr. Branson and their teams spent months negotiating a deal to take Virgin Galactic public through a SPAC merger. Over meetings in Park City, Utah, and at Mr. Branson’s Necker Island in the Caribbean, the two sides hammered out an arrangement that included a $100 million personal investment from Mr. Palihapitiya. The deal, which valued the company at roughly $2 billion, closed that fall.

Mr. Palihapitiya went viral in April 2020, just as he began fundraising for two additional SPACs. After appearing on CNBC to urge the government not to bail out wealthy investors in airlines and other hard-hit companies, he gained about 100,000 new followers on Twitter, according to social-media data company Captiv8 (Social Capital is an investor in Captiv8).

“We’re talking about—a hedge fund that serves a bunch of billionaire family offices? Who cares?” Mr. Palihapitiya said. “They don’t get to summer in the Hamptons? Who cares!”

The rant endeared him to amateur investors. “Through all the pain watching all of our portfolios go up in flames the past few weeks, this motherf—er came in and spoke for all us and really put a smile on my face,” one trader wrote in a post on Reddit’s WallStreetBets that was upvoted about 2,000 times.

Meanwhile, Mr. Palihapitiya was reeling in Wall Street investors. Before coronavirus lockdowns put an end to schmoozing, he hosted dinners and meetings to pitch his SPACs to hedge funds. When the SPACs made their market debut in April, hedge funds, the target of his flamethrowing, were the primary buyers.

Mr. Palihapitiya found big targets for two of his SPACs last fall, taking house-flipping startup Opendoor Labs Inc. public in a deal worth $6.3 billion and insurance-tech startup

Clover Health Investments Corp.

to market at a $4.4 billion valuation. Big institutional investors including BlackRock, Fidelity Investments and Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the deals alongside Mr. Palihapitiya.

Mr. Palihapitiya took insurance-tech startup Clover Health Investments Corp. public via a SPAC at a $4.4 billion valuation. Here a nurse practitioner for Clover Health takes a patient’s blood pressure.



Photo:

John Taggart/Bloomberg News

“It was like this guy walks on water,” said Michael Edwards, deputy chief investment officer of Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers LLC, who invested in Mr. Palihapitiya’s first SPAC. “Everything he does is going to be oversubscribed.”

In December and March, Mr. Palihapitiya sold 10 million shares of Virgin Galactic to free up more than $300 million for other ventures, according to securities filings. (He indirectly co-owns another 15.75 million shares through an investment vehicle). Mr. Palihapitiya and the other managers of the SPAC that took Opendoor public are sitting on paper gains of about $475 million on the warrants and discounted shares they received through the IPO of the SPAC, as well as for their participation in a related private placement of the SPAC shares, according to estimates based on an analysis of securities filings by Michael Ohlrogge, a professor at New York University’s law school.

Mr. Palihapitiya is separately looking to start a new family of SPACs for biotech companies, some of the people said.

How much Mr. Palihapitya earned or invested personally is more difficult to discern from the filings. He highlights that he invests hundreds of millions of dollars in private placements accompanying his SPAC deals, a decision that helped sway Opendoor and SoFi to take his offers, according to people familiar with the matter. But it is sometimes unclear how much of that money is coming directly from him or from investment firms he helps manage. The Securities and Exchange Commission proposed new guidance in December for SPAC sponsors to provide more disclosure around their compensation arrangements.

Hype Man

People who know and have worked with Mr. Palihapitiya describe him as a great salesman but a poor manager. When Social Capital decided to transition away from a traditional venture-capital firm in 2018 to be more of a holding company for startups, many employees learned they would be losing their jobs from a Medium post Mr. Palihapitiya published, a person familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Palihapitiya’s skills as a hype man, though, are particularly well-suited to the features of SPACs. Unlike in a traditional IPO, executives and sponsors of SPAC transactions can make projections about the company’s future revenue and profits. Because such deals are structured as mergers, SPAC sponsors don’t have to worry about restrictions on talking openly about a business before its shares start trading.

Mr. Palihapitiya takes advantage of these loopholes. He talks his deals up on Twitter, which his lawyers then submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission to comply with stock-solicitation rules. Mr. Palihapitiya arranged with CNBC extended airtime on the days his deals were announced and went through slides from his investor presentation, according to people familiar with the matter. CNBC declined to comment. YouTube and

Amazon.com Inc.’s

Twitch have also approached him about moving his deal announcements to their live-video streaming services, some of the people said.

Mr. Palihapitiya talks his deals up on Twitter, which his lawyers then submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission to comply with stock-solicitation rules. Mr. Palihapitiya also arranged with CNBC extended airtime on the days his deals were announced, according to people familiar with the matter.



Photo:

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg News

As many as 70% of the investors in Mr. Palihapitiya’s SPACs are everyday investors, these people said. He allocates a small percentage of the shares in the offerings of his SPACs for that crowd, with an eye toward getting his underwriters to increase their share above 50%, the people said.

Alex Cruzado watched each of Mr. Palihapitiya’s CNBC clips after seeing his April 2020 rant. The 20-year-old university student living in Geneva, Switzerland, bought shares in IPOE on the day of the SoFi announcement and later posted positive reviews of it on WallStreetBets.

“For companies like Opendoor and SoFi, the fact that he talks about it and makes a public announcement directs people in,” Mr. Cruzado said in an interview. “He’s really great at marketing… [but] there’s no significant value he adds but that branding and packaging,” Mr. Cruzado said.

During his Jan. 7 appearance on the business network to elaborate on SoFi’s merits, Mr. Palihapitiya offered his thoughts on how SPACs are helping to reduce wealth inequality by letting ordinary Americans get earlier access to future blue-chip companies.

“How do you do that? You’re not going to do that by owning

American Express.

Those companies are dormant legacy businesses. That game is over. You need companies like SoFi. You need companies like Opendoor, like Clover and others,” he said.

The moderators of WallStreetBets later banned its millions of members from posting about SPACs. “They are too easily pumped to allow on a subreddit of our size,” one wrote at the time.

Mr. Palihapitiya jumped into the fray in late January when traders, inspired by posts on WallStreetBets, bid up

GameStop Corp.

and other beaten-down stocks, dealing painful losses to hedge funds that had bet the stocks would fall.

“This is some insane, crazy, baller shit: r/wsb just ran over one of the most successful hedge funds around,” Mr. Palihapitiya tweeted, linking to a Wall Street Journal article about hedge fund Melvin Capital Management’s emergency cash infusion.

In solidarity, he bought GameStop call options. He closed his position the next day and donated the proceeds.

When Robinhood Markets Inc. and other online brokerages restricted trading in hot stocks, enraging investors, Mr. Palihapitiya went on the attack. Robinhood executives were “corporatist scumbags” who “should go to jail,” he said on his podcast, “All-In.”

On Jan. 28 and 29, he told his Twitter followers that he turned Robinhood down when the startup was raising money years ago—and that Robinhood was misleadingly monetizing user data. He suggested they ditch the app and use SoFi, instead. A Robinhood spokeswoman declined to comment.

Over each of the two days, shares of the SPAC merging with SoFi notched double-digit gains. Retail interest was so strong that Robinhood placed limits on users’ ability to purchase them lest the brokerage have to deposit additional collateral with its clearinghouse to cover the trades. Of the 51 stocks in which Robinhood restricted trading on Jan. 29, Mr. Palihapitiya was tied to four.

In early February, investors in Mr. Palihapitiya’s SPACs were reminded that there is risk in taking unproven companies public quickly. Short seller Hindenburg Research published a report on Feb. 4 accusing Clover Health of failing to tell investors about a Justice Department investigation into its practices and misleadingly marketing its services to the elderly. Hindenburg previously exposed irregularities at electric-truck startup

Nikola Corp.

after it merged with a SPAC.

“Chamath has done a masterful job marketing himself, capitalizing on the recent chaos with GameStop and WallStreetBets to align himself with “everyday” investors – but his public persona strikes us as the sugar that helps the poison go down,” Hindenburg wrote in the report.

Clover said the report was full of inaccuracies and mischaracterizations. In a response published last month on Medium, Clover’s CEO and president said Hindenburg framed its report around Mr. Palihapitiya “in order to sensationalize what is otherwise a rather underwhelming piece of research.” Mr. Palihapitiya took to—where else—Twitter to defend Clover, saying he and the company would have been happy to have met with Hindenburg: “Instead, they chose to take the cheap path of screaming into the ether.”

The tweet got more than 3,000 retweets and 17,000 likes, but, since then, Clover shares are down 44%.

Amrith Ramkumar contributed to this article.

Write to Peter Rudegeair at Peter.Rudegeair@wsj.com and Maureen Farrell at maureen.farrell@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here