SoftBank is still writing big checks
pitchbook.com
pitchbook.com
Basically, SoftBank has taken the money of some very unsavory characters (people who are literally willing to cut your body into little pieces) promising big gains and has lost a significant chunk of it.
Now, like Le Chiffre, they are desperately trying to gamble big, hoping that they can make up the lost money by high risk strategies.
Good movie though.
So has pretty much every major company and every major industry around the world. The saudis are some of the largest investors in pretty much everything - including the tech world.
> and has lost a significant chunk of it.
They haven't lost anything yet. They have made investments. Whether it pans out will take time. Even WeWork is still an investment. And last I heard, their first vision fund actually grew in value rather than declined.
> hoping that they can make up the lost money by high risk strategies.
It is the world's largest venture capital fund. The entire fund exists to invest in high risk companies. What are you talking about?
The fact that you think "This almost seems like the plot of the James Bond story Casino Royale." should tell you your assumptions and conclusions might require re-evaluating.
If what you said was true, softbank wouldn't have been able to create a second vision fund.
https://group.softbank/en/corp/news/press/sb/2019/20190726_0...
Instead of parroting news ( which hypes clickbait nonsense about things they don't understand ) and then mixing that with hollywood fantasy, why not look at the data, facts and what is really happening.
They led a WeWork down round and have realized a loss on their previous WeWork investment. They also realized a loss with Uber, a public company.
helping that regime in multiplying their resources has been unethical since the dawn of time
The fault was that they killed the big story with Neumanns greed and it cratered confidence of the public markets and press.
And the Vision Fund has not only invested in high risk ventures.https://visionfund.com/portfolio
Vision Fund's "investment" in WeWork is effectively a hostile takeover of a distressed asset. It is one of the most conventional bets they have made.
Even the common takeover trope of relationship building between an insider and the acquirer happened here. All Vision Fund's dealings with WeWork seemed to go directly to Adam Neumann. And to be frank, he seemed to be out of control, he was going manic, and it seems as though this was encouraged by Vision Fund.
Neumann did very well out of the deal. What happened to the other co-founder?
The inflated value may help the CEO get a big payout (like WeWork) or help the company raise lots of capital (like Uber & Paytm).
However, you are probably joining a company with an unrealistic valuation like Uber, WeWork, Wag or Paytm. If you have options, you will always be underwater. If you have RSUs, they may never appreciate.
So why does anyone think they will throw in the towel so long as they have even 1 backer or yen left?!
Worked with the SB guys briefly and my take on it was that they're willing to stack the chips higher than anyone else. And if gravity gets in the way they'll keep stacking until gravity no longer applies
Despite the mockery and we work drama I reckon their all or nothing strategy is sound. If this project fails it'll probably be concurrent with a SV collapse in which case does it even matter?
If you're gonna take risks that involve catastrophic failure anyway you might as well bet big on upside
If I invest $100 in MSFT and you invest your entire life savings in MSFT when the share price goes down it kind of does matter.
>If you're gonna take risks that involve catastrophic failure anyway you might as well bet big on upside
Or, to put it more reasonably, if you're going to take high risk opportunities do it with a chunk of investment you're able to lose, don't risk your entire company on it - which Softbank seem to do. Does it not concern you that Softbank almost managed to bring their entire business into jeopary because of a single failed investment?
Thats missing the point I'm trying to convey. Try this analogy:
If you owe the back 100 Mil you've got a problem. If you owe the bank a 100 billion the bank has a problem.
The rules shift if you up the stakes enough. Return, time frames, values etc start becoming malleable concepts. You think it's a coincidence that masa talks about 300 year time frames?
Not convinced this will work. But I am convinced he's a step ahead of everyone else in rolling this dice. And if it does work it'll crush everyone else.
>Or, to put it more reasonably
Nothing about this is reasonable. That's why it could work
The thing is though, 100 billion is a lot for venture capital, but it's less than 1/10th of the market cap of some of the largest publicly traded companies. That's part of why everyone is so skeptical of Softbank, because the second they come into contact with a liquid market, they have problems.
>Nothing about this is reasonable. That's why it could work
No. Even if it does work that will not be why.
SoftBank is big, but not big enough to threaten the solvency of the Gulf states. Nobody has an incentive to bail out the Vision Fund apart from Masa. He’s already raiding SoftBank's balance sheet.
The reason the bank line works is banks are highly leveraged. A small hole blows the stack. That gives the $10bn borrower leverage over the trillion-dollar bank. Not so with the Vision Fund, where the prime LPs are lending out of equity and the employees are the ones leveraged.
It certainly matters. SV collapses are not and should not be the end of the world for strong companies - indeed that is how you separate the wheat from the chaff. Many companies came through the tech bubble collapse in 00 just fine and some are still going strong today.
If you're running a company that will be wiped out by the next SV collapse, you're in a fragile position and might want to rethink your strategy.
Japanese central bankers figured out a way of creating money for purposes that are good for society. Like AI, Quantum computing or bio technology and any other hyped up stuff you see on internet.
There were many bad consequences in the past because of money created that way.
With the way SoftBank is giving away money, it looks like “smart credit guidance” is still happening with out any public policy or public awareness.
I'm not a believer of the Vision Fund (but it's just a subjective opinion - I'm a pessimist).
> When SoftBank announced that it expected to raise more than $100 billion for Vision Fund 2 in July, the firm touted corporate backers Microsoft, Amazon, Foxconn and several financial institutions. But it only mentioned one sovereign wealth fund, from the government of Kazakhstan, which has roughly $60 billion in assets - a far cry from the hundreds of billions controlled by PIF and Mubadala.
I watched a few documentaries about Kazakhstan last year (for no particular reason - I was just randomly watching TV) and (technically) it seems to be a nice country which has a nice mix of many climates (deserts, mountains, plains - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan ) and has as well many natural resources (oil, gas, uranium, metals) and is currently trying very hard to develop.
I remember that at that time I mentally wished them well, but when I read now about their involvement in the Vision Fund I immediately thought "hopefully they didn't bet too much on it"... .
Strange choice indeed. Makes you wonder if Borat Sagdiyev was involved somehow.
> Chinese money has radically transformed Kazakhstan
Was it financed (at least partially) by Cina? I don't remember "Cina" being mentioned in the docs I saw (they were more focused on the nature and/or the people living there being kind-of-ex-russians and/or the resources and/or about the regime).
Although, they should be writing checks into the operations of WeWork.
Edit: Oh, Saudi Arabia and UAE sovereign wealth funds have checked out of the next fund.
Softbank. $91million for 20%