5 ms·

I'm not a subscriber of WSJ, so I can only read the first paragraph. Based on the headline and the first paragraph, I don't see the problem. Wouldn't WeWork hav

I'm not a subscriber of WSJ, so I can only read the first paragraph. Based on the headline and the first paragraph, I don't see the problem. Wouldn't WeWork have to lease the space from someone? Why is it a problem if that someone is the CEO of WeWork? If WeWork is paying above market rent, then sure, that is corrupt. A lot of people hop on the band-wagon of bashing "rent-seeking", mostly misusing the term in the process, confusing rent-seeking with leasing/renting land or capital. WeWork's whole business is built on renting as far as I can tell.

biztos 8y ago
Others have mentioned this but to reiterate: imagine a WeWork location should move to a larger space, but the CEO doesn't own a sufficiently large space. At this point the CEO has a conflict of interest: on the one hand, he should move the location, because that's best for WeWork; on the other hand, he should keep it where it is because that's best for his real-estate company. There are many potential conflicts but that's probably the easiest to use as an illustration.