3 ms·

It's not a big secret that the SEC doesn't like SPACs. They make these things really clear before they start taking action. They specifically have an issue with

It's not a big secret that the SEC doesn't like SPACs. They make these things really clear before they start taking action. They specifically have an issue with the fact that the prospectus for a de-SPAC merger isn't (yet) subject to all the same reporting rules as an S-1 filing. When companies have to present their financials coldly instead of painting the nice warm dream, it's gonna deflate the market. Between that and the other factors hitting the market now (interest rates and inflation), there just isn't going to be a huge amount of work in the space in the future. You really don't need to assume a conspiracy of some sort is involved when all the completely public factors justify this.

jessaustin 4y ago
This not-big secret is also a not-new secret. These aspects of SPACs have been apparent since the invention of SPACs. What completely public factor accounts for the change in Goldman's policy ? You really don't have to cape up for Goldman. They don't care what we think. They always have enough alumni in the government that they don't have to care. [0] The Biden administration is theoretically less infested with them than previous ones, but e.g. SEC Chair Gary Gensler and Examiner Adam Storch are both former Goldman people. There are probably more but I figured one minute on DDG was enough... [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/business/dealbook/goldman-sachs-goverment-jobs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/business/dealbook/goldman...
- chowells 4y ago
  Why is it so important to you that a conspiracy must exist? What pushed you to ignore evidence so hard that you appear to think that a question I'd already answered is some giant gotcha? (What's different now? The market has cooled massively for other reasons.) If you look at the new rules the SEC announced, they're so poorly written that no bank would see them as more than an accounting checkbox. Those rules are certainly not the reason for winding down a line of business. If you want to attack connections between finance and the government, why not focus on real ones? Like, why are the new SEC policies so toothless? Who wrote them, and why? It could easily be someone from GS, even! But people are a lot more likely to listen to you if you save your criticism for things that are based on facts and clear reasoning. A massive web of innuendo is worth a lot less than one direct problem.
hackernewds 4y ago
It is because there is a conspiracy that the sec does not look at Spacs favorably

jessaustin 4y ago

This not-big secret is also a not-new secret. These aspects of SPACs have been apparent since the invention of SPACs. What completely public factor accounts for the change in Goldman's policy ? You really don't have to cape up for Goldman. They don't care what we think. They always have enough alumni in the government that they don't have to care. [0] The Biden administration is theoretically less infested with them than previous ones, but e.g. SEC Chair Gary Gensler and Examiner Adam Storch are both former Goldman people. There are probably more but I figured one minute on DDG was enough... [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/business/dealbook/goldman-sachs-goverment-jobs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/business/dealbook/goldman...

chowells 4y ago
Why is it so important to you that a conspiracy must exist? What pushed you to ignore evidence so hard that you appear to think that a question I'd already answered is some giant gotcha? (What's different now? The market has cooled massively for other reasons.) If you look at the new rules the SEC announced, they're so poorly written that no bank would see them as more than an accounting checkbox. Those rules are certainly not the reason for winding down a line of business. If you want to attack connections between finance and the government, why not focus on real ones? Like, why are the new SEC policies so toothless? Who wrote them, and why? It could easily be someone from GS, even! But people are a lot more likely to listen to you if you save your criticism for things that are based on facts and clear reasoning. A massive web of innuendo is worth a lot less than one direct problem.

hackernewds 4y ago

It is because there is a conspiracy that the sec does not look at Spacs favorably