7 ms·

It's faster and cheaper, those are things that are generally considered valuable. Faster: the finance markets have been extremely tenuous the past 4 years betw

by bhawks 3y ago

It's faster and cheaper, those are things that are generally considered valuable. Faster: the finance markets have been extremely tenuous the past 4 years between pandemics, supply chain crisis, world wars, inflation, and so on. An IPO requires 12 to 18 months of work / process before listing. SPACs can be done in a quarter or 2. In uncertain times it is much less risky to get the listing done fast. Cheaper: Startups pay much less in fees to investment bankers when going through SPACs, there is also less dilution for investors and employees and more valuation transparency. In traditional IPOs investment bank underwriters have some conflict of interest to get lower valuations to pass the 'pump' onto their high value clients or proprietary trading desk. Why should they benefit over the people who have literally built the company? While it is true that there is room to better regulate SPACs, there haven't been horrible abuses yet. It is also true that SPACs have not had the best returns for retail investors over the past few years however drawing a conclusion that this is due to SPAC usage versus the complex macro economic environment of recent years is very difficult.

gizmo 3y ago
We’ve seen pre-revenue companies that promised flying cars and other obvious scams go public via SPACs. If you don’t consider that SPAC abuse your bar is a lot lower than mine. These are companies that had no chance of surviving the more serious road show due diligence that the likes of GS demand when they take startups public. Instead we saw popular podcasts push their SPACs on gullible retail investors, based on fuzzy concepts like disruption and TAM. Subsequently these SPACs lost 90% of their value and the insiders made bank. I hope to see jail sentences for the more shameless SPAC pump and dump players.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Index ETFs have been around for 15+ years now, and the advice is widely known that if you are an uneducated investor without inside information or some type of edge, you should stick to sub 0.15% expense ratio index funds. It is so easy nowadays that all you have to do is figure out the year you want to retire and buy that year’s target date fund and forget about it. If people want to gamble, then that is their problem.
  - gizmo 3y ago
    I'm not sure what your argument is. Sophisticated investors don't invest in obvious scams. That's tautologically true. Does that mean we should just watch and do nothing while people get scammed? The thing is, nobody is born sophisticated and there are many ways to get hurt in financial markets in the absence of scams even if you're intelligent and do your homework. You mention index trackers, but they are no silver bullet. Their mechanism is basically to buy more of stocks that go up, and to sell those stocks that stumble badly. The more people rely on index trackers (exchange traded or not) the more volatile they'll become, and because index funds use such a simple trading strategy it's easy to front-run or otherwise exploit them. Furthermore, index trackers depend on active investors for price discovery, and the fewer active investors you have the worse index funds will perform. Relying on a vanguard ETF might continue to work, but to assume that it will is hopelessly naïve. It's no coincidence that ETFs got so popular with interest rates at 0 and a fed that made stonks go up.
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      You can buy a 2x levered daily vix ETF. You can buy 0dte options. You can buy options on the aforementioned ETF. You can go to a casino and put all your money on the roulette wheel. What is so risky about spacs that they need special attention?
      - gizmo 3y ago
        Should publicly listed companies should publish their financial results every quarter? Do they have to use GAAP or can they make up their own financial metrics? What do you think would happen if we removed the regulations surrounding financial disclosure for public companies? The questions are rhetorical. Companies will rob their shareholders blind if you let them. You can't just be "lol caveat emptor". (Casinos also cheated players shamelessly in the good old days before regulatory oversight.)
        fallingknife 3y ago
        Yeah I can just like I am about all those other great ways to lose money that I just posted. But, I'm really not getting your point here. SPACs have to report financial results just like any other public company. They aren't allowed to commit fraud any more than any other company.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
“Faster and cheaper” isn’t really the goal when selling stock to retirees and pension funds. Going public is supposed to be a rigorous process of assuring your grandparents that this company meets a minimum bar of compliance and financial quality. Finding a back door to avoid scrutiny is a flaw, not a feature. I get that we all want to avoid the paperwork and red tape in life, but there are certain things that we have seen burn too many people too many times that we as a society demand you slow down and dot your i’s and cross your t’s for very good reasons.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  No one is forcing, or even recommending, retirees and pension funds to invest in SPACs.
lordnacho 3y ago
I don't think you can avoid the conclusion that this is a legal loophole. It's "easy" to get listed as an empty shell because there's nothing there to check. Then you buy an actual business and everything is just dandy? Seems fishy to me.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tivert 3y ago
>> The fact this is not only legal, but common practice baffles me ... > It's faster and cheaper, those are things that are generally considered valuable. For the company. It's also faster and cheaper for the company to just to ignore all regulatory requirements (financial reporting, product safety, pollution, labor, etc.), but that's usually illegal for good reason. It's seems pretty dysfunctional that companies would be allowed to do an end-run around pre-IPO scrutiny like this.

by bhawks 3y ago

gizmo 3y ago

We’ve seen pre-revenue companies that promised flying cars and other obvious scams go public via SPACs. If you don’t consider that SPAC abuse your bar is a lot lower than mine. These are companies that had no chance of surviving the more serious road show due diligence that the likes of GS demand when they take startups public. Instead we saw popular podcasts push their SPACs on gullible retail investors, based on fuzzy concepts like disruption and TAM. Subsequently these SPACs lost 90% of their value and the insiders made bank. I hope to see jail sentences for the more shameless SPAC pump and dump players.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Index ETFs have been around for 15+ years now, and the advice is widely known that if you are an uneducated investor without inside information or some type of edge, you should stick to sub 0.15% expense ratio index funds. It is so easy nowadays that all you have to do is figure out the year you want to retire and buy that year’s target date fund and forget about it. If people want to gamble, then that is their problem.
- gizmo 3y ago
  I'm not sure what your argument is. Sophisticated investors don't invest in obvious scams. That's tautologically true. Does that mean we should just watch and do nothing while people get scammed? The thing is, nobody is born sophisticated and there are many ways to get hurt in financial markets in the absence of scams even if you're intelligent and do your homework. You mention index trackers, but they are no silver bullet. Their mechanism is basically to buy more of stocks that go up, and to sell those stocks that stumble badly. The more people rely on index trackers (exchange traded or not) the more volatile they'll become, and because index funds use such a simple trading strategy it's easy to front-run or otherwise exploit them. Furthermore, index trackers depend on active investors for price discovery, and the fewer active investors you have the worse index funds will perform. Relying on a vanguard ETF might continue to work, but to assume that it will is hopelessly naïve. It's no coincidence that ETFs got so popular with interest rates at 0 and a fed that made stonks go up.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    You can buy a 2x levered daily vix ETF. You can buy 0dte options. You can buy options on the aforementioned ETF. You can go to a casino and put all your money on the roulette wheel. What is so risky about spacs that they need special attention?
    - gizmo 3y ago
      Should publicly listed companies should publish their financial results every quarter? Do they have to use GAAP or can they make up their own financial metrics? What do you think would happen if we removed the regulations surrounding financial disclosure for public companies? The questions are rhetorical. Companies will rob their shareholders blind if you let them. You can't just be "lol caveat emptor". (Casinos also cheated players shamelessly in the good old days before regulatory oversight.)
      - fallingknife 3y ago
        Yeah I can just like I am about all those other great ways to lose money that I just posted. But, I'm really not getting your point here. SPACs have to report financial results just like any other public company. They aren't allowed to commit fraud any more than any other company.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

“Faster and cheaper” isn’t really the goal when selling stock to retirees and pension funds. Going public is supposed to be a rigorous process of assuring your grandparents that this company meets a minimum bar of compliance and financial quality. Finding a back door to avoid scrutiny is a flaw, not a feature. I get that we all want to avoid the paperwork and red tape in life, but there are certain things that we have seen burn too many people too many times that we as a society demand you slow down and dot your i’s and cross your t’s for very good reasons.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
No one is forcing, or even recommending, retirees and pension funds to invest in SPACs.

lordnacho 3y ago

I don't think you can avoid the conclusion that this is a legal loophole. It's "easy" to get listed as an empty shell because there's nothing there to check. Then you buy an actual business and everything is just dandy? Seems fishy to me.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tivert 3y ago

>> The fact this is not only legal, but common practice baffles me ... > It's faster and cheaper, those are things that are generally considered valuable. For the company. It's also faster and cheaper for the company to just to ignore all regulatory requirements (financial reporting, product safety, pollution, labor, etc.), but that's usually illegal for good reason. It's seems pretty dysfunctional that companies would be allowed to do an end-run around pre-IPO scrutiny like this.