I wonder if the recent allegations against Nikola will change the SEC's long-term stance on SPACs and the "less painful disclosure" requirements. Maybe something to explore in another post?
Hey Rajkumar! Great question. From my understanding, the main benefit for non-sponsoring investors is ability to invest (in the SPAC) before they merge with the company.
Which would mean the Company looking to merge and become public would leave some chunk on the table for Non Sponsoring Investors to not feel short changed ... which would be equivilant or maybe more than what is left on the table for a highly criticised "Pop" during traditional IPO?
There are many benifits of SPAC - faster way to become public, less regulation, single counterparty negotitation etc. .... however could the benifits regarding no Pop be flawed because somewhere someone needs to feel good about the value they're buying in at !
I wonder if the recent allegations against Nikola will change the SEC's long-term stance on SPACs and the "less painful disclosure" requirements. Maybe something to explore in another post?
i understand great vehicle for sponsors..how about investors? giving away 20% for free?
Hey Rajkumar! Great question. From my understanding, the main benefit for non-sponsoring investors is ability to invest (in the SPAC) before they merge with the company.
Which would mean the Company looking to merge and become public would leave some chunk on the table for Non Sponsoring Investors to not feel short changed ... which would be equivilant or maybe more than what is left on the table for a highly criticised "Pop" during traditional IPO?
There are many benifits of SPAC - faster way to become public, less regulation, single counterparty negotitation etc. .... however could the benifits regarding no Pop be flawed because somewhere someone needs to feel good about the value they're buying in at !