• About
  • Archive
  • Privacy & Policy
  • Contact
Dana Blankenhorn
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com
No Result
View All Result
Dana Blankenhorn
No Result
View All Result
Home A-Clue

Rampant SPAC-ulation

by Dana Blankenhorn
March 25, 2021
in A-Clue, business strategy, Current Affairs, economy, futurism, investment, law, The 2020s and Beyond
2
0
SHARES
5
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Chamath_PalihapitiyaOver at InvestorPlace I have spent this week looking at Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs).

SPACs are the new hot way to go public. Instead of having to file nasty reports with the SEC, or answer hard questions from reporters and the common herd, you just hand the deal over to some hedge fund sponsor, sit back and wait for the money to rain down.

Some of the companies that have come out this way have been good for speculators. Draftkings (DKNG) has been huge. Some, like Virgin Galactic (SPCE) have had nice runs before falling to Earth. Others have been pure dogs. Can you believe WeWork is going public through a SPAC?

SPACs are a way to take money from bankers and put it into the hands of hedge fund sharpies who know how to go on TV and spin a story. The godfather of the movement, Chamath Palihapitiya, admits as much.

SPACs are also a way for hedge funds to dump their garbage. Profitable companies that used to go public now wait until all the juice is squeezed from them, taking bigger-and-bigger hunks of private equity cash. Now the garbage, the companies that aren’t making money, can go public through SPACs.

For the hedge fund guys, it’s a win-win. Get people to invest blind, sell them on your garbage, then on to the next one before “investors” see an earnings report.


Labor-union-poster-designsFor the investor, however, it’s a lose-lose. It’s another recent example of the ultra-rich robbing everyone below them. The game is always the same. Get around laws that protect people, in this case securities law, by redefining them, in this case taking garbage public through SPACs. Just as low-end workers became independent contractors and lost the protections of a century.

The upper middle-class didn’t worry when their hedge fund masters came for the immigrants, the unions, or the gig workers who clean their toilets. Well, now the .0001% is coming for you.

How does it feel?

Tags: economic thefthedge fundsinvestingSPAC investingSPACstheftWall Street
Previous Post

Be Your Own Brand, Become your own business

Next Post

The Barnes Precedent

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn began his career as a financial journalist in 1978, began covering technology in 1982, and the Internet in 1985. He started one of the first Internet daily newsletters, the Interactive Age Daily, in 1994. He recently retired from InvestorPlace and lives in Atlanta, GA, preparing for his next great adventure. He's a graduate of Rice University (1977) and Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism (MSJ 1978). He's a native of Massapequa, NY.

Next Post
The Barnes Precedent

The Barnes Precedent

Comments 2

  1. MAO says:
    5 years ago

    Right, so SPACs are apparently a scam: “a way to take money from bankers and put it into the hands of hedge fund sharpies.”
    Why are they nonetheless attractive to start-ups? Partly because they “take money from [the investment] bankers” who, in the standard IPO, give away newly minted shares to their buddies in insider deals and set the issue-price low true value to ensure a price “pop” that will enrich all original shareholders: themselves (in addition to the high fees they charge), their aforementioned buddies, the company owners.
    That’s also pretty rotten. So what’s the answer, which preferrably channels most IPO rewards to the last-named?

    Reply
  2. MAO says:
    5 years ago

    Right, so SPACs are apparently a scam: “a way to take money from bankers and put it into the hands of hedge fund sharpies.”
    Why are they nonetheless attractive to start-ups? Partly because they “take money from [the investment] bankers” who, in the standard IPO, give away newly minted shares to their buddies in insider deals and set the issue-price low true value to ensure a price “pop” that will enrich all original shareholders: themselves (in addition to the high fees they charge), their aforementioned buddies, the company owners.
    That’s also pretty rotten. So what’s the answer, which preferrably channels most IPO rewards to the last-named?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Post

Reconsidering OpenAI

When Will the Bubble Burst?

December 12, 2025
Home

Becoming Opa Fiets In 2026

December 11, 2025
My Annual Christmas Letter

My Annual Christmas Letter

December 10, 2025
2026: America’s Political Deadlock is Broken

2026: America’s Political Deadlock is Broken

December 9, 2025
Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox!


Archives

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Dana Blankenhorn on The Death of Video
  • danablank on The Problem of the Moment (Is Not the Problem of the Moment)
  • cipit88 on The Problem of the Moment (Is Not the Problem of the Moment)
  • danablank on What I Learned on my European Vacation
  • danablank on Boomer Roomers

I'm Dana Blankenhorn. I have covered the Internet as a reporter since 1983. I've been a professional business reporter since 1978, and a writer all my life.

  • Italian Trulli

Browse by Category

Newsletter


Powered by FeedBlitz
  • About
  • Archive
  • Privacy & Policy
  • Contact

© 2023 Dana Blankenhorn - All Rights Reserved

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com

© 2023 Dana Blankenhorn - All Rights Reserved