If you partially own a company, the advantage to the company is partially your advantage.
You appear to be trying to imply that the regulations and practices around going public are an unconditional good, in all cases, for all new investors in the company. That seems... very black and white. Have you ever been heavily involved in an IPO?
I want to be clear, I'm not saying that what's involved in going public is an unconditional negative -- but there's definitely friction that you pick up. Things that might be tuned too strictly, at least for your company, or that might make sense for other companies but are an arbitrary hoop for yours. Or well-intentioned rules and practices that just aren't accomplishing their intents.
If we say, in the universe of all companies going public, could some of them be materially helped by having a SPAC create a bespoke process for you in terms of how you go public, rather than the cookie cutter template? I mean, sure. And is that compatible with the idea that most SPACs today don't add much value? Also sure.
What's the balance of the situation on the ground? I don't know. I'd be dubious of SPACs right now, without dismissing the idea that in the right circumstances, they can be helpful.
> If you partially own a company, the advantage to the company is partially your advantage.
We're talking about IPO/SPAC investors who don't own the stock yet.
Are you suggesting that current investors would pass the savings of skipping the IPO process on to new investors? That would be a tangible benefit of skipping the IPO process for public investors.
But no one seems to be willing to say that will happen.
You appear to be trying to imply that the regulations and practices around going public are an unconditional good, in all cases, for all new investors in the company. That seems... very black and white. Have you ever been heavily involved in an IPO?
I want to be clear, I'm not saying that what's involved in going public is an unconditional negative -- but there's definitely friction that you pick up. Things that might be tuned too strictly, at least for your company, or that might make sense for other companies but are an arbitrary hoop for yours. Or well-intentioned rules and practices that just aren't accomplishing their intents.
If we say, in the universe of all companies going public, could some of them be materially helped by having a SPAC create a bespoke process for you in terms of how you go public, rather than the cookie cutter template? I mean, sure. And is that compatible with the idea that most SPACs today don't add much value? Also sure.
What's the balance of the situation on the ground? I don't know. I'd be dubious of SPACs right now, without dismissing the idea that in the right circumstances, they can be helpful.