Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?

29
12
Favorite

Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?

zerohedge2021-03-01

The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Report

Comment（12）

Rarara
·2021-03-01
Wow
Reply
1
Report
marctjh
·2021-03-01
Nice
Reply
Like
Report
Keatz
·2021-03-01
Is the bubble are real?
Reply
Like
Report
Fold Replies
- KeithHan:
  [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶]
  2021-03-01
  Reply
  Report
Nebhol
·2021-03-01
Consumers?
Reply
Like
Report
Tchua
·2021-03-01
Is it really over yet?
Reply
3
Report
Fold Replies
- Tchua:
  Or are we early in the game?
  2021-03-01
  Reply
  Report
WhiteField
·2021-03-01
Hmm
Reply
1
Report
WhiteField
·2021-03-01
Nobody!
Reply
Like
Report
Fold Replies
- Stormytw:
  yeapp
  2021-03-02
  Reply
  Report
Vincentcrx
·2021-03-01
Buy near NAV of the SPAC and after it popsup. SPAC fatigue has set in and especially after the CCIV saga.
Reply
Like
Report
LJW1609
·2021-03-01
?
Reply
1
Report
Fold Replies
- 青龙31:
  us [笑哭]
  2021-03-03
  Reply
  Report
Bellabobo
·2021-03-01
[驚訝]
Reply
Like
Report
mohjoejoejoe
·2021-03-01
Hmm
Reply
2
Report
Ronchan
·2021-03-01
Hmm hope it is not me ?
Reply
Like
Report

Most Discussed

7x24

All

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1109453792?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1109453792","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","media":"zerohedge","content":"<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1583725640930","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":null,"symbol_name":null,"start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","article_id":"1109453792","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"lsy1583725640930","name":"Zerohedge"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"zerohedge.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{},"translate_title":"谁是SPAC市场的冤大头？","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{},"content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","kind":null,"is_publish_news":false,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":null,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":362815462,"gmtCreate":1614612045856,"gmtModify":1704773107828,"author":{"id":"3572056879124454","authorId":"3572056879124454","name":"Rarara","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3ab58e7ec45caff59eb52cdc6dc4f776","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Wow","listText":"Wow","text":"Wow","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362815462","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":362124201,"gmtCreate":1614609242503,"gmtModify":1704773018646,"author":{"id":"3575390324533320","authorId":"3575390324533320","name":"marctjh","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e68086431fab95bd13b1fc6dd0ad9d97","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Nice&nbsp;","listText":"Nice&nbsp;","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362124201","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":362182416,"gmtCreate":1614607796135,"gmtModify":1704772989886,"author":{"id":"3573786450103912","authorId":"3573786450103912","name":"Keatz","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/1d9b7ee59cb880841cedfc6ffb49f187","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Is the bubble are real?","listText":"Is the bubble are real?","text":"Is the bubble are real?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362182416","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":3690668,"gmtCreate":1614613019253,"gmtModify":1680778761417,"authorId":3573373078542650,"author":{"id":3573373078542650,"authorId":3573373078542650,"name":"KeithHan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/499148728d0c775136a5099e0d8769c0","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":362182416,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"[惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶]","text":"[惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶]","html":"[惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶] [惊讶]"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":362182877,"gmtCreate":1614607777599,"gmtModify":1704772989397,"author":{"id":"3567411499210880","authorId":"3567411499210880","name":"Nebhol","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b0bfc2a45b91e41a283614268857b3a5","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Consumers?&nbsp;","listText":"Consumers?&nbsp;","text":"Consumers?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362182877","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":362101996,"gmtCreate":1614603837815,"gmtModify":1704772927070,"author":{"id":"3561859229387101","authorId":"3561859229387101","name":"Tchua","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/245ba7d1360ad877e076f09e9d78c378","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Is it really over yet?","listText":"Is it really over yet?","text":"Is it really over yet?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362101996","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":3689184,"gmtCreate":1614603856245,"gmtModify":1680778739559,"authorId":3561859229387101,"author":{"id":3561859229387101,"authorId":3561859229387101,"name":"Tchua","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/245ba7d1360ad877e076f09e9d78c378","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":362101996,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Or are we early in the game?","text":"Or are we early in the game?","html":"Or are we early in the game?"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":362372439,"gmtCreate":1614603161321,"gmtModify":1704772917084,"author":{"id":"3571654404801251","authorId":"3571654404801251","name":"WhiteField","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/82a7951ef122fa8e807bd10b0876389e","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a8758340a08196056f8bc1e54805193","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":1},"htmlText":"Hmm","listText":"Hmm","text":"Hmm","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362372439","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":362372613,"gmtCreate":1614603141432,"gmtModify":1704772916600,"author":{"id":"3571654404801251","authorId":"3571654404801251","name":"WhiteField","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/82a7951ef122fa8e807bd10b0876389e","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a8758340a08196056f8bc1e54805193","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":1},"htmlText":"Nobody!","listText":"Nobody!","text":"Nobody!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362372613","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":3690924,"gmtCreate":1614614547834,"gmtModify":1680778776687,"authorId":3564008227112773,"author":{"id":3564008227112773,"authorId":3564008227112773,"name":"Stormytw","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e52e3d83a9b8426eb631c8696b5c6197","vip":2,"currentWearingBadge":{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-2","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"Executive Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $300,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9d20b23f1b6335407f882bc5c2ad12c0","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ada3b4533518ace8404a3f6dd192bd29","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/177f283ba21d1c077054dac07f88f3bd","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":1,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.08.26","exceedPercentage":"80.97%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":1,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":362372613,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"yeapp","text":"yeapp","html":"yeapp"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":362379734,"gmtCreate":1614602702128,"gmtModify":1704772909777,"author":{"id":"3557137039793852","authorId":"3557137039793852","name":"Vincentcrx","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ab0e9af57913b86cf3a8697c6ddcd77","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Buy near NAV of the SPAC and after it popsup. SPAC fatigue has set in and especially after the CCIV saga.&nbsp;","listText":"Buy near NAV of the SPAC and after it popsup. SPAC fatigue has set in and especially after the CCIV saga.&nbsp;","text":"Buy near NAV of the SPAC and after it popsup. SPAC fatigue has set in and especially after the CCIV saga.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362379734","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":362379637,"gmtCreate":1614602666629,"gmtModify":1704772909288,"author":{"id":"3577489264152975","authorId":"3577489264152975","name":"LJW1609","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a3608fe9a02d0805427f5a68593c03d7","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"?","listText":"?","text":"?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362379637","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":3700269,"gmtCreate":1614722787978,"gmtModify":1680778920782,"authorId":3576343495749854,"author":{"id":3576343495749854,"authorId":3576343495749854,"name":"青龙31","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0a90e7038ecc62a70099f6c916904ede","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":362379637,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"us [笑哭]","text":"us [笑哭]","html":"us [笑哭]"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":362370580,"gmtCreate":1614602580040,"gmtModify":1704772908316,"author":{"id":"3576834099048857","authorId":"3576834099048857","name":"Bellabobo","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/83162e464b7279e110f5bbe9b590a270","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"[驚訝]&nbsp;","listText":"[驚訝]&nbsp;","text":"[驚訝]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362370580","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":362347099,"gmtCreate":1614602433211,"gmtModify":1704772906372,"author":{"id":"3570664633810000","authorId":"3570664633810000","name":"mohjoejoejoe","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Hmm","listText":"Hmm","text":"Hmm","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362347099","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":362342893,"gmtCreate":1614602080212,"gmtModify":1704772902803,"author":{"id":"3559128077154435","authorId":"3559128077154435","name":"Ronchan","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/44cc3fba457549bd6dbe449c8aa6c640","vip":1,"crmLevel":8,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Hmm hope it is not me ?","listText":"Hmm hope it is not me ?","text":"Hmm hope it is not me ?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/362342893","repostId":1109453792,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1109453792","pubTimestamp":1614600249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1109453792?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-01 20:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1109453792","media":"zerohedge","summary":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Banke","content":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors &amp; Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies.&nbsp;I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game:&nbsp;Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share.&nbsp;The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a&nbsp;Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n<blockquote>\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2.&nbsp;The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n</blockquote>\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market.&nbsp;This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals.&nbsp;Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\n<img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86935ec16d85533211d5fe6f76dbbbd9\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"273\">The Value Chain &amp; Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust.&nbsp;Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.”&nbsp;The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values.&nbsp;When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n<blockquote>\n 1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n</blockquote>\nWhy will it pop?\n<ul>\n <li>Simple issue of Supply and Demand:&nbsp;In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.</li>\n <li>The SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO.&nbsp;The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.</li>\n</ul>","source":"lsy1583725640930","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Who Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWho Is The Sucker In The SPAC Market?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-01 20:04 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market>zerohedge</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nThe SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-sucker-spac-market","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1109453792","content_text":"The SPAC market has become frothy and is reminiscent of the 1999 .com Bubble.SPAC evangelists (Bankers, Sponsors & Hedge Funds), most of whom are gaining great wealth from the Bubble, will say: “This time is different”. The argument they make is that SPACs are an increasingly mainstream, speedier path to IPO with less required disclosure and are acquiring better-quality companies than they have in the past. I think the less stringent regulation of SPACs feeds the risks borne by the end purchaser who is paying as much as 2X the true value of the underlying asset.The quality of SPAC acquisitions is poorer today than it has ever been, and the valuations are inflated as sponsors have no incentive to have any price discipline, rather their sole motivation is to get the deals done.\nWhen I think about the SPAC market, I see all the parties involved making money, including the sponsors, investors and acquired companies. I then ask myself the same question one is supposed to ask when entering a poker Game: Who is the SPAC sucker, and why is this Bubble happening?\nSPAC 101\nIt is first important to start with an explanation of SPACs as the particulars are often misunderstood. If one invests in a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), he/she typically buys a unit consisting of a share and a warrant. This unit can be split and traded separately into a share and the proportional amount of warrants typically 1/2-1/3 per share. The sponsors contribute cash (sponsor equity) to the trust to cover expenses and receive a promote which is a combination of shares and warrants that typically averages 20% of the value of the SPAC. This promote vests upon the consummation of the deal with a lockup on his/her shares for a period that is often reduced, depending on the prevailing price per share. This is a Key Problemas SPACs are incented to do poor deals. Profit realization for SPAC sponsors is based on getting a deal done, even if it the stock trades down substantially.\nThe investor can opt not to participate in the deal and instead redeem his share for the cash invested plus the yield on short term treasuries, aka “Cash-in-trust.” Upon the earlier of:\n\n 1. SPAC maturity (18-24 months) or2. The SPAC announcing and closing on a prospective deal.\n\nAlternatively, the investor can stay in the deal and be an investor in the new company through the “De-SPACing.”\nI have been investing in SPACs for over ten years as an arbitrageur. I rarely have the intention of holding shares through the deal or “De-SPACing.” Prior to the second half of 2020, most deals ended up trading at or just below cash in trust, incenting a redemption for cash rather than the selling of shares on the open market. This phenomenon changed after NIKOLA and Virgin Galactic as investors started paying a premium for the hot deals. Today, almost all SPAC shares are trading at a substantial premium of 2-3% above their cash in trust. This is down from 8-9% a few weeks ago and could quickly go negative.\nHistorically, the sucker has been the guy who buys the SPAC and owns it on the back by rolling his shares into the newly merged company.Industry research shows that, for the SPACs that completed de-SPAC transactions between 2015 and July 2020, their shares delivered an average loss of 18.8%. That compares with the average after-market return from traditional IPOs of 37.2% since 2015. These days, most SPACs are doing bad deals and overpaying by a premium of say 20% to capture the sponsor economics (more on this later). That back-end investor is also giving up a 20% promote and is likely buying the stock post-IPO at a premium of say $0.50. So, in total, in he is overpaying by almost 50% for this stock.\nThe Value Chain & Why This Will Go Away\nPrior to the middle of last year, 60% of SPAC $ were redeemed. Today that is 0, as they all trade well above cash in trust. Once the bubble bursts, the SPACs will no longer trade at a premium to their value of “Cash in Trust.” Arbs will be the holder base and they will redeem for “Cash in Trust.” The value that the sponsors currently bring to the acquiree is the stupid cash that is rolling into the deal at an aggressive valuation. This value has been increasingly accessible given the bubble, as historically most SPAC money is redeemed.This is a retail/bubble driven phenomenon where investors opt to stay in deals at inflated values. When this goes away, the huge amount of SPAC equity capital contributed to recent raises may well end up being the loser.Those sponsors will have to do genuinely good deals to convince investors to participate rather than redeeming the shares.\nI have seen an 11% number quoted for the % of SPACs liquidating over the past 10 years, but what that does not capture is the number of deals where the sponsor forfeits his upside to get the deal done, as historically, he has brought far less cash into the deal. At that point, the sponsor is only providing a shell. With the number of available SPAC shells increasing every day, their value declines, as does the liquidity profile for the shares on the back end, and thus the true exit value for the acquiree.\nSome Signs of a SPAC bubble:\n\n1. Dramatic increase in notional outstanding:Total Notional has increased by $84B over the past year to about $100B. At current pace, total outstanding notional SPAC is projected to get to $190B by June.\n 2. Increased Retail Participation:SPACs have gone from the arcane to the hottest mainstream discussion topic.\n 3. Increasing Institutional Leverage from PBs:5 years ago it was 1X to 2X, one year ago it was 3X, now 4X is standard and the larger Multistrats are getting 10X with 6 months of term.\n 4. Sponsors Bringing Multiple deals:Chamath, Sternlicht.\n 5. Lower Quality of Sponsors/Celebrity SPACs:Billy Beane, Shaq, Arod, Colin Kaepernick, Serena Williams, Jay-Z, Paul Ryan. This is not that different than celebrities getting paid to promote crypto and there is some overlap here.\n 6. Recent SPAC Hedge Fund and ETF launches\n\nWhy will it pop?\n\nSimple issue of Supply and Demand: In January, issuance was $63B. February is projected to be on Pace. If this continues, even with a moderate slowdown ($20B of net monthly issuance), I estimate total notional SPAC $ outstanding will be around $200B by mid-2021 and $320B at year-end.\nThe SPAC IPO narrative will break down:The view is that SPACS are now the preferred route to IPO: SPACS are now more mainstream, but the perceived speedy path to issuance for a lower quality company understates the hidden costs. The standard fee structure associated with SPACS is a 20% promote (paid in shares). This fee remains regardless of how poorly the SPAC trades on the backend and well exceeds costs of a traditional IPO. The lack of disclosure required for SPAC reverse mergers may cause SEC concern and potential changes. In the past few months, we have seen fraud and disclosure issues (Nikola, Clover Health) that may draw regulator attention. If the market cooled down, the appetite for newer issues would decline and we will be left with too many SPAC shells with lesser prospects.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":29,"commentSize":12,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}