> SPACs, in theory, democratized access to late-stage private markets, aiming to give retail investors an early seat at the table.
I question how that's even true in theory. A SPAC is an elaborate (and expensive) mechanism to bring a private company public with less disclosure; even if it works as designed, you're not letting retail investors invest in early stage companies.
> He mentioned that the allure wasn't just the capital but the perceived simplicity of the process, compared to a traditional IPO.
There's very little simple about a SPAC, which suggests the founder may not have understood them as much as he thought he did. Perhaps he meant easier?
Also, I mean, there is a simple process for going public that does at least partially democratize the process: Direct listings. I've always found it fascinating how unpopular they are.
I question how that's even true in theory. A SPAC is an elaborate (and expensive) mechanism to bring a private company public with less disclosure; even if it works as designed, you're not letting retail investors invest in early stage companies.
> He mentioned that the allure wasn't just the capital but the perceived simplicity of the process, compared to a traditional IPO.
There's very little simple about a SPAC, which suggests the founder may not have understood them as much as he thought he did. Perhaps he meant easier?
Also, I mean, there is a simple process for going public that does at least partially democratize the process: Direct listings. I've always found it fascinating how unpopular they are.