Jun. 09, 2022
June 9, 2022 The SEC realizes that these drastic, midstream rules changes with no grandfather clauses are merely making SPACs far worse in quality, right? Quality of targets, underwriters and sponsors have been declining since the rule changes, and this will only lead to even worse outcomes for investors, right? How does Goldman backing out of underwriting, leaving SPACs to settle for less trustworthy underwriters help investors? How does PIMCO backing out of FACT or Tribe Capital abandoning their own SPAC ATVC lead to positive outcomes for investors? How does delaying mergers and messing up quality definitive agreements to where sponsors end up settling for whatever they can get result in positive outcomes for investors? SPACs have problems. So do IPOs. The SPAC bubble was burst long before this new batch of regulations began. If you want to change SPACs, freeze new IPOs and create \"new SPACs\" that have new rules. Stop being antagonistic to companies that haven't done anything wrong.