Talk:Special-purpose acquisition company

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lmhilty.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2021: "Legal" section removed

I removed the section because, in an editing error, its content consisted solely of the earlier version of the opening sentence of the previous section. Please, anyone, feel free to create a new "Legal" section and add relevant content. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Pershing Square Tontine Holdings Ltd.

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal (more info). It might be worth adding to the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Too US-centric

This article has been tagged as too US-centric, but I wonder if that's a fair criticism when the majority of global SPACs are listed in the US and therefore subject to US laws and perspective. I won't be removing the tag for now but did want to consider this in the discussion. Carbinecolonelr (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Useful source

[1] This pdf from the Yale Journal of Regulation might be useful for a future editor working to improve the article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Needs update

Needs to be updated with recent information on the large number of SPACs which are currently dissolving 2600:8801:280C:5900:497B:3825:9E1:C865 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's full of puffery and almost doesn't reflect https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SPACS.pdf at all.

Lots of evidence-backed claims:

The SPAC Structure Incentivizes Inflated, Inadequate, and Even Fraudulent Disclosures.

SPACs Allow for Rampant Self-Dealing at the Expense of Retail Investors and the Health of the Market.

Rampant Self-Dealing by SPAC Creators and Sponsors Hurts Retail Investors and The Market.

SPAC Sponsors’ Incentives and Outcomes Do Not Align with Retail Investors, Leading to Low-Quality Deals that Harm Investors.

SPAC Shortcuts Give Institutional Investors and Wall Street Insiders Profitmaking Opportunities that Dilute Shares for Retail Investors and Put Underlying Companies at Risk.

Financial Institutions Profit Off SPACs Through Hidden Fees that Outstrip Those of a Traditional IPO.

The SPAC Promote: SPAC Creators Are Guaranteed Profits Even When Mergers Are Not Profitable for Investors

Warrants, PIPEs, and Early Investments Sweeten the Deal for Insiders, While Leaving Retail Investors in the Cold

High SPAC Fees Increase Costs for Retail Investors

SPAC Sponsors Rake In “Consultant” And Advisory Fees While Skewing Due Diligence To Their Own Benefit

SPAC Sponsors Double As Investors Despite Inherent Insider Advantages RememberOrwell (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@RememberOrwell: The last paragraph in the lead isn't promotional, "Despite the popularity and growth in the number of SPACs, academic analysis shows investor returns on SPAC companies post-merger are almost uniformly negative,".

For the record, I can't believe that anyone would have ever invested in a SPAC, as I think any companies which used this were probably such a poor investment that they couldn't have done a regular IPO, so I am in no way supportive of SPACs, but I don't think a POV tag at the top of the article helps to point out where the specific problems are. A quick look shows lots of unsourced content, which you can feel free to remove, and I may do so myself.

The Wall Street Journal has run plenty of articles critical of SPACs and these would be good sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I came to this article some time back and never read all of it. I agree with you now that the style of writing and the many unsourced sections (which I have now removed) make it appear like a how-to manual for someone who might want to invest in a SPAC. This article probably could use some time and effort from someone who wants to look at whether the "sources" currently in the article are good sources, and whether they really support the statements, and I wouldn't be opposed to a criticism section, because honestly all the articles I've seen about SPACs have been critical/negative of them. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If you read the sentences I added, they're all factual. I added a bunch of content. 2,930 characters. Can you point out a SINGLE factual claim I made about SPACs that was inaccurate? RememberOrwell (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

It needed a section that explained in a straightforward manner what the purpose of SPACs is.

SPACs aim to bypass regulatory protections that safeguard retail investors in traditional initial public offerings (IPOs). This approach enables rampant self-dealing, compromising the interests of retail investors and market integrity. That is their purpose. That's why it belongs in a section titled purpose, which I added.

You removed 100% of my contribution, claiming A report generated by ONE congressperson's office Elizabeth Warren's office is NOT a WP:RS nor an Independent Source WP:IS. The information I added is correct. It meets WP:V. It's sourced. The article is better with it than without it.

Re. your latest edits: How did your culling of a large amount of long-unsourced but relatively informative content improve the article? Or did it concentrate the junk quotient?

RememberOrwell (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't operate like you think: How did your culling of a large amount of long-unsourced but relatively informative content improve the article? Wikipedia isn't here to inform people of falsehoods or other misinformation.

It doesn't matter whether YOU THINK something is true, it should be VERIFIABLE - WP:V "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people are able to check that information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it" and SOURCED WP:NOR.

Secondly, "SPACs aim to bypass regulatory protections that safeguard retail investors in traditional initial public offerings (IPOs). This approach enables rampant self-dealing, compromising the interests of retail investors and market integrity." is POV conjecture, published by Warren because she is a consumer advocate and used this as justification/motivation for the bill she introduced or regulation she wanted, and we already cover that in the article here: "In 2022, Elizabeth Warren released a report showing that Wall Street insiders were using SPACs in ways that harmed investors, and called for regulations to curb the abuse."

If you want to improve the article and change the POV, here's what I suggest. The lead says: "...thus making the private company public without going through the initial public offering process, which often carries significant procedural and regulatory burdens." you could find and read sources (probably from Warren's report) that support a statement like "Critics have expressed concern that SPACs are being used to bypass the consumer protections intended for the retail investor by bypassing the IPO process and have called for increased regulation of SPACs." (This Reuters article says: "Critics say the vehicles allow targets to sidestep the stiffer regulatory scrutiny of a traditional initial public offering (IPO), putting investors at risk." and that in 2024 regulations were increased. [2] We could add a statement like that as the second statement in the lead. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the well-sourced improvements, which significantly fill the holes you left. But, I ask again: How did your culling of a large amount of long-unsourced but relatively informative content improve the article?

I notice you do NOT claim you removed any falsehoods or other misinformation.

I notice you do NOT claim you removed any unverifiable information.

You just said those are good things to do, which they are. But, N.B.: unverifiable and unsourced are NOT synonyms. Agreed?

Re your suggestion:

It is a basic fact that initial public offering process carries significant procedural and regulatory burdens. It's not POV, as you claim.

"SPACs aim to bypass regulatory protections that safeguard retail investors in traditional initial public offerings (IPOs). This approach enables rampant self-dealing, compromising the interests of retail investors and market integrity" is verifiable. Investor returns post-merger are "almost uniformly negative," is a consistent conclusion as is bypassing regulatory protections being the purpose of SPACs. Retail investors who can invest in SPACs can invest in normal IPOs. But we can agree to disagree. Happy to move forward with your suggestion (changing the wording and sourcing a bit re not shouldering the procedural and regulatory burdens ). I tried but hit a glitch. RememberOrwell (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

You are right, falsehoods and misinformation are different than unverifiable, and unverifiable and unsourced are not synonyms. But, there's a large gray area here, between blatantly false and potentially false where I simply don't know whether something is true or not.

If I know something to be true, but don't have the time to find a source right then, I'll label it as "Citation needed."

If I don't know whether something unsourced is true or not, and I don't have the time or can't quickly verify it, I delete it, because I feel that unsourced statements invite people to add "sources" which APPEAR to support the statement (often by doing a text search and reading one sentence of the source) but sometimes don't really support the statement when the entire context of the whole source is read. Because leaving info like this in leads to articles being written WP:BACKWARDS, I remove unsourced content. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)