>In a world where any Tom, Dick and Harry can run up massive losses and still IPO through an SPAC, how is that an indicator of anything good?
Anyone can IPO, but few earn money doing it. In the last 10 years, how many owners made any significant money IPO-ing through an SPAC? The market has mostly rewarded good businesses with cash flow and profits and growth, and others have lagged behind a relatively risk-less SP500 investment.
This very thread is an example of yet another business shutting down because the business couldn’t achieve the desired profit margins. If the owners could have IPO’d and made money, they would have.
> Anyone can IPO, but few earn money doing it. In the last 10 years, how many owners made any significant money IPO-ing through an SPAC?
If owners are holding stock (instead of say, options), then the only reason to IPO would be if they can sell the stock on the secondary market at a profit. They wouldn't need to IPO to raise capital, the VCs can offer that. So what would be event where such a SPAC IPO wouldn't make money for the founder?
Anyone can IPO, but few earn money doing it. In the last 10 years, how many owners made any significant money IPO-ing through an SPAC? The market has mostly rewarded good businesses with cash flow and profits and growth, and others have lagged behind a relatively risk-less SP500 investment.
This very thread is an example of yet another business shutting down because the business couldn’t achieve the desired profit margins. If the owners could have IPO’d and made money, they would have.