Investment Strategies
SPAC Money-Raising Spree Prompts Warnings

The number of special purpose acquisition companies entering the market rose by more than four times in 2020 and the trend continues. There are starting to be a few warning noises about the process.
(An earlier version of this article ran on Family Wealth
Report, sister news service to this one.)
The decibel count around the structures known as SPACs – special
purpose acquisition companies – continues to get louder, leading
to a few warnings noises.
These exchange-listed shell companies are expanding in number and
value. Listings rose to 230 last year, with a total issue volume
of $75.8 billion (source: EY). Those numbers are up from 60
listings in 2019, netting a total of $13.7 billion in proceeds.
This isn’t only a US phenomenon – more deals are going on in
Europe too.
Dealflow continues to be strong. Bloomberg earlier this week
reported that Intel Corp chairman Omar Ishrak is planning to
raise funds for SPAC targeting deals in the health technology
sector. The report, quoting unnamed sources, said that Ishrak,
who previously ran medical device giant Medtronic, could file
public registration documents with the US Securities and Exchange
Commission as soon as today [Tuesday 19 January]. Ishrak is
reportedly aiming to raise about $750 million to $1 billion for
the SPAC.
This news service has been told that ultra-wealthy individuals,
including those with family offices, have been involved in some
of these SPAC deals, both on the corporate finance, money-raising
side, and as investors. These entities have actually been around
for a while. Some commentators urge market participants to be
careful.
For example, in a recent editorial for the Wall Street
Journal, Michael Klausner, a professor at Stanford Law
School, and Emily Ruan, a management consultant in San Francisco,
wrote that the SPAC trend was a bubble and could soon
burst.
“We studied SPACs that completed mergers between January 2019 and
June 2020 and found that, on average, they lost 12 per cent of
their value within six months following the merger, while the
Nasdaq rose roughly 30 per cent. Even with these drops in share
price, the 20 per cent that the sponsor gets essentially for free
provides a nice return on its investment. The sponsors of these
SPACs enjoyed a return on investment of more than 500 per cent as
of the end of 2020,” they wrote (source: WSJ, 6
January). “It is not a coincidence that sponsors and SPAC IPO
investors who redeem their shares earn a high return, while
shareholders who remain invested through the merger do poorly.
The sponsors’ essentially free shares and the IPO investors’ free
warrants and rights dilute the returns to investors. The
shareholders who pay for their investments are, in effect,
sharing the value of the merged company with others who did
not.”
They continued: “Our study of SPACs that merged between January
2019 and June 2020 found that, at the time of their merger, most
SPACs had less than $6.75 a share in cash but ascribed a $10
value to those shares when they merged.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused havoc, and there’s a thirst for
new sources of capital as businesses try to re-open and in in
some cases, get off the ground for the first time in the months
ahead. The wealth management sector has in general done pretty
well over the past 12 months as markets, fuelled by central bank
money printing, have held up. SPACs are a source of new capital
but, as the data from the WSJ article suggests, not
everyone is having an equally good ride with them.
The winning formula for SPACs is that buyers get a 20 per cent
stake in the financing vehicle at a low cost, which turns into a
big stake in the target company after a merger. Sellers can go
public without the hassles and restrictions of a traditional IPO.
But it remains to be seen whether the SPAC structure will work in
the US Registered Investor space, given the already-strong
M&A market going on the sector.
Paul Bernstein, the vice chair of Venable LLP’s entertainment and
media group (based in the US), reckons these SPACs have a short
window over which to spend the cash.
“One of the oddities of SPAC-driven M&A activity is that
SPACs generally have a two-year time limit in which to either put
their cash to work in one or more acquisitions or return it to
their public stockholders.
This naturally creates a tremendous incentive for those running
the SPACs (who typically own highly preferential “founders’
shares” in their SPACs) to close deals before the time limit is
up,” he wrote in a recent commentary.
“When a SPAC raises money, it includes `Risk Factors’ in its
prospectus in order to alert investors to certain dangers of
buying the SPAC shares. The following language, quoted from a
recent SPAC prospectus, should be music to the ears of potential
acquisition targets: `The requirement that we complete our
initial business combination within the prescribed time frame
(i.e., two years) may give potential target businesses leverage
over us in negotiating a business combination.’
“Imagine sitting across the negotiating table from someone who
has $100 million of other people’s money in their wallet and – in
a twist on Hitchcock’s distinction between suspense and surprise
- both you and they know that the wallet will blow up on a
certain day two years hence. The SPAC cannot conceal the date by
which it must either spend its money or return it to
stockholders, because that date is disclosed for the world to see
in the SPAC’s public filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.”