I was literally just talking to a SPAC CEO last weekend that was in a deal with Goldman that got dropped by them. Apparently, there are regulations coming down from the SEC and Goldman didn't want to deal with them and/or the regulations changed the profit calculus.
I suspect that similar to how the "market" has various things "priced in", larger financial firms want to stay ahead of regulation and essentially change their business models around ahead of regulations.
I think they all operate on the principle of being first for everything is more profitable, including exiting poor investments.
Can someone explain Goldman's role? What are they underwriting? SPAC's merge with companies with capital that SPAC's already have collected. Was Goldman underwriting the formation of new SPACs when those SPACs are initially collecting money?
SPACs are ridiculous. The sponsors take the lions share of the profits. Free money in many cases.. and the small investors get absolutely nothing. The whole scheme was rife with manipulation and excess. Not surprised GS is taking the conservative route. It only means they know the hammer is coming down on the shenanigans that took place.
He had an overconfidence in himself in the last few years, and yes, that line was awful, but I’m sure any of us would have an insensitive line if we would be trying to do what All In podcast does: try to say controversial things as well to get a real debate going.
It's easy to hate on SPACs. The duds brought to market were numerous. However, it was refreshing to see some new companies go public, which briefly reversed the trend of companies staying private for longer and longer. Rather than hate on SPACs, I would like to ask: has any company that went public via a SPAC been successful?
Maybe you would have gotten some edifying responses if you had confidently declared "no such company has been successful"... even if you don't believe it, people like to contradict.
Even if the purchased firm were solvent after some elapsed time, that wouldn't necessarily mean the SPAC investors had made any money.
Related: I wrote some code that attempts to extract the latest SPAC data (which you can filter/export) from SEC filings as they're filed: https://docoh.com/spacs
I'll admit I have some recency bias here as I just re-read The Big Short about the '08 financial crash but I think you're probably right on the first point, they got a tip or heard around the proverbial finance industry watercooler that a crackdown was coming and decided to exit. I'm 100% certain they've got something else in the works, probably more opaque for regulators and the public with less risk to Goldman and a higher profit margin if history is to be believed.
The SEC has been saying for months they were taking a harder look here. Just reading the writing on the wall. All the companies that have gone public via SPAC have not done well, not sure who would go public that way - I imagine no one will be holding the bag because most will give the money back and go away
Has anyone from Goldman ever actually been in trouble from the authorities?
That was my take from the 2008 financial crisis: the government had to fix everything. Again.
And no Hollywood movie about the European, American and Asian finance ministers who had to make sure the ATMs kept working.
However the SEC recently increased its "Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit" staff from 30 to 50. Hopefully they'll bring the hammer down on token offerings with enough force to scare the big VCs away, at least.
John Tuld: Let me tell you something, Mr. Sullivan. Do you care to know why I'm in this chair with you all? I mean, why I earn the big bucks.
Peter Sullivan: Yes.
John Tuld: I'm here for one reason and one reason alone. I'm here to guess what the music might do a week, a month, a year from now. That's it. Nothing more. And standing here tonight, I'm afraid that I don't hear - a - thing. Just... silence.
I think an even better quote for this situation is the one where the same character says “there are 3 ways to make money - be first, be smarter, or cheat. And the easiest is always to be first.”
Yes, the person who was just briefed on what was happening, and in very simple terms because he doesn't understand the technical language of complex financial instruments - that's the person who's guessing what "the music" is going to do?
That whole movie is so shallow when you think about it for more than 2 seconds.
[+] [-] joshocar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt_s|3 years ago|reply
I think they all operate on the principle of being first for everything is more profitable, including exiting poor investments.
[+] [-] vmception|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] costcofries|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paxys|3 years ago|reply
2. Build a Twitter following and preach on topics on which you have zero knowledge or experience
3. People will believe you because you are rich (like they want to be) and so you must obviously be a genius
4. Use that influence to push your political views and/or other hustles like your favorite cryptocurrency, NFTs, SPACs)
The standard VC playbook these days
[+] [-] xiphias2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] strikelaserclaw|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonecrusher2102|3 years ago|reply
And the discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26037059
[+] [-] simulate-me|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessaustin|3 years ago|reply
Even if the purchased firm were solvent after some elapsed time, that wouldn't necessarily mean the SPAC investors had made any money.
[+] [-] spxdcz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PedroBatista|3 years ago|reply
Only retail investors ( aka suckers ) will be holding the bag/beer, as always.
I'm curious to know if Goldman Sachs already has an alternative scheme/scam running or it's a case of "chilling out for awhile".
[+] [-] atlasunshrugged|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisgd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MomoXenosaga|3 years ago|reply
That was my take from the 2008 financial crisis: the government had to fix everything. Again. And no Hollywood movie about the European, American and Asian finance ministers who had to make sure the ATMs kept working.
[+] [-] pavlov|3 years ago|reply
However the SEC recently increased its "Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit" staff from 30 to 50. Hopefully they'll bring the hammer down on token offerings with enough force to scare the big VCs away, at least.
[+] [-] aussiegreenie|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mqus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eatonphil|3 years ago|reply
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe...
[+] [-] 3np|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dqpb|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SheinhardtWigCo|3 years ago|reply
Peter Sullivan: Yes.
John Tuld: I'm here for one reason and one reason alone. I'm here to guess what the music might do a week, a month, a year from now. That's it. Nothing more. And standing here tonight, I'm afraid that I don't hear - a - thing. Just... silence.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=K05sxfa4zdM
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisgd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shrimp_emoji|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jstx1|3 years ago|reply
That whole movie is so shallow when you think about it for more than 2 seconds.