[boc]

"Calif.-founded EV maker Canoo, once worth $2.4 billion, goes belly-up after moving to Texas"

Full title. Another L for the SPAC era.

[zdragnar]

What does the inclusion of the move to Texas actually have to do with the downfall of the company?

I get that it is the original title, but even the article itself points out that the company was in dire straits well before the move.

The move (and forced relocation of employees) was likely a way to force attrition, since it was followed fairly quickly with layoffs elsewhere.

If anything, including mention of the move in the title just muddles the readers' expectations of the article, IMHO, and the article would be better off without it.

[blamazon]

> The move (and forced relocation of employees) was likely a way to force attrition, since it was followed fairly quickly with layoffs elsewhere.

You might expand the full title to "After move interpreted by experts as likely a way to force attrition" to explain the relevance :)

[boardwaalk]

I agree. I think we can reasonably posit why given the source. Call it selective YIMBYism maybe?

[cudgy]

Maybe the CEO wanted to move back to Texas before they went bankrupt? /s

[rpcope1]

Has any SPAC ever actually succeeded in the sense that whatever it purchased didn't die after a year or was atleast profitable? Every one of them always seemed like a huge obvious scam to dump the bags on dumb money.

[hangonhn]

I think that’s sort of the point of SPAC: a lot less scrutiny than a full on IPO so shakier companies can go public.

If someone is the type who willingly hand over their money knowing what a SPAC is and does, he’s a contrarian who smarter than everyone else, an idiot, or someone who thinks he can make a quick buck by letting the idiot hold the bag at the end — but really the latter two end up being the same.

[pavlov]

I maintain a little de-SPAC portfolio to track their progress. Many of them are dead, there's about 50 companies left in my tracking now.

The only companies on this list with stock prices over the original $10 SPAC price are:

- Oklo (mini nuclear reactors)

- DraftKings (gambling)

- Hims & Hers (wellness telehealth)

- Grindr (gay hookup app)

The majority of companies have lost 80-95% of their original value. Many SPACs have done a big reverse split, so their price appears to be over $10 but the original price would have been in the hundreds.

[khuey]

They succeeded in the sense that Chamath Palihapitiya et al made a shitload of money out of hawking them.

[hn_throwaway_99]

I was going to ask this same question. Literally every SPAC I can think ranged from bad to unmitigated disaster. Probably my favorite example is Getaround, the car sharing company that tanked immediately after the SPAC merger. How did that deal even happen?

Does anyone know of a site that tracks the outcome of SPAC mergers? I found some articles but most of them are pretty old. Curious if there have been any successes.

It feels like so much "financial innovation" of the past 30 years in that it was just a way for rich people to get even richer and, as you say, leave the dumb money as bag holders.

[jonnybgood]

Off the top of my head: DraftKings, Lucid, ChargePoint

[runako]

SOFI makes money. It's down a bit from the merger price, but I think it's fair to say it's a real company with a real business model.

[bpodgursky]

Rocket Lab