/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Over 66 SPACs were raised in 2020, according to PitchBook, up from 30 in 2019, amid a year of uncertainty that opened tech companies' eyes to an IPO alternative

For many in the tech industry, 2020 was a year of two acronyms.  There was COVID, obviously.  And then there were SPACs. Tweets: @hkanji Tweets: Hussein Kanji / @hkanji : Next year could therefore determine whether SPACs stick around as part of the going-public arsenal, or if they're relegated once more to an option only for the least-attractive companies https://www.protocol.com/...

Protocol Shakeel Hashim

Context & Ripple Effects

At the end of a pandemic year that shut down traditional IPO windows for stretches, PitchBook counted more than 66 blank-check vehicles raised in 2020 versus 30 in 2019 — and tech founders, per Hussein Kanji, were treating SPACs as a genuine alternative rather than a last resort. The mechanism behind the appeal had already been spelled out in August, when [[a:957145|competition among sponsors was improving terms for target companies and cutting their cost of capital]] even as underpricing worsened in conventional IPOs.

Kanji framed 2021 as the test of whether SPACs would stick as a going-public tool or revert to an option for the least-attractive companies. The corpus supplies the answer in two acts: issuance [[a:981995|peaked at over $36B in March 2021 before July 2022 became the first month in five years with no new SPACs]], and the class of 2021 aged badly.

First-order effects

  • Target companies captured better deal terms and cheaper capital in 2020 as sponsor competition intensified, while traditional IPOs kept leaking value through underpricing.
  • Tech boards gained a credible second route to public markets during COVID-era volatility, changing the negotiation dynamic with bankers.

Second-order effects

  • Volume chased quality downward: nearly half of sub-$10M-revenue startups — mostly tech — that went public via SPACs in 2021 missed their earnings or revenue targets, pressuring the whole vehicle's reputation.
  • The post-boom hangover hit issuers directly, with at least eight former SPACs filing for bankruptcy since June 2022, roughly 100 burning cash unsustainably, and 73 trading below $1.

Third-order effects

  • Kanji's either/or has largely resolved toward the pessimistic branch: with new issuance at zero by mid-2022 and public-market failures compounding, SPACs risk settling back into a niche for companies that cannot clear a conventional IPO.
  • If the pattern holds, going-public routes look cyclical rather than substitutive — SPACs expand when uncertainty closes IPO windows, then contract as sponsor incentives and target quality reassert themselves, leaving retail holders of de-SPACed stock absorbing the downside.

The trend: Alternative going-public vehicles swell in dislocated markets and deflate in their aftermath, with 2020's SPAC surge and its 2022 collapse marking one full cycle.

Discussion

  • @hkanji Hussein Kanji on x
    Next year could therefore determine whether SPACs stick around as part of the going-public arsenal, or if they're relegated once more to an option only for the least-attractive companies https://www.protocol.com/...