/
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

Shakeel Hashim / Protocol : 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

By late 2020 the SPAC had already been repositioning itself: an August analysis argued the surge was delivering better terms and a lower cost of capital for target companies precisely because underpricing in traditional IPOs was worsening. PitchBook's count — more than 66 SPACs raised in 2020 versus 30 in 2019 — turned that argument into data, and Hussein Kanji framed 2021 as the test of whether SPACs would become a permanent part of the going-public arsenal or retreat to being a home for the least-attractive companies.

The corpus answers that question in both directions. SPAC issuance peaked in March 2021 with over $36B raised, then ran dry — July 2022 became the first month in five years with no new SPAC money raised. What happened in between explains why.

First-order effects

  • Tech companies weighing an exit gained a second route to public markets at the moment they needed one, with sponsors competing to offer targets improved terms.
  • SPAC sponsors captured a wave of new capital in 2020–early 2021, raising the stakes on their ability to find targets that could justify public valuations.

Second-order effects

  • Competition from SPACs pressured the traditional IPO process on pricing, since targets could now point to sponsor terms when negotiating with underwriters.
  • As deal flow outran target quality, nearly half of sub-$10M-revenue startups that went public via SPACs in 2021 — mostly tech — missed their earnings or revenue projections, eroding buyer confidence in the vehicle.

Third-order effects

  • The quality gap turned structural: at least eight SPAC take-publics filed for bankruptcy after June 2022, almost 100 were spending unsustainably, and 73 traded below $1, which is what shut the issuance window entirely.
  • If the pattern holds, SPACs settle back into a niche tool rather than a standing alternative — their viability depends on sponsor discipline in target selection, not just on market uncertainty pushing companies toward them.

The trend: Going-public vehicles cycle with market sentiment: SPACs surged when 2020's uncertainty made the traditional IPO look costly, then collapsed once post-merger performance exposed how thin many targets were.

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/...