/
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

Study: among 44 tech startups that completed a SPAC deal from the start of 2020 through April 2021, their share prices had fallen 12.6% on average by May 17

Entrepreneurs are increasingly wary about the money-raising tool after watching peers' stocks slide and investors balk

Wall Street Journal Heather Somerville

Context & Ripple Effects

The 2020 SPAC boom created a widely used IPO alternative for tech companies, with more than 66 SPACs raised that year. This study supplied an early market-price warning that the route was losing appeal for entrepreneurs and investors.

Later coverage reinforced the pattern: many VC-backed SPAC listings in 2021 traded down, and startups that used the vehicle increasingly missed operating targets.

First-order effects

  • The 44 tech startups in the study face weaker public-market valuations immediately, while prospective SPAC candidates confront investors who are less willing to back new deals.
  • SPAC sponsors and entrepreneurs lose a key selling point for the transaction structure as peer share-price declines become visible.

Second-order effects

  • Venture firms renegotiating startup financings have a stronger basis to cut valuations as tech IPO and SPAC performance deteriorates, as reflected in later funding pullbacks.
  • Early trading losses raise the cost of using SPACs as an exit path, pushing startups and their backers to assess public-market readiness more closely.

Third-order effects

  • The SPAC market shifts from a rapid alternative-listing channel toward a more selective one, with investor scrutiny focused on whether young public companies can meet stated revenue and earnings targets.
  • If poor post-merger performance persists, fewer new SPACs will attract capital—a trajectory later reflected when no new SPACs raised money in July 2022.

The trend: The SPAC boom is giving way to a public-market discipline cycle in which post-listing performance constrains private companies' access to alternative IPO routes.

Discussion

  • @wsj @wsj on x
    Skeptical CEOs of startups say they are turning down offers from SPACs, deleting their solicitous emails and tapping the brakes on merger deals amid nosediving shares and disappointed investors https://www.wsj.com/...
  • @julianklymochko Julian Klymochko on x
    “In one case, a SPAC sent a pitch to a CEO emblazoned with the logo of the wrong startup.” Not a good look https://www.wsj.com/...
  • @laurenshirsch Lauren Hirsch on x
    “It's gone from being a bona fide alternative path to an IPO to 'We don't really want to be a punchline.'” https://www.wsj.com/...
  • @mayazi @mayazi on x
    The SPAC top predated the Bitcoin top by 2 months https://www.wsj.com/...
  • @gunjanjs Gunjan Banerji on x
    The SPAC selloff is getting bad CEOs said they're inundated with SPAC mail that they just delete or ignore. Some SPACs are emailing cut-and-paste boilerplate letters via @heathersomervil https://www.wsj.com/...
  • @m_delamerced Michael de la Merced on x
    This is certainly a sign of a healthy M&A market: https://www.wsj.com/... https://twitter.com/...