SPACs and Reverse Mergers as Paths to Going Public
Special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) and reverse mergers are alternative paths to public listing that bypass the traditional IPO process. Both routes allow private companies to become publicly traded without the full scrutiny of a conventional initial public offering, and both carry governance risks that traditional IPOs are specifically designed to mitigate. The SPAC boom of 2020-2021, during which over 600 SPACs raised more than $160 billion, followed by a wave of poor post-merger performance, provided a large-scale natural experiment in what happens when governance protections are diluted in the rush to go public.
The traditional IPO process exists for reasons beyond raising capital. The SEC registration process, underwriter due diligence, and the investment bank's reputational stake create layers of quality control that screen out companies that are not ready for public markets. SPACs and reverse mergers bypass some or all of these layers, which is their appeal for companies that want speed and certainty, and their risk for investors who receive less protection.
How SPACs Work
A SPAC is a shell company with no commercial operations that raises money through an IPO for the sole purpose of acquiring an existing private company. The SPAC's founders, called sponsors, establish the entity, contribute a nominal amount of capital (typically around $25,000 for a 20% equity stake known as the "promote"), and then take the SPAC public. The IPO proceeds, typically $200-500 million, are placed in a trust account and held until the SPAC identifies an acquisition target.
After the IPO, the SPAC has a limited time, usually 18-24 months, to complete an acquisition (called the "de-SPAC" transaction). If no acquisition is completed within this period, the trust is dissolved and the money is returned to shareholders. Once a target is identified, the SPAC announces the proposed acquisition, and shareholders vote on whether to approve the transaction. Shareholders who do not approve can redeem their shares for approximately the original IPO price (usually $10.00 per share plus accumulated interest from the trust).
The de-SPAC transaction functions as the target company's effective IPO. After the merger, the combined entity trades as a public company under the target's name. The private company gains a public listing, access to public capital markets, and the capital raised in the SPAC's trust account (less any redeemed shares).
The SPAC Governance Problem
SPACs create several structural governance problems that investors should understand.
Sponsor incentive misalignment. The SPAC sponsor receives approximately 20% of the post-IPO equity for a minimal capital contribution. This promote is the sponsor's primary compensation for identifying and completing an acquisition. The sponsor's promote becomes worthless if no deal is completed, because the trust is returned to shareholders and the SPAC dissolves. This creates a powerful incentive for the sponsor to complete a deal, any deal, rather than return money to shareholders. A sponsor facing a deadline may accept a mediocre or overpriced target rather than lose the promote.
The misalignment is quantifiable. A sponsor who contributed $25,000 for a 20% stake in a $300 million SPAC receives equity worth approximately $60 million upon deal completion (before dilution). This $60 million comes directly from the SPAC shareholders' capital. The sponsor earns this reward regardless of whether the acquisition creates value, as long as the transaction closes.
Dilution from sponsor promotes and warrants. SPAC IPO investors receive units consisting of shares and fractional warrants. The warrants give holders the right to buy additional shares, typically at $11.50 per share. When these warrants are exercised, they dilute existing shareholders. Combined with the sponsor's 20% promote, the effective dilution to SPAC IPO investors can be 30-40% or more. This means that a target company must appreciate by 30-40% just for SPAC investors to break even, a hurdle that most de-SPAC companies have not cleared.
Reduced disclosure and diligence. Traditional IPOs involve extensive SEC review, investment bank underwriting (with the bank's reputation at stake), and months of regulatory scrutiny. De-SPAC transactions involve less SEC review, and until 2024 rule changes, the companies were allowed to make forward-looking projections that would be prohibited in a traditional IPO. Many SPAC targets published aggressive revenue and earnings projections that never materialized. A study by Michael Klausner, Michael Ohlrogge, and Emily Ruan at Stanford found that de-SPAC companies lost an average of 65% of their value within one year of completion.
Redemption mechanics create adverse selection. When sophisticated investors redeem their SPAC shares before a deal closes (recovering their $10.00 per share from the trust), the remaining shareholders bear a larger share of the sponsor dilution and the deal risk. In many recent de-SPAC transactions, 80-90% or more of public shareholders redeemed, leaving a small base of non-redeeming shareholders who absorbed the majority of the sponsor's promote dilution. This adverse selection mechanism means that the investors who stay in the deal are those least informed about its risks.
Post-De-SPAC Performance
The aggregate performance data for de-SPAC companies is poor. Research by the Stanford group found that the median de-SPAC stock lost approximately 65% of its value in the twelve months following deal completion. A study by Renaissance Capital found that companies that went public via SPAC between 2019 and 2021 significantly underperformed both the broader market and companies that went public through traditional IPOs.
High-profile failures illustrate the pattern. Lordstown Motors went public via SPAC in 2020, projecting tens of thousands of electric vehicle orders and significant revenue. The company subsequently disclosed that its order book was overstated, faced SEC and DOJ investigations, and eventually filed for bankruptcy. Nikola Corporation went public via SPAC and was later revealed to have staged a promotional video of its hydrogen truck by rolling it downhill rather than driving it under its own power. Founder Trevor Milton was convicted of securities fraud.
Not all SPAC transactions failed. DraftKings, Virgin Galactic, and a few others generated positive returns for shareholders. But the success rate was far lower than for traditional IPOs, and the structural governance problems, sponsor misalignment, excessive dilution, and reduced disclosure, explain why.
How Reverse Mergers Work
A reverse merger is a transaction in which a private company acquires a public shell company, gaining a public listing without conducting an IPO. The private company's shareholders receive a majority of the combined entity's shares, giving them economic control. The public shell's existing shareholders retain a small minority position, and the combined entity trades under the private company's name on the public market.
The appeal of reverse mergers is speed and cost. A traditional IPO takes six to twelve months and costs $5-20 million in underwriting and legal fees. A reverse merger can be completed in weeks at a fraction of the cost. The private company avoids the SEC's IPO registration process and the scrutiny of investment bank due diligence.
Reverse Merger Governance Risks
Reverse mergers share some governance risks with SPACs and have additional risks of their own.
No underwriter gatekeeping. In a traditional IPO, the underwriting bank conducts extensive due diligence because its reputation and legal liability are at stake. This diligence uncovers financial irregularities, legal risks, and business model weaknesses before shares are sold to the public. Reverse mergers bypass this gatekeeping function entirely.
Shell company quality. Public shell companies used in reverse mergers may carry undisclosed liabilities, regulatory issues, or shareholder claims from their prior operations. The due diligence required to evaluate a shell company's clean status is significant, and private companies eager to go public quickly may perform inadequate review.
Chinese reverse merger wave. The most prominent example of reverse merger governance failure was the wave of Chinese companies that listed on U.S. exchanges via reverse mergers between 2006 and 2012. Dozens of these companies were later found to have fabricated revenue, assets, or both. Longtop Financial Technologies, China-Biotics, Rino International Group, and Sino Clean Energy are among those that were eventually delisted or exposed as fraudulent. Short sellers like Muddy Waters Research and Citron Research identified many of these frauds through forensic financial analysis and on-the-ground investigation, often facing legal threats and counter-accusations from the companies before being vindicated.
Limited analyst coverage and institutional interest. Reverse merger companies typically receive little or no sell-side analyst coverage and minimal institutional investor interest. This reduces the external monitoring that helps maintain governance standards at traditional public companies. The resulting information vacuum can allow governance problems to persist for extended periods before they are identified.
SEC scrutiny. In response to the Chinese reverse merger scandals, the SEC adopted additional requirements for reverse merger companies, including a "seasoning" period before they can list on a major exchange. These requirements have reduced but not eliminated the governance risks associated with reverse mergers.
Evaluating Alternative-Path Public Companies
Investors considering shares in companies that went public through SPACs or reverse mergers should apply more rigorous governance analysis than they would for a traditional IPO.
Sponsor economics in SPACs. Calculate the total dilution from the sponsor promote, warrants, and any additional shares issued to the sponsor or its affiliates. If the effective dilution exceeds 25-30%, the target company must generate extraordinary returns to compensate.
Redemption levels. High redemption rates in de-SPAC transactions indicate that sophisticated investors chose to take their money back rather than invest in the target company. This is a meaningful negative signal.
Financial projection reliability. If the SPAC target published revenue or earnings projections during the de-SPAC process, compare actual results to those projections. A pattern of significant misses suggests that the projections were used as marketing tools rather than genuine forecasts.
Auditor quality and financial transparency. Companies that went public through alternative routes should have their financial statements audited by reputable firms. Any delays in financial reporting, auditor changes, or restatements are elevated red flags for companies that bypassed the traditional IPO scrutiny.
Board composition. Evaluate whether the post-transaction board includes genuinely independent directors with relevant experience, or whether the board is composed primarily of sponsor-affiliated members and company insiders.
Lock-up expirations. Sponsor shares and insider shares are typically subject to lock-up periods that restrict selling for six to twelve months after the transaction. When these lock-ups expire, significant selling pressure can depress the stock price. Monitoring the lock-up schedule helps investors anticipate potential price impacts.
The traditional IPO process, with all its expense and delay, provides governance protections that exist because decades of market experience demonstrated the need for them. Alternative paths to public listing trade those protections for speed and cost savings. Investors who accept this tradeoff should do so with open eyes and with governance analysis that compensates for the protections the alternative path does not provide.
Put these principles into practice. Track fundamentals, build portfolios, and analyze stocks with AI-powered insights.
Start Free on GridOasis →