An IPO is different than
a Direct Listing which is different than
a SPAC.
They all have strengths and weaknesses.
1. One is NOT always better than the other for retail investors and the company.
2. Bankers ALWAYS make money regardless of for of public listing
a Direct Listing which is different than
a SPAC.
They all have strengths and weaknesses.
1. One is NOT always better than the other for retail investors and the company.
2. Bankers ALWAYS make money regardless of for of public listing
In an IPO - bankers make the most money but the "allocated large investors - such as Mutual funds, Hedge funds" get early dibs; BUT they have to hold for 6-12 months. There is also a lockup expiration period preventing insiders from selling at IPO 
In a direct listing - bankers makes less money because the company does not need the money. The company is merely providing early investors (and employees) an exit - Who want the best price for their stock.
So retail investors pay up anyway.
So retail investors pay up anyway.
In a SPAC, the promoter decides the valuation with the company's founders. The SPAC promoter and PIPE are already in the "money" when the stock goes over base price of $10 (NAV)
So when people tell you "Wow, it is great that it was SPACed or I like direct listing over IPO" - they just dont understand how the market works for public offerings.
Bankers, big money funds ALWAYS make money. Retail always pays a premium.
Bankers, big money funds ALWAYS make money. Retail always pays a premium.
Corrections:
1st tweet should read:
2. Bankers ALWAYS make money regardless of which method is used for a public listing
instead of
"2. Bankers ALWAYS make money regardless of for of public listing"
1st tweet should read:
2. Bankers ALWAYS make money regardless of which method is used for a public listing
instead of
"2. Bankers ALWAYS make money regardless of for of public listing"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
