Connect with us

Business

SPACs are back: This year’s crop of blank check companies lack celebrity sponsors, and that’s likely a good thing

Published

on



Special purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, were big business in 2021 when everyone from lifestyle mogul Martha Stewart to politicians like Paul Ryan was investing in them. Also known as blank check companies, SPACs offered firms a back door route to becoming a public company by getting acquired by a shell company. But the 2021 trend didn’t last long as more than 60% of blank check companies from that year couldn’t complete a merger and had to return money to investors, giving SPACs a dodgy name in the process. Now, blank check companies have returned, but this year’s crop is a different breed. The celebrities are gone, the buzz has faded, and many SPACs are coming from serial sponsors who are, well, just a little dull.  

So far in 2025, 61 blank check companies have gone public, raising $12.4 billion as of June 26, though it’s hard to assess their success since it typically takes months for a SPAC to complete an acquisition. This compares to just 16 SPACs for the same period last year that collected $2.5 billion, according to Dealogic.  So far none of this year’s deals have found a merger partner.

The $12.4 billion is the most raised by blank check companies since 2021, when the SPAC market was on fire. That year, a record 613 blank check companies went public, raising about $162.6 billion in proceeds.

SPACs are enjoying “a bit of a revival,” said Ben Kwasnick, founder of SPAC Research. Blank check companies are on track this year to raise $25 billion, a nearly 85% drop from 2021, but a total Kwasnick thinks is more sustainable. “There’s still huge demand for the SPAC market,” he said.

A closer look shows that SPACs never really left. But their disappointing outcome cast a pall on the sector and drove many investors away. Blank check companies typically have between 18 to 24 months to buy a company, or they must return the money to investors. Roughly 39% of the Class of 2021 was able to complete a merger, or de-SPAC, according to SPAC Research. This led to many deals that initially traded well but then crashed. One of the more famous was BuzzFeed’s combination with a blank check company in December 2021. BuzzFeed initially spiked to $14.77 from $10 a share and ended its first day as a public company down 11%. The stock currently trades at $2 a share.

Still, some investors of 2021 SPACs were able to get their money back. There were many blank check companies in 2021 chasing a small number of acquisitions, said Stephen Ashley, a partner with law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. When they couldn’t complete a merger before their deadline, the SPACs were forced to liquidate. Some investors also redeemed their shares before the blank check company completed a merger. Both groups got their money back, Ashley said. “A large number of these investors may be willing to consider investments in another round of SPACs with more seasoned sponsors,” he said. 

Of course, some 2021 investors held onto their shares after a SPAC completed its merger with a business and ended up owning stock in the surviving entity, though many of them likely lost money. Most deals that closed in 2021 are trading below $10, the price that SPACs typically price at, said Kwasnick of SPAC Research.

“These investors will be more wary,” Pillsbury’s Ashley said. 

In 2024, the SEC adopted new rules for SPACs, requiring them to provide more disclosure about items including conflicts of interest, sponsor compensation, and dilution. They also limited the use of forward-looking statements by SPACs. “The SEC clearly had concerns about the performance of SPACs for a while leading up to the rule changes, and the final rules they settled on will probably focus market participants on better and more grounded disclosure,” Ashley said.

Dull is good

SPACs, as we know them, have been around since at least the early 1990s. This year’s class is coming from executives who are very experienced. Instead of Jay-Z pitching a cannabis blank check company or Colin Kaepernick’s social justice SPAC, there’s Michael Klein, a former Citigroup banker, who launched his tenth blank check company, Churchill Capital X, earlier this year. Or Gores Holdings X, the latest SPAC from private equity firm The Gores Group, which raised nearly $360 million in May.  

Some of this year’s SPAC crop, though, are connected to prominent individuals. This includes Renatus Tactical Acquisition, which raised $241.5 million in May and has ties to Trump Media & Technology Group. Eric Swider, CEO of Renatus, is the former head of Digital World Acquisition, the SPAC that merged with Trump Media, the parent of Truth Social, in 2024. Devin Nunes, Renatus’s chairman, is a former Republican congressman and the current CEO of Trump Media. (After completing its SPAC merger in September 2024, Trump Media, during its debut, peaked at $79.38, then experienced volatility and is trading at about $18 a share.)

“It’s encouraging to see serial sponsors doing most of this year’s IPOs, as they’re likely more realistic about their prospects than first-time sponsors are,” said Kwasnick.

The banks underwriting this year’s SPACs are another big change. In 2021, bulge bracket firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley worked on many of the blank check offerings but have largely left the sector.

Citi and UBS were No. 1 and No. 2 in terms of SPAC underwriters in 2021. Neither bank completely exited the SPAC market, but both pulled back significantly. Citi worked on 113 deals in 2021, giving it bragging rights as the top SPAC banker. This year, Citi has only two SPACs to its credit. UBS has worked on one or two blank check transactions every year since 2021 when it underwrote 92 transactions. This year, UBS has only worked on one SPAC.

These rankings might still change. Goldman is wading back into the market for SPACs and is open to underwriting new deals for SPAC companies, Bloomberg reported on June 17. Goldman declined to comment.

Without the bulge bracket firms, lesser-known banks have emerged to take their place. This year’s lead underwriter so far is Cantor Fitzgerald, the financial services firm formerly led by U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Cantor has worked on 14 deals valued at around $3.6 billion. BTIG, the broker backed by Goldman and Blackstone, ranked second with a dozen SPAC deals valued at $2.6 billion. And in third place is Santander, the Spanish bank, which has worked on five deals this year, totaling $1.3 billion.

Not everyone is happy with the revival. “I hate SPACs,” said one fintech banker, who has worked on mergers involving blank check companies. They pointed to payments companies like Repay, Payoneer Global, and Paysafe. Each used SPACs as a way to go public and two of the three are trading below $10. All three companies have experienced volatility with their stock prices, and all three have been up for sale recently. “They’re just not performing well,” the banker said of the payments companies. “I’ve made money off [of SPACs] but I don’t really understand their purpose.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk and Bill Gates are wrong about AI imminently replacing all jobs. ‘That’s not what we’re seeing,’ LinkedIn exec slams

Published

on



The future of work as we know it is hanging by a thread—at least, that’s what many tech leaders consistently say. Elon Musk predicts AI will replace all jobs in less than 20 years. Bill Gates says even those who train to use AI tools may not be safe from its claws. And then there’s Klarna’s CEO, Sebastian Siemiatkowski, who is even warning workers that “tech bros” are sugarcoating just how badly it’s about to impact jobs.

But according to one LinkedIn exec, that’s simply not what the data is showing. 

With hundreds of millions of workers hunting for jobs and employers posting open roles in real time, LinkedIn acts as one of the clearest barometers of what’s actually happening on the ground—and its managing director for EMEA, Sue Duke, is not buying the AI apocalypse narrative.

“That’s not what we’re seeing,” Duke revealed at the Fortune CEO Forum in The Shard in London. When asked about an AI-induced hiring slowdown she insisted that the opposite is actually true. 

“What we’re seeing is that organizations who are adopting and integrating this technology, they’re actually going out and hiring more people to really take advantage of this technology,” Duke explained. 

“They’re going out and looking for more business development people, more technologically savvy people, and more sales people as they realize the business opportunities, the innovation possibilities, and ultimately the growth possibilities of this technology.”

For the millions of job seeking Gen Zers—who keep being told that entry-level jobs are about the get swallowed by AI and that a youth unemployment crisis is well underway—the news will be a welcome surprise.

LinkedIn exec breaks down exactly what employers are looking for from new hires in 2026

For those looking to make the most of the job market’s shift, Duke says there are two key areas to upskill in.

The first, no surprise one, is AI skills. Whether that’s literacy, tooling, prompt-writing, or more technical capabilities, “we continue to see those AI skills being red, red hot in the labor market,” she said. 

With companies racing to integrate automation into products and workflows, that demand isn’t cooling anytime soon—no matter what industry you’re looking to work in. “We see a huge demand for those skills across the board, economy-wide, across all sectors, and tons of companies looking for those,” Duke added.

As AI takes over many administrative tasks, it’s putting the spotlight on job functions that bots can’t do. “Those unique human skills,” Duke said, is the second area of focus for employers. “They remain rock solid, constant at the heart of hiring desires and demands out there. They’re not going away either.”

She called out communication, team building, and problem solving, as some of those human skills that will stand the test of time: “They’re the ones to invest in.”

And ultimately, the skill employers are zeroing in on most isn’t technical at all—it’s adaptability. Bosses know the tools will change faster than job titles. What they want is someone who can change with them.

“The most important thing for job seekers to think about is the mindset that you’re also bringing to the table,” Duke concluded. 

“What employers are really looking for is that growth mindset and understanding that this technology is moving very, very quickly, and we need adaptability. Adaptability is right at the top of those most in-demand skills, so making sure you’re bringing that mindset, bringing that agility with you, that’s going to be hugely important.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump wants more health savings accounts. A catch: they can’t pay insurance premiums

Published

on



With the tax-free money in a health savings account, a person can pay for eyeglasses or medical exams, as well as a $1,700 baby bassinet or a $300 online parenting workshop.

Those same dollars can’t be used, though, to pay for most baby formulas, toothbrushes — or insurance premiums.

President Donald Trump and some Republicans are pitching the accounts as an alternative to expiring enhanced federal subsidies that have lowered insurance premium payments for most Americans with Affordable Care Act coverage. But legal limits on how HSAs can and can’t be used are prompting doubts that expanding their use would benefit the predominantly low-income people who rely on ACA plans.

The Republican proposals come on the heels of a White House-led change to extend HSA eligibility to more ACA enrollees. One group that would almost certainly benefit: a slew of companies selling expensive wellness items that can be purchased with tax-free dollars from the accounts.

There is also deep skepticism, even among conservatives who support the proposals, that the federal government can pull off such a major policy shift in just a few weeks. The enhanced ACA subsidies expire at the end of the year, and Republicans are still debating among themselves whether to simply extend them.

“The plans have been designed. The premiums have been set. Many people have already enrolled and made their selections,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the president of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, warned senators on Nov. 19. “There’s very little that this Congress can do to change the outlook.”

Cassidy’s Plan

With health savings accounts, people who pay high out-of-pocket costs for health insurance are able to set aside money, without paying taxes, for medical expenses.

For decades, Republicans have promoted these accounts as a way for people to save money for major or emergent medical expenses without spending more federal tax dollars on health care.

The latest GOP proposals would build on a change included in Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which makes millions more ACA enrollees eligible for health savings accounts. Starting Jan. 1, those enrolled in Obamacare’s cheapest coverage may open and contribute to HSAs.

Now Republicans are making the case that, in lieu of the pandemic-era enhanced ACA subsidies, patients would be better off being given money to cover some health costs — specifically through deposits to HSAs.

The White House has yet to release a formal proposal, though early reports suggested it could include HSA contributions as well as temporary, more restrictive premium subsidies.

Sen. Bill Cassidy — a Louisiana Republican who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and is facing a potentially tough reelection fight next year — has proposed loading HSAs with federal dollars sent directly to some ACA enrollees.

“The American people want something to pass, so let’s find something to pass,” Cassidy said on Dec. 3, pitching his plan for HSAs again. “Let’s give power to the patient, not profit to the insurance company.”

He has promised a deal can be struck in time for 2026 coverage.

Democrats, whose support Republicans will likely need to pass any health care measure, have widely panned the GOP’s ideas. They are calling instead for an extension of the enhanced subsidies to control premium costs for most of the nearly 24 million Americans enrolled in the ACA marketplace, a larger pool than the 7.3 million people the Trump administration estimates soon will be eligible for HSAs.

HSAs “can be a useful tool for very wealthy people,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. “But I don’t see it as a comprehensive health insurance opportunity.”

Who Can Use HSAs?

The IRS sets restrictions on the use of HSAs, which are typically managed by banks or health insurance companies. For starters, on the ACA marketplace, they are available only to those with the highest-deductible health insurance plans — the bronze and catastrophic plans.

There are limits on how much can be deposited into an account each year. In 2026 it will be $4,400 for a single person and $8,750 for a family.

Flexible spending accounts, or FSAs — which are typically offered through employer coverage — work similarly but have lower savings limits and cannot be rolled over from year to year.

The law that established HSAs prohibits the accounts from being used to pay insurance premiums, meaning that without an overhaul, the GOP’s proposals are unlikely to alleviate the problem at hand: skyrocketing premium payments. Obamacare enrollees who receive subsidies are projected to pay 114% more out-of-pocket for their premiums next year on average, absent congressional action.

Even with the promise of the government depositing cash into an HSA, people may still opt to go without coverage next year once they see those premium costs, said Tom Buchmueller, an economics professor at the University of Michigan who worked in the Biden administration.

“For people who stay in the marketplace, they’re going to be paying a lot more money every month,” he said. “It doesn’t help them pay that monthly premium.”

Others, Buchmueller noted, might be pushed into skimpier insurance coverage. Obamacare bronze plans come with the highest out-of-pocket costs.

An HHS Official’s Interest

Health savings accounts can be used to pay for many routine medical supplies and services, such as medical and dental exams, as well as emergency room visits. In recent years, the government has expanded the list of applicable purchases to include over-the-counter products such as Tylenol and tampons.

Purchases for “general health” are not permissible, such as fees for dance or swim lessons. Food, gym memberships, or supplements are not allowed unless prescribed by a doctor for a medical condition or need.

Americans are investing more into these accounts as their insurance deductibles rise, according to Morningstar. The investment research firm found that assets in HSAs grew from $5 billion 20 years ago to $146 billion last year. President George W. Bush signed the law establishing health savings accounts in 2003, with the White House promising at the time that they would “help more American families get the health care they need at a price they can afford.”

Since then, the accounts have become most common for wealthier, white Americans who are healthy and have employer-sponsored health insurance, according to a report released by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office in September.

Now, even more money is expected to flow into these accounts, because of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Companies are taking notice of the growing market for HSA-approved products, with major retailers such as Amazon, Walmart, and Target developing online storefronts dedicated to devices, medications, and supplies eligible to be purchased with money in the accounts.

Startups have popped up in recent years dedicated to helping people get quick approval from medical providers for various — and sometimes expensive — items, memberships, or fitness or health services.

Truemed — a company co-founded in 2022 by Calley Means, a close ally of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — has emerged as one of the biggest players in this niche space.

A $9,000 red cedar ice bath and a $2,000 hemlock sauna, for example, are available for purchase with HSA funds through Truemed. So, too, is the $1,700 bassinet, designed to automatically respond to the cries of a newborn by gently rocking the baby back to sleep.

Truemed’s executives say its most popular products are its smaller-dollar fitness offerings, which include kettlebells, supplements, treadmills, and gym memberships.

“What we’ve seen at Truemed is that, when given the choice, Americans choose to invest their health care dollars in these kinds of proven lifestyle interventions,” Truemed CEO Justin Mares told KFF Health News.

Means joined the Department of Health and Human Services in November after a stint earlier this year at the White House, where he worked when Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law in July. Truemed’s general counsel, Joe Vladeck, said Means left the company in August.

Asked about Means’ potential to benefit from the law’s expansion of HSAs, HHS spokeswoman Emily Hilliard said in a statement that “Calley Means will not personally benefit financially from this proposal as he will be divesting from his company since he has been hired at HHS as a senior advisor supporting food and nutrition policy.”

Truemed is privately held, not publicly traded, and details of how Means will go about divesting have not been disclosed.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix lines up $59 billion of debt for Warner Bros. deal

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has lined up $59 billion of financing from Wall Street banks to help support its planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., which would make it one of the largest ever loans of its kind.

Wells Fargo & Co., BNP Paribas SA and HSBC Plc are providing the unsecured bridge loan, according to a statement Friday, a type of financing that is typically replaced with more permanent debt such as corporate bonds.

Under the deal announced Friday, Warner Bros. shareholders will receive $27.75 a share in cash and stock in Netflix. The total equity value of the deal is $72 billion, while the enterprise value of the deal is about $82.7 billion.

Bridge loans are a crucial step for banks in building relationships with companies to win higher-paying mandates down the road. 

A loan of $59 billion would rank among the biggest of its type, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA obtained $75 billion of loans to back its acquisition of SABMiller Plc in 2015, the largest ever bridge financing, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.