This only applies to SPACs with a sponsor, and even then only when the sponsor takes a bigger cut than the profit from buying the firm and taking it public.
And even then, it seems like a stretch to call it a scam: if you buy an investment product because it sponsors someone you like, you're gonna pay accordingly. Nike or Coke Cola aren't a scam because they cost more and spend the money sponsoring celebs. Neither are these.
Are they worse value for money? Yes. But that's pretty obvious and people don't just look at cost/ingredients when they make their purchasing decisions. That's their right not a scam.
Which SPACs don't have a sponsor? In which SPACs do non-financial sponsors take less than 20% of the total company value? Would you invest in a company that has no defined product, service, or business model, and puts all their eggs into the basket of a private company that you might not have ever heard of, in a business relationship between the SPAC and acquired company that is never fully disclosed in which the share price is almost assured to drop at least 1/3 the day after trading and in which there is no long term evidence of value creation?
These companies aren't like Coca-Cola that started as a small business and then grew, delivering value along the way. There is no way for an investor to "look at the ingredients" of a SPAC at the time they invest in the SPAC before the merger.
This only applies to SPACs with a sponsor, and even then only when the sponsor takes a bigger cut than the profit from buying the firm and taking it public.
And even then, it seems like a stretch to call it a scam: if you buy an investment product because it sponsors someone you like, you're gonna pay accordingly. Nike or Coke Cola aren't a scam because they cost more and spend the money sponsoring celebs. Neither are these.
Are they worse value for money? Yes. But that's pretty obvious and people don't just look at cost/ingredients when they make their purchasing decisions. That's their right not a scam.