[goat_whisperer]

>An impartial cost-benefit analysis needs to be done which is sadly impossible for someone whose funding comes from the deep pockets of Wall Street and institutional investors.

The link is to an academic paper that literally performs an impartial cost-benefit analysis of SPACs based on publicly available information, and concludes that the way SPACs are currently structured are a pretty crap deal apart from those who are able to get in early.

You mention underwriting fees, and the paper makes a big emphasis to emphasize the implicit costs of SPACs (i.e. all of the dilution) that people ignore.

Also, I'm not sure where the idea comes that SPACs are 'anti-wall street'. The sponsors and investors are some of the largest Wall Street Institutions out there (large Hedge Funds)

However, there are different ways of doing SPACs and the paper mentions a recent SPAC that gets rid of some of the excesses that end up screwing over the post-merger investors

[klipt]

I'm pretty sure "anti-wall street" is just the financial version of "doctors hate him", i.e. clickbait. Last week it was buying into the GME bubble that was marketed as "anti-wall street" and look how that turned out.