SPAC new policy_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-07-13

SPAC new policy

U.S. SEC focuses on bank fee conflicts as it steps-up SPAC inquiry<blockquote>美国证券交易委员会加强特殊目的收购公司调查，重点关注银行费用冲突</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":142717551,"tweetId":"142717551","gmtCreate":1626176720173,"gmtModify":1633929398303,"author":{"id":3574890224481718,"idStr":"3574890224481718","authorId":3574890224481718,"authorIdStr":"3574890224481718","name":"Nicole2335","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/57a9f6b57ad4265f087f9cc58c153256","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":0,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>SPAC new policy</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>SPAC new policy</body></html>","text":"SPAC new policy","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/142717551","repostId":1146447033,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1146447033","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626175407,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1146447033?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-13 19:23","market":"us","language":"en","title":"U.S. SEC focuses on bank fee conflicts as it steps-up SPAC inquiry<blockquote>美国证券交易委员会加强特殊目的收购公司调查，重点关注银行费用冲突</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1146447033","media":"Reuters","summary":"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. securities regulator has ramped-up its inquiry on Wall Street’s blan","content":"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. securities regulator has ramped-up its inquiry on Wall Street’s blank check acquisition frenzy, homing in on potential conflicts of interest created when banks act as underwriters and advisers on the same deal, three people with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.<blockquote>华盛顿（路透社）--三位直接知情人士告诉路透社，美国证券监管机构已加大对华尔街空白支票收购狂潮的调查力度，重点关注银行在同一笔交易中充当承销商和顾问时可能产生的利益冲突。</blockquote> The Securities and Exchange Commission is exploring whether certain fee structures may incentivise underwriters on special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, listings to secure unsuitable deals when also advising on the later stage merger, potentially putting investors at risk, the people said.<blockquote>知情人士称，美国证券交易委员会正在探索某些费用结构是否可能激励特殊目的收购公司 (SPAC) 上市的承销商，以确保不合适的交易，同时还为后期合并提供建议，这可能会使投资者面临风险。</blockquote> Banks that have received SEC requests for information include top SPAC underwriters Citigroup, Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, they said.<blockquote>他们表示，收到 SEC 信息请求的银行包括顶级 SPAC 承销商花旗集团、瑞士信贷集团、摩根士丹利和高盛。</blockquote> Spokespeople for the banks declined to comment.<blockquote>银行发言人拒绝置评。</blockquote> SPACs are listed shell companies used to take private companies public, sidestepping the more traditional and lengthy initial public offering (IPO) process.<blockquote>SPAC是上市空壳公司，用于将私营公司上市，避开更传统、更漫长的首次公开募股（IPO）流程。</blockquote> Reuters reported in March that the SEC’s enforcement division had opened an inquiry on Wall Street banks’ SPAC dealings, sending letters to several institutions seeking information on deal risks and internal controls.<blockquote>路透社今年 3 月报道称，美国证券交易委员会执法部门已对华尔街银行的 SPAC 交易展开调查，并致函多家机构，寻求有关交易风险和内部控制的信息。</blockquote> Since March, the SEC has focused its inquiry on a group of banks, law firms and SPAC sponsors involved in troubled deals and has sought more information about the deals and interviewed executives concerned, according to two of the three sources.<blockquote>据三位消息人士中的两位透露，自 3 月份以来，美国证券交易委员会一直将调查重点放在一组涉及问题交易的银行、律师事务所和 SPAC 发起人身上，并寻求有关这些交易的更多信息，并采访了相关高管。</blockquote> The SEC is particularly interested in the fees banks have earned when playing several roles on a deal, all three sources said. They declined to say which deals were under scrutiny.<blockquote>三位消息人士均表示，美国证券交易委员会对银行在交易中扮演多种角色时赚取的费用特别感兴趣。他们拒绝透露哪些交易正在接受审查。</blockquote> “The big issue for the SEC is to understand if the advisers are conflicted,” said one of the people.<blockquote>“其中一位人士说：”对美国证券交易委员会来说，最大的问题是了解顾问们是否存在冲突。</blockquote> A spokesperson for the SEC did not respond to requests for comment.<blockquote>美国证券交易委员会发言人没有回应置评请求。</blockquote> SPAC sponsors typically pay banks a 5.5% fee for underwriting the IPO, part of which is paid up front, with the rest paid upon completion of the merger.<blockquote>SPAC 保荐人通常向银行支付 5.5% 的 IPO 承销费用，其中一部分预先支付，其余部分在合并完成后支付。</blockquote> Underwriting banks can earn more fees if they also go on to represent the merger target and help the SPAC sponsor raise additional cash from private investors to finance the takeover.<blockquote>如果承销银行还继续代表合并目标并帮助 SPAC 发起人从私人投资者那里筹集额外现金来为收购提供资金，则它们可以赚取更多费用。</blockquote> The SEC is examining potential conflicts in such situations when a bank works for both sides of the transaction and stands to earn a chunk of fees when the merger goes through.<blockquote>美国证券交易委员会正在研究这种情况下的潜在冲突，即银行为交易双方工作，并在合并完成时赚取一大笔费用。</blockquote> Critics say such arrangements could incentivise banks to talk up targets or play down potential problems, which could harm investors if the target company’s earnings underperform, or other regulatory or legal issues emerge following the merger.<blockquote>批评人士称，这种安排可能会激励银行夸大目标或淡化潜在问题，如果目标公司的盈利表现不佳，或合并后出现其他监管或法律问题，这可能会损害投资者的利益。</blockquote> SPAC returns have trailed the S&amp;P 500 and some SPACs have been accused by shareholders and government investigators of misleading disclosures..<blockquote>特殊目的收购公司的回报落后于标普500，一些特殊目的收购公司被股东和政府调查人员指控存在误导性披露。</blockquote> The sources declined to be named because the discussions are private. Regulatory requests for information do not necessarily imply wrongdoing.<blockquote>消息人士拒绝透露姓名，因为讨论是私下进行的。监管机构对信息的要求并不一定意味着不法行为。</blockquote> EXTRA DILIGENCE<blockquote>额外勤勉</blockquote> Under the rules, lawyers and accountants are required to disclose their fees in the SPAC’s regulatory filings, but banks are not. In its recent inquiries, the SEC has asked banks for more information on their payouts, the three sources said.<blockquote>根据规定，律师和会计师必须在特殊目的收购公司的监管文件中披露其收费情况，但银行无需披露。三位消息人士称，在最近的调查中，美国证券交易委员会已要求银行提供有关其支出的更多信息。</blockquote> The SEC has also asked the banks for information on the due diligence they performed on SPAC mergers, including when reviewing revenue growth projections and other disclosures made by the target companies, one of the sources said.<blockquote>一位消息人士称，美国证券交易委员会还要求银行提供有关其对 SPAC 合并进行尽职调查的信息，包括审查目标公司的收入增长预测和其他披露时。</blockquote> The increased scrutiny has prompted some banks to review their processes and increase due diligence, the third source said, adding that some banks and sponsors were also more frequently separating the underwriting and advisory roles.<blockquote>第三位消息人士称，审查的加强促使一些银行审查其流程并加强尽职调查，并补充说，一些银行和保荐人也更频繁地将承销和咨询角色分开。</blockquote> SPACs have existed for decades, but over the past 18 months the deal structure has been popularized by high-profile sponsors and boosted by easy monetary conditions.<blockquote>SPAC已经存在了几十年，但在过去的18个月里，这种交易结构受到了知名赞助商的普及，并受到宽松货币条件的推动。</blockquote> A record nearly $100 billion was raised by U.S. SPACs in the first quarter of 2021, according to Dealogic, before dealmaking flagged amid market saturation and heightened SEC scrutiny.<blockquote>根据 Dealogic 的数据，2021 年第一季度，美国 SPAC 筹集了创纪录的近 1000 亿美元，随后在市场饱和和 SEC 加强审查的情况下出现了交易迹象。</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>U.S. SEC focuses on bank fee conflicts as it steps-up SPAC inquiry<blockquote>美国证券交易委员会加强特殊目的收购公司调查，重点关注银行费用冲突</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nU.S. SEC focuses on bank fee conflicts as it steps-up SPAC inquiry<blockquote>美国证券交易委员会加强特殊目的收购公司调查，重点关注银行费用冲突</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nReuters2021-07-13 19:23\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. securities regulator has ramped-up its inquiry on Wall Street’s blank check acquisition frenzy, homing in on potential conflicts of interest created when banks act as underwriters and advisers on the same deal, three people with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.<blockquote>华盛顿（路透社）--三位直接知情人士告诉路透社，美国证券监管机构已加大对华尔街空白支票收购狂潮的调查力度，重点关注银行在同一笔交易中充当承销商和顾问时可能产生的利益冲突。</blockquote> The Securities and Exchange Commission is exploring whether certain fee structures may incentivise underwriters on special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, listings to secure unsuitable deals when also advising on the later stage merger, potentially putting investors at risk, the people said.<blockquote>知情人士称，美国证券交易委员会正在探索某些费用结构是否可能激励特殊目的收购公司 (SPAC) 上市的承销商，以确保不合适的交易，同时还为后期合并提供建议，这可能会使投资者面临风险。</blockquote> Banks that have received SEC requests for information include top SPAC underwriters Citigroup, Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, they said.<blockquote>他们表示，收到 SEC 信息请求的银行包括顶级 SPAC 承销商花旗集团、瑞士信贷集团、摩根士丹利和高盛。</blockquote> Spokespeople for the banks declined to comment.<blockquote>银行发言人拒绝置评。</blockquote> SPACs are listed shell companies used to take private companies public, sidestepping the more traditional and lengthy initial public offering (IPO) process.<blockquote>SPAC是上市空壳公司，用于将私营公司上市，避开更传统、更漫长的首次公开募股（IPO）流程。</blockquote> Reuters reported in March that the SEC’s enforcement division had opened an inquiry on Wall Street banks’ SPAC dealings, sending letters to several institutions seeking information on deal risks and internal controls.<blockquote>路透社今年 3 月报道称，美国证券交易委员会执法部门已对华尔街银行的 SPAC 交易展开调查，并致函多家机构，寻求有关交易风险和内部控制的信息。</blockquote> Since March, the SEC has focused its inquiry on a group of banks, law firms and SPAC sponsors involved in troubled deals and has sought more information about the deals and interviewed executives concerned, according to two of the three sources.<blockquote>据三位消息人士中的两位透露，自 3 月份以来，美国证券交易委员会一直将调查重点放在一组涉及问题交易的银行、律师事务所和 SPAC 发起人身上，并寻求有关这些交易的更多信息，并采访了相关高管。</blockquote> The SEC is particularly interested in the fees banks have earned when playing several roles on a deal, all three sources said. They declined to say which deals were under scrutiny.<blockquote>三位消息人士均表示，美国证券交易委员会对银行在交易中扮演多种角色时赚取的费用特别感兴趣。他们拒绝透露哪些交易正在接受审查。</blockquote> “The big issue for the SEC is to understand if the advisers are conflicted,” said one of the people.<blockquote>“其中一位人士说：”对美国证券交易委员会来说，最大的问题是了解顾问们是否存在冲突。</blockquote> A spokesperson for the SEC did not respond to requests for comment.<blockquote>美国证券交易委员会发言人没有回应置评请求。</blockquote> SPAC sponsors typically pay banks a 5.5% fee for underwriting the IPO, part of which is paid up front, with the rest paid upon completion of the merger.<blockquote>SPAC 保荐人通常向银行支付 5.5% 的 IPO 承销费用，其中一部分预先支付，其余部分在合并完成后支付。</blockquote> Underwriting banks can earn more fees if they also go on to represent the merger target and help the SPAC sponsor raise additional cash from private investors to finance the takeover.<blockquote>如果承销银行还继续代表合并目标并帮助 SPAC 发起人从私人投资者那里筹集额外现金来为收购提供资金，则它们可以赚取更多费用。</blockquote> The SEC is examining potential conflicts in such situations when a bank works for both sides of the transaction and stands to earn a chunk of fees when the merger goes through.<blockquote>美国证券交易委员会正在研究这种情况下的潜在冲突，即银行为交易双方工作，并在合并完成时赚取一大笔费用。</blockquote> Critics say such arrangements could incentivise banks to talk up targets or play down potential problems, which could harm investors if the target company’s earnings underperform, or other regulatory or legal issues emerge following the merger.<blockquote>批评人士称，这种安排可能会激励银行夸大目标或淡化潜在问题，如果目标公司的盈利表现不佳，或合并后出现其他监管或法律问题，这可能会损害投资者的利益。</blockquote> SPAC returns have trailed the S&amp;P 500 and some SPACs have been accused by shareholders and government investigators of misleading disclosures..<blockquote>特殊目的收购公司的回报落后于标普500，一些特殊目的收购公司被股东和政府调查人员指控存在误导性披露。</blockquote> The sources declined to be named because the discussions are private. Regulatory requests for information do not necessarily imply wrongdoing.<blockquote>消息人士拒绝透露姓名，因为讨论是私下进行的。监管机构对信息的要求并不一定意味着不法行为。</blockquote> EXTRA DILIGENCE<blockquote>额外勤勉</blockquote> Under the rules, lawyers and accountants are required to disclose their fees in the SPAC’s regulatory filings, but banks are not. In its recent inquiries, the SEC has asked banks for more information on their payouts, the three sources said.<blockquote>根据规定，律师和会计师必须在特殊目的收购公司的监管文件中披露其收费情况，但银行无需披露。三位消息人士称，在最近的调查中，美国证券交易委员会已要求银行提供有关其支出的更多信息。</blockquote> The SEC has also asked the banks for information on the due diligence they performed on SPAC mergers, including when reviewing revenue growth projections and other disclosures made by the target companies, one of the sources said.<blockquote>一位消息人士称，美国证券交易委员会还要求银行提供有关其对 SPAC 合并进行尽职调查的信息，包括审查目标公司的收入增长预测和其他披露时。</blockquote> The increased scrutiny has prompted some banks to review their processes and increase due diligence, the third source said, adding that some banks and sponsors were also more frequently separating the underwriting and advisory roles.<blockquote>第三位消息人士称，审查的加强促使一些银行审查其流程并加强尽职调查，并补充说，一些银行和保荐人也更频繁地将承销和咨询角色分开。</blockquote> SPACs have existed for decades, but over the past 18 months the deal structure has been popularized by high-profile sponsors and boosted by easy monetary conditions.<blockquote>SPAC已经存在了几十年，但在过去的18个月里，这种交易结构受到了知名赞助商的普及，并受到宽松货币条件的推动。</blockquote> A record nearly $100 billion was raised by U.S. SPACs in the first quarter of 2021, according to Dealogic, before dealmaking flagged amid market saturation and heightened SEC scrutiny.<blockquote>根据 Dealogic 的数据，2021 年第一季度，美国 SPAC 筹集了创纪录的近 1000 亿美元，随后在市场饱和和 SEC 加强审查的情况下出现了交易迹象。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-sec-spac/exclusive-u-s-sec-focuses-on-bank-fee-conflicts-as-it-steps-up-spac-inquiry-sources-idUSL2N2O90D0\">Reuters</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-sec-spac/exclusive-u-s-sec-focuses-on-bank-fee-conflicts-as-it-steps-up-spac-inquiry-sources-idUSL2N2O90D0","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1146447033","content_text":"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. securities regulator has ramped-up its inquiry on Wall Street’s blank check acquisition frenzy, homing in on potential conflicts of interest created when banks act as underwriters and advisers on the same deal, three people with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.\nThe Securities and Exchange Commission is exploring whether certain fee structures may incentivise underwriters on special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, listings to secure unsuitable deals when also advising on the later stage merger, potentially putting investors at risk, the people said.\nBanks that have received SEC requests for information include top SPAC underwriters Citigroup, Credit Suisse Group, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, they said.\nSpokespeople for the banks declined to comment.\nSPACs are listed shell companies used to take private companies public, sidestepping the more traditional and lengthy initial public offering (IPO) process.\nReuters reported in March that the SEC’s enforcement division had opened an inquiry on Wall Street banks’ SPAC dealings, sending letters to several institutions seeking information on deal risks and internal controls.\nSince March, the SEC has focused its inquiry on a group of banks, law firms and SPAC sponsors involved in troubled deals and has sought more information about the deals and interviewed executives concerned, according to two of the three sources.\nThe SEC is particularly interested in the fees banks have earned when playing several roles on a deal, all three sources said. They declined to say which deals were under scrutiny.\n“The big issue for the SEC is to understand if the advisers are conflicted,” said one of the people.\nA spokesperson for the SEC did not respond to requests for comment.\nSPAC sponsors typically pay banks a 5.5% fee for underwriting the IPO, part of which is paid up front, with the rest paid upon completion of the merger.\nUnderwriting banks can earn more fees if they also go on to represent the merger target and help the SPAC sponsor raise additional cash from private investors to finance the takeover.\nThe SEC is examining potential conflicts in such situations when a bank works for both sides of the transaction and stands to earn a chunk of fees when the merger goes through.\nCritics say such arrangements could incentivise banks to talk up targets or play down potential problems, which could harm investors if the target company’s earnings underperform, or other regulatory or legal issues emerge following the merger.\nSPAC returns have trailed the S&P 500 and some SPACs have been accused by shareholders and government investigators of misleading disclosures..\nThe sources declined to be named because the discussions are private. Regulatory requests for information do not necessarily imply wrongdoing.\nEXTRA DILIGENCE\nUnder the rules, lawyers and accountants are required to disclose their fees in the SPAC’s regulatory filings, but banks are not. In its recent inquiries, the SEC has asked banks for more information on their payouts, the three sources said.\nThe SEC has also asked the banks for information on the due diligence they performed on SPAC mergers, including when reviewing revenue growth projections and other disclosures made by the target companies, one of the sources said.\nThe increased scrutiny has prompted some banks to review their processes and increase due diligence, the third source said, adding that some banks and sponsors were also more frequently separating the underwriting and advisory roles.\nSPACs have existed for decades, but over the past 18 months the deal structure has been popularized by high-profile sponsors and boosted by easy monetary conditions.\nA record nearly $100 billion was raised by U.S. SPACs in the first quarter of 2021, according to Dealogic, before dealmaking flagged amid market saturation and heightened SEC scrutiny.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2161,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":13,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/142717551"}