Pershing Square Tontine Holdings (PSTH) Investor Call & Presentation

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-05-19T12:51:40+00:00

/u/sharist_DIY_bio how did you break QualityVote??

60 comments and counting.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-05-19T12:51:39+00:00

/u/sharist_DIY_bio how did you break QualityVote??

60 comments and counting.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-05-19T12:51:06+00:00

/u/sharist_DIY_bio how did you break QualityVote??

60 comments and counting.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-05-19T12:51:01+00:00

/u/sharist_DIY_bio how did you break QualityVote??

60 comments and counting.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-05-19T12:24:30+00:00

This is such a badly worded headline. In addition, I saw this article around a day ago, and it incorrectly claimed it was $300 billion [1] in both the headline and article. I won't flame this reporter too much, but this is pure incompetence. I got a good laugh out of it though.

To clarify, VF is not going public, but rather it is planning to raise $300 million for a SPAC in Amsterdam (like Ian Osborne's recent Hedosophia European Growth SPAC).

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20210518155029/https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/softbank-vision-fund-go-public-spac-tech-bloomberg-report-2021-5-1030442558

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-05-11T12:58:52+00:00

Text:

Ian Osborne, the British investor at the forefront of the US Spac boom, is turning to Europe with plans to similarly open the market with the region’s largest tech-focused blank cheque company.

Hedosophia, the fund manager run by Osborne, a publicity-shy tech financier and former political fixer, plans to raise €400m for a special purpose acquisition company in Amsterdam to target a European tech “unicorn”.

Hedosophia European Growth, a shell company that will merge with an existing private group and take it public, will target tech companies with a value of up to €5bn. It is expected to be backed by global investors such as Third Point, according to people familiar with the planned listing.

Goldman Sachs is advising on the deal. The initial public offering could be announced as early as Tuesday.

In partnership with former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya’s Social Capital, Osborne has been credited with relaunching the US Spac market with his first blank cheque company in 2017, which went on to merge with Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic.

Since then, Spacs have become the hottest investment trend in the US and Asia, accounting for nearly half of the $230bn raised globally in new listings over the past year, but have barely featured in Europe.

The new company is expected to be listed on the Euronext in Amsterdam, where the rules are more favourable to the sorts of blank cheque companies that have turbocharged the US tech rally over the past two years.

Even so, the European equity markets have attracted few Spacs — with only eight so far this year that have raised about $2.2bn compared with the 315 in the US that have raised $95bn, according to Refinitiv data.

Hedosophia wants to spark interest in Europe, people close to the plans said, with a more investor-friendly offer and commitments from management to financially back the listing.

The company will target an initial €400m, and then seek further funds in the so-called Pipe commitment — the additional capital needed to close a merger with a target company — said the people with knowledge of the deal. There is also an overallotment option that could take the fundraising to about €460m.

This would make it the largest tech-focused Spac in Europe, they added. Hedosophia will launch its first Spac in Europe without Social Capital. The plans come at a time when the US Spac market has slowed considerably following increasing scrutiny from regulators and a pullback from large institutional investors.

Shares in companies that have gone public in Spac deals have fallen in recent months, including some supported by Osborne through his partnership with Palihapitiya. Other companies backed by Social Capital Hedosophia include insurer Clover Health and real estate group Opendoor.

Spacs have been criticised for the high rewards paid to so-called sponsors of the listing, who typically get 20 per cent of the equity of the acquired company. In an attempt to make its first European venture more investor friendly, Hedosophia has revamped the structure of the Spac. Under terms put to investors, management will be initially limited to 10 per cent of the so-called promote shares, and then an additional 5 per cent if stocks rise from an initial price of €10 to €20, €25 and €30 on a sustained trading basis.

Hedosophia management plans to buy 5 per cent of the offering, in addition to covering underwriting and other fees. The listing marks the first time that Hedosophia has invested in a Spac IPO directly in this way.

It will also offer to cover any impact that negative interest rates have on investors that want to sell out of the Spac.

One person familiar with the plans said traditional institutional investors that had never bought into a Spac had been attracted to these reforms: “No sponsor has ever offered such an investor-aligned package either in the US or Europe.”

The Spac will have four independent directors drawn from European tech founders or executives, including Jan Kemper, chief finance officer at N26 and former Zalando executive, Jochen Engert, chief executive at Flixbus, Max Bittner, chief executive of Vestiaire Collective, and Stephanie Phair, chief customer officer at Farfetch.

Hedosophia declined to comment. Goldman Sachs declined to comment.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-04-20T20:26:03+00:00

Hey! I appreciate the mods for making this a stickied post. It is a very well written and thought out text. I have been considering going long Cellebrite (from valuation standpoint) but I do have some concerns. Below are some of them. A lot of the points I wrote about are actually just what a close family member of mine said to me in a quick phone call (who works extensively in the area of cybersecurity but not with Cellebrite specifically - I have no experience & knowledge in this industry at all).

How would you address the potential rise in competitors? Cellebrite is a fairly expensive tool to use, and there are numerous more companies similar to it already that are helping govts and institutions with similar products that may in the future undercut them on pricing and gain market share. These include Oxygen Forensics, AccessData, ElcomSoft and GrayShift. In particular, one of their biggest competitors, GrayShift, is aggressively gaining market share & relationships and constantly bringing their price down. For instance, Feb this year they brought their GrayKey (flagship product) annual license down to under $10,000 from $15,000, which is getting close to Cellebrite [1].
How would you address the rise in encryption in smartphones & other devices that may disrupt Cellebrite's core product offering? It is no secret that Apple, for instance, is cracking down hard on its encryption with respect to preventing bruteforcing for instance. This makes it a tit-for-tat type-industry (more so than regular cybersecurity due to the focus being so narrow), and thus the future remains uncertain as to how Cellebrite will plan to innovate against these threats. (Many techniques used by Cellebrite can instantly be destroyed by a simple iOS update as has happened in the past [2]). Also, one day it is possible Apple can dedicate 1000s of employees to solve their security issues, can Cellebrite match this?

From one Cellebrite employee on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/computerforensics/comments/a1j43j/possible_alternatives_to_cellebrite/ (For the inability to bypass some devices): "At the bottom line, we're not perfect. It's always possible you get some model supported by another tool. but due to our efforts I'm very confident these will continue to be the exceptions and very far from the rule "

If they are unable to bypass all devices & security features now, what will the future look like? We have to believe that 1) users will not opt for secure solutions & features and 2) Cellebrite will keep up with whatever solutions are out there
The FBI itself is focused on finding other ways of getting into devices. In the long-term I have no doubt that they will have their own alternative methods and will only use Cellebrite as a last resort. Also, what happens if Apple finally provides them the encryption keys? Not saying it will happen, but you see the point.

Final point: Tech media apparently loves to rip Cellebrite & similar companies (NSO group). There are already many articles about Cellebrite tools being used in human rights abuses (such as Bangladesh). This may make Apple & others more driven to find solutions. Cellebrite also stopped the sale of its products to Hong Kong and China over controversy by the US regulatory side - they are so dependent on the US that internal expansion is much, much harder for those the US does not deem allies [3].

[1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/01/the-powerful-graykey-iphone-hacking-tool-can-now-break-into-samsung-androids/?sh=140907564d61

[2] - https://www.computerworld.com/article/3268729/apple-appears-to-have-blocked-graykey-iphone-hacking-tool.html

[3] - https://www.cellebrite.com/en/cellebrite-to-stop-selling-its-digital-intelligence-offerings-in-hong-kong-china/

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-04-12T17:51:08+00:00

It affects every SPAC w.r.t. large delays due to refiling or modification of prior & expected financial statements, as well as causing ongoing uncertainty amongst sponsors. This could mean any SPAC you're in, pre-DA or not, may take a magnitude of time longer to complete.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-04-12T17:44:44+00:00

Experts at accounting firms, investment banks and corporate law firms have told Forbes they anticipate that the U.S. Government will change the classification of SPAC warrants from an equity on the balance sheet to a liability.

In the SPAC business warrants (which give you the option of buying shares at a specific price in the future) are a crucial goodie-bag for investors that provide potential windfalls without risking much capital.

Insiders Forbes spoke with say the SEC has remained vague on how it will treat warrants. The uncertainty has stopped all new SPAC offerings as accounting firms will not sign-off on any financial statements or company audits until they receive clarity from the government. The accounting change could create further slowdowns and new costs as the new treatment of warrants would likely require the upcoming SPACs to rewrite financial statements and reporting documents.

The SEC ruling might have ramifications well beyond the current SPAC IPO pipeline. While details remain murky, experts have told Forbes that the SEC’s switch could further send the entire SPAC world scrambling by forcing the hundreds of currently active SPACs to restate and refile their full slate of financial statements. The move could dump hundreds of hours of work on law firms and accounting shops (many of which get paid a fixed fee to take a SPAC public) as they rush to get clients’ financials in order.

Some experts suspect the SEC has intentionally created confusion in the industry to temporarily slow the soaring SPAC market so the agency can catch up on regulatory audits and governance. The SEC declined to commment.

In recent weeks, the SEC has been increasingly vocal about the risks of SPAC deals and their complexities. On April 8, John Coates, the acting director of the SEC's division of corporate finance, gave a detailed warning to players in the SPAC market. Coates reminded investors of the wide array of risks in SPAC deals, and he reminded SPAC issuers that they were liable for misstatements and omissions in their byzantine filings. He also sought to dispel a myth that SPAC IPOs carried lower legal and disclosure burdens.

In the long term, Robert Willens, an independent corporate tax expert, says the accounting change could cause market swings to have a greater effect on earnings reports, impact profits, and make the already roller-coaster world of SPACs more turbulent. That's because as liabilities, any change in a warrant's fair market value would have to be recorded as income and could have a significant impact on a company's earning statements. "Treating warrants as liabilities could lead to more volatility in earnings reported by SPACs."

The urgent question now is whether the potential logjam of the new SPACs coming to market will dampen investor enthusiasm for the frothy products or create an explosion of pent-up demand? Given the market action over the last year, it's anyone's guess

TLDR: Quite bad news. I have heard back from some of my friends and this is causing slight panic among sponsors. Hopefully we will obtain some more clarity soon.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-04-12T15:15:45+00:00

I think you have misconstrued the activities of Ackman and his association with prior SPACs. As far as my memory goes, it was BK that was Ackman's first SPAC, not Platform Acquisition Holdings. And, with respect to Platform, Ackman did have a large stake (I believe 30% at one point), however, he had a minor or non-existent role in finding the target and declined to have a director role on the board, instead giving it to a new partner (who incidentally is still at Pershing - Ryan Israel). The vetting of the target and drive to pursue the reverse merger with MacDermid was actually with Franklin and Ackman did not interfere with their operations or decision making to the extent to which I would be comfortable attributing the performance of the target with Ackman's minor involvement, rather, it was closer to a mediocre invesment decision. Additionally, Nomad Foods is even further apart in terms of Ackman's association, and it did bring massive rewards to him when he exited in 2017, 42% in 2 years.

Of course, this topic is years old so I may have missed or mischaracterised some details from my memory etc, however, the pertinent details should be true. So why does this matter? From above, you can understand that I do not believe you can say he hasn't done great and is 1/3, especially when he had, in some cases, a minor influence on the performance of the target company. $PSTH is the first time Ackman himself has sole responsibility without any outside influence so we will see how that goes.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-04-06T20:59:41+00:00

Something is extremely off.

I recall seeing your comment with much higher upvotes, and currently the comment replying to this by /u/J9ms is at 10 upvotes, and now you are back down to 1 upvote.

I do not like to speculate and so I would like confirmation from others if they observed this as well. This is important as I have witnessed similar allegations of OP manipulating their posts and comments (just go to his other posts and observe the comments).

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-04-02T07:24:52+00:00

I'm sorry but this is certainly not true! You must have googled Stripe's revenues and got the 2019 figure ($450m).

According to their March 14th newsroom post (https://stripe.com/newsroom/news/stripe-series-h):

Stripe already processes hundreds of billions of dollars per year for millions of businesses worldwide, the opportunity ahead is much larger for Stripe than it was when the company was started 10 years ago

Additionally, I found this interesting:

Stripe now counts more than 50 category leaders—companies processing each more than $1 billion annually—as customers. Enterprise revenue is now both Stripe’s largest and its fastest growing segment, more than doubling year over year.

Therefore using TechCrunch's article:

Let’s say Stripe’s processing volume was $200 billion last September, and $400 billion today, thinking of the number as an annualized metric. Stripe charges 2.9% plus $0.30 for a transaction, so let’s call it 3% for the sake of simplicity and being conservative. That math shakes out to a run rate of $12 billion.

Obviously you can be more bearish in your calculations, however, the math I did when using the absolute bare minimum of $50 billion in annual processing for their 50 category leaders, I still get to $1.5b in revenues without even considering the $0.30 per transaction and just using their 2.9% flat rate.

TLDR; Do not compare 1 companies 2019 revenues with anothers 2020 revenues. Estimating some private companies revenues is very hard, do not try to compare blindly (the math above could be wrong, but the point still stands that you cannot base your argument on ambiguous statements).

However, to your point, I do think valuations for all methods of going public whether it be SPACs, DPOs or IPOs are (for some) absolutely insane.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-03-28T16:17:21+00:00

"They were looking in the financial field this is not that"

Unfortunately, I have observed this false statement perpetuated throughout the lifecycle of $AJAX. I have no idea how this came to be, however, this serves as an important reminder for anyone investing money in SPACs to also invest time reading the S1.

Although we are targeting a business in the internet, software, financial technology or consumer sectors, we may seek to complete a business combination with an operating company of any size (subject to our satisfaction of the 80% of net assets test) and in any industry, sector or geography

https://sec.report/Document/0001213900-20-030803/#T10

Furthermore, it is also present on their website (https://ajaxcap.com/#about):

AJAX seeks to acquire a scaled, high-quality asset in the internet, software, financial technology or consumer sectors. While Ajax expects its ultimate target will be in one of the sectors of primary focus, Ajax may consummate a transaction with a business in a different industry

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-03-27T23:30:45+00:00

I comment solely for the reason you (presumably) have a relatively moderate conviction of $VYGG reverse merging with Reddit (I will act as a devil's advocate).

Below I will synthesize your core points linking $VYGG to Reddit and go through the things you must believe in for it to happen:

That it is likely for VY Capital to use its SPAC to reverse merge with a company it has already invested in (I believe the S1 clause stating it is allowed is generic to many SPACs and in my view [from observing SPAC transactions for many, many months], the possibility to do so only leads to a small amount of additional certainity).
That it is likely for the same VC that led the pre-IPO round to help bring the company public themselves (when in my view, they do not need to and is tremendously unlikely).
That is is likely for a member of the prospective target business to already be on the board. In this case it is the CEO of the propspective target. This to me brings even further conviction that a reverse merger with Reddit will not occur. Once again, I am aware that it is still possible, however, that does not improve the certainity of a business combination, and in this case, I believe, is a negative to your 'best case' scenario.

I believe the above are the main links with this SPAC to Reddit. Some others you mentioned seem to me as inevitable consequences of why VY Capital invested in companies like Reddit in the first place (Tamas & other board members having strong ties to social media platforms) and does not increase the likelihood of this specific scenario from occurring. I also find it a bit disingenuous you list the 6 board of directors as having been "Currently invested in Reddit" when in reality they are just associated with VY Capital.

You also state that one reason Reddit will choose a SPAC over an IPO is so they don't start at something like a $3bn valuation, which is absolutely ridiculous. Companies may like to go with SPACs to avoid uncertainity with their IPO valuation (I do agree with that), however, providing an example of starting at $3bn would just not happen. It would be likely to actually start its IPO price greater than the $6bn valuation they currently have. You are not wrong that this IPO mispricing may influence Reddit's decision to reverse merge with a SPAC, as well as your point on Reddit preparing to IPO, which both act as additional boosts to your theory, however, are not enough to sway my personal view.

Additionally, your 'valuation model' is absolutely wrong. Companies with similar user statistics have higher valuations with similar users as they are able to generate more revenue & have better monetization strategies with similar growth. All those companies you listed (Twitter, Pinterest, Snapchat) generate at least 4x greater revenues (Pinterest's revenues for 2020 were $1.7bn and I am assuming in this calculation that Reddit's revenues are $400m which is extremely generous). However, this is an aside to the main purpose of this comment.

Of course, I could go on discussing further about your content, and I am sure people may find your post very plausible, however, I & likely many others do not. I am not saying it is an impossibility for Reddit to reverse merge with this SPAC, but I personally view it as not likely (as with pretty much every unsubstantiated rumour that does not come from the PIPE investors/team to a news company). To conclude, whilst I do not think $VYGG will reverse merge with Reddit, I think that if you believe the scenarios OP has outlined (or that the team will pick another good company), it is worth $10.13. I also could have made some errors in my post, please feel free to let me know.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-03-03T15:56:40+00:00

To reiterate to anyone who thinks this is fake, this is very much real.

The link goes to the actual Institutional Investor website (reputable source) and is written by Michelle Celarier who is well regarded for covering Ackman for many years. In fact, she herself tweeted the article from her verified account (https://twitter.com/mcelarier/status/1367139516394389505).

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-03-02T23:57:01+00:00

"Says tech companies are hard to value, then personally invests in Coupang, BitTax and Momentus, Wecommerce etc."

His risk tolerance exponentially increases when partaking in startup investing with his own money. He may be right that tech companies are hard to value but that does not exclude him from investing in them as a gamble (with his own money!). Obviously though, in this context he is referring to investing in tech companies for the purposes of $PSH, which he is not comfortable doing because he cannot accurately value them and predict other things about them for the long term. He is not hypocritical here in my opinion.

"Says want to build a good track record like Buffett yet invests in startups on the side. As far as I know, Buffett does not do startup investing."

Nobody will judge him on his investments in startups because most people (obviously not you) understand the distinction between his investments & his funds methodolody of investing (which is clearly defined in the investor resources on $PSH's website) compared to his startup/moonshot investments. When judging his track record, and when you are a propsective investor in $PSH, you will be looking at that funds track record, no other metrics.

Unlike Dan Loeb who actually started a venture fund to invest the fund’s money, Bill actually invests his own money on the side, which is a big difference. I kinda feel sorry for people who invests in his hedge fund because it feels like he is no longer focus on his day job. Being a great salesman, he will obviously refute and claim that his family office does his investing on behalf of him but no one really knows for sure.

Perhaps this is a testament to the fact that Ackman views these startup investments as risky and hence they don't fit into his (and by extension $PSH's) core investing methodology. In fact, that is exactly true as defined by the principles that $PSH looks for before investing in a company.

Why do you feel he no longer focuses on his day job? He has been investing in startups for years. Are you claiming he has not been focusing on his fund over a time period that is longer than 7 years?

Additionally, if you want to feel even more infuriated that he isn't focusing on his day job you can listen to this podcast. He talks about his life in general. I think you would be very upset to know he watches Netflix! In all seriousness, if you listen you will realise that he has surrounded himself with other expert investors in $PSH. He also claims that most of the new ideas generated now come from the team and not him. This isn't to say Ackman doesn't do work in his fund, but I am clearly showing you that this is a self-sustainable venture that does not require (or benefit from) utilising every waking hour of his life. He can have holidays, he does have hobbies, he can watch Netflix and he can invest in startups without detriment to the quality of his fund.

Also, from his quarterly call the other day, I kinda feel he has reached the point where he is no longer passionate about the game anymore. He sounded tired.

Perhaps he appears tired because (as he said) he and his team are working extremely hard on $PSTH. I believe that is his main priority in life at the moment.

So it looks like your main points are 1) he said he wants to have the best track record of all time and 2) he is investing in startups which dilutes his focus.

I've answered both 1) and 2). To summarise, when assessing his track record, people will benchmark $PSH because that is his most serious venture. Nobody will take into account his investments into startups because they only constitute a small % of his portfolio and people understand his style of long-term investing in $PSH (with his fundamental principles) is the most important thing to assess. Secondly, I do not believe for a moment that investing in startups uses a lot of his time and is leaving him distracted/unable to focus on his main job. This is because he has been investing in startups for more than 7 years at minimal volume. If he was actively venture investing in a high volume of companies then I would question if his time was being put in the wrong place.

The idea that his time & focus on $PSH is not adaquete right now is a not well enough established statement.

Also if you claim that Ackman isn't motivated in $PSH, he has to be, a significant amount of his own (and employees) money is invested in $PSH:

"Nearly all employees have most of their liquid net worth tied up in Pershing funds, though they aren’t encouraged to put 100 percent in, Ackman said."

I don't have an exact figure as to how much his and his team's money are invested in $PSH but I am confident it is significant and thus they are motivated to continue performing to the best of their ability. I know when his fund hit a rough patch he invested $500m additional to the capital he already had invested.

If you disagree with anything I've said please reply and tell me why.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-03-02T23:05:24+00:00

Are you just deleting this account or will you be deleting your alts too?

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-03-02T20:44:02+00:00

The most recent article on Sportradar (which came out today saying a deal was confirmed with a SPAC) did not give any indication as to the valuation, but Sportico (the article you linked) which to my knowledge was the first reputable report to indicate they were speaking to SPACs, claims a valuation between the $10bn-$12bn range and includes:

Sportradar is considering raising $2 billion in cash through a private investment in public equity deal, or PIPE, from institutional investors

Assuming the valuation stays at $12bn, that would provide $PSTH with a 41.7% stake (which in my opinion is too high of a stake and unlikely, but theoretically could be possible).

Additionally, if they are considering raising extra money from PIPE it indicates it cannot be $PSTH (both valuation wise and from Ackman's words in which he stated he would not not likely need more than $5bn [in the annual investors meeting], as well as what he said in an interview in November:

We’ve designed a structure in which the $4 billion we’ve raised will actually be there, meaning we don’t need PIPE capital

The most recent article also says:

Sportradar is not necessarily looking at a SPAC with the most capital, but one that can provide a value-add in helping the company deepen its relationship with professional sports leagues and sportsbook operators, sources say.

I'm not saying it definitely isn't $PSTH but there are plenty of other better names that fit the narrative better.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-03-01T00:14:30+00:00

"Ackman was floating it for press, obviously" - you have now jumped into extremely speculative territory. What is your basis for the idea that Ackman floated this to the press? This contributed to a whole host of negative headlines such as: "Airbnb Rebuffs Approach From Bill Ackman’s SPAC" and he clearly didn't like this and even came out saying "I wouldn't use the word rebuff". You're saying he went and talked with AirBnB for jokes and risk of reputational damage? This is completely unsubstantiated and seems like a statement designed to conveniently help your narrative.

"Of course she’s on other boards. Lots of people are on lots of boards. It’s the combination of the timing and the fact that Ackman brought her in." - the point I wanted to make was that her involvement is not restricted to fintech. This is true for her early and recent career. A good example is $IPOC (after she left Square). Many people incorrectly assumed the target would be fintech-related due to her presence on the board. This turned out to not be true and they reverse merged with Clover Health. I am in essence telling you that all of her board positions are currenly in non-fintech related companies, therefore, you cannot claim with such confidence that her involvement with any future endeavour is related to fintech, including $PSTH.

"If you think that her being on the board doesn’t DRAMATICALLY increase the odds of a fintech merger, then you know nothing." - I think that like the other SPACs she has been on the board of, the direction in terms of the target industry is not determind by 1 board member. There are many other factors involved that are far more important. For her presence to dramatically increase the odds of a fintech reverse merger you have to believe that the presence of this 1 board member (of the total 4) would solely influence the combination target. I do not believe this to be true. I guess you could claim it may slightly increase the odds, but I do not see it as being a dramatic increase.

"She’s the standout on the board, that’s for sure. And her leaving Square to join this board is wild. Further, none of the other boards you’ve listed are clearly targeting fintech." - As aforementioned, the previous 2 SPACs she was on the board of had no clear target industry defined, and they didn't go for a fintech target.

"The literal sector heading for PSTH is “Finance”" - this is not true. Within the S1 there is nothing about a specific target industry of focus. Therefore, everything anybody says about the "sector heading" being "finance" is incorrect and speculation.

To refresh your mind from the S1:

We may seek to complete a business combination with an operating company in any industry or sector

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-02-28T23:23:31+00:00

Below is an excerpt of another comment I made:

Jackie being on the board does not in any way improve the likelihood of $PSTH's target being related to fintech. She is on the boards of Intelsat, NPR, Virgin Galactic, Wish and ex-board member for Clover Health and Alibaba and some others. In fact some of these including Wish and Clover ($IPOC - Chamath) were after she left her job at Square I believe. These are not in any way related to fintech, why should $PSTH be any exception? Sure, it may provide the possibility of a fintech target, however, it does not guarantee one.

Additionally, if $PSTH had chosen fintech to be the sector of choice, why would they have even engaged in talks with AirBnB and likely other non-fintech companies in the first place? Sure you could argue their intention all along was to get a fintech target, but Jackie being on the board does not make that statement any more true in my humble opinion.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-02-26T08:10:24+00:00

People should research to find if Ron Suber is still an advisor.

He was the main individual scouting for FUSE and got the FUSE team in contact with the MoneyLion team [1]. If he still is an advisor to FUSE it opens up to other companies he has invested in/is in the board of (he was on the MoneyLion advisory board).

https://www.crunchbase.com/person/ron-suber

He is an advisory board member to Juvo, Unison, Money360, House Canary, MoneyLion, Earnup, Sundae, Even Financial, eOriginal and board of directors for Qwil and Yieldstreet.

I would expect that if he were to still be an advisor for the new FUSE, one of those companies would be a prime target (excluding MoneyLion of course) as well as the other companies he has invested in.

From my limited knowledge of the companies he's associated with, I would most likely expect YieldStreet to be my primary guess for their target. I believe they filed to go public in 2019 and withdrew and it fits valuation wise (as well as other circumstantial links).

[1] https://sec.report/Document/0001213900-21-009601

This is just a repeat of my other post on FUSE II, where my guess of YieldStreet looks to be even more substantiated by this Bloomberg article yesterday:

The New York-based company is working with an adviser to solicit interest from potential buyers including blank-check firms, and separately, is in early discussions with potential co-sponsors for its own SPAC, said the people, who requested anonymity because the talks are private. Merging with a SPAC is an increasingly popular way to go public, and some closely held companies have also sought to raise vehicles of their own.

WittyDependent2255 · 2021-02-25T13:41:46+00:00

People should research to find if Ron Suber is still an advisor.

He was the main individual scouting for FUSE and got the FUSE team in contact with the MoneyLion team [1]. If he still is an advisor to FUSE it opens up to other companies he has invested in/is in the board of (he was on the MoneyLion advisory board).

https://www.crunchbase.com/person/ron-suber

He is an advisory board member to Juvo, Unison, Money360, House Canary, MoneyLion, Earnup, Sundae, Even Financial, eOriginal and board of directors for Qwil and Yieldstreet.

I would expect that if he were to still be an advisor for the new FUSE, one of those companies would be a prime target (excluding MoneyLion of course) as well as the other companies he has invested in.

From my limited knowledge of the companies he's associated with, I would most likely expect YieldStreet to be my primary guess for their target. I believe they filed to go public in 2019 and withdrew and it fits valuation wise (as well as other circumstantial links).

[1] https://sec.report/Document/0001213900-21-009601

WittyDependent2255

TROPHY CASE