When SPACs Actually Worked: The Rare Success Stories
Not every SPAC failed. Out of the roughly 700 SPACs that completed mergers between 2019 and 2023, a small handful delivered genuine returns for investors. DraftKings, Lucid Motors (for early holders), Vertiv Holdings, and a few others beat the market. They are the exception — roughly 2-5% of all de-SPACs — but studying what they got right reveals exactly what the other 95% got wrong.
The Success Stories
| Company | SPAC | Merger Date | Return (2 Years Post-Merger) | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DraftKings | Diamond Eagle (DEIA) | Apr 2020 | +185% | Profitable, $20B+ market cap |
| Vertiv Holdings | GS Capital Partners (GSAH) | Feb 2020 | +310% | S&P 500 member |
| Lucid Motors | Churchill Capital IV (CCIV) | Jul 2021 | +40% (from $10 NAV) | Operating, $7B cap |
| Payoneer | FTAC Olympus (FTOC) | Jun 2021 | +95% | Profitable fintech |
| Shift4 Payments | Shift4 (pre-SPAC era) | Jun 2020 | +250% | Growing payments co. |
| Utz Brands | Collier Creek (CCH) | Aug 2020 | +45% | Stable consumer brand |
What the Winners Had in Common
The successful SPACs share a remarkably consistent set of characteristics that distinguished them from the failures:
1. Real revenue at merger time.Every successful SPAC target had meaningful, growing revenue — not projections. DraftKings was generating $300M+, Vertiv was doing $4.4B, Payoneer had $350M+. They didn't need to convince you the revenue was coming; it was already there.
2. Clear path to profitability. The winners either were profitable at merger or had obvious unit economics that would scale. Vertiv was already profitable. DraftKings had a clear trajectory as states legalized online sports betting. Compare this to EV SPACs that projected profitability 5-7 years out.
3. Experienced management teams.DraftKings' Jason Robins had built the company over seven years before the SPAC. Vertiv's CEO had decades of industrial experience. Failed SPACs often featured first-time CEOs with PowerPoint decks and no operating history.
4. Reasonable valuations. Vertiv merged at ~10x EBITDA. DraftKings merged at a high but defensible revenue multiple given its growth trajectory. Failed SPACs routinely merged at 30-100x revenue multiples based on projections.
The pattern:Revenue + Profitability Path + Experienced Team + Reasonable Valuation = the formula. It's the same formula that works for traditional IPOs. The successful SPACs succeeded despite the SPAC structure, not because of it — they would have done equally well (or better) going public through a traditional IPO.
DraftKings: The Poster Child
DraftKings merged with Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp in April 2020, in a deal that also included SBTech (a gaming technology company). The combined company was valued at $3.3 billion. By early 2021, DraftKings' market cap exceeded $20 billion as state-by-state sports betting legalization created a massive tailwind. The stock has been volatile but remains well above its $10 SPAC price.
The key difference: DraftKings had been operating since 2012, had millions of users, and was riding a secular regulatory trend (legalized sports betting) that was verifiable and quantifiable. The SPAC structure was just a vehicle — the business was real.
The Lucid Caveat
Lucid Motors is often cited as a SPAC success, but with important caveats. Investors who bought at the $10 NAV and held have a modest gain. But many retail investors bought during the post-announcement hype when shares traded above $50, and those investors are down 85%+. Lucid has also struggled with production targets and cash burn, needing repeated capital infusions from Saudi Arabia's PIF.
Why the Exceptions Don't Justify the Structure
The existence of a few winners doesn't validate SPACs as a financial product any more than a few lottery winners validate the lottery as an investment strategy. The median de-SPAC lost over 60% of its value. The winners represent survivorship bias at its most extreme — and notably, every one of them could have gone public through a traditional IPO at a lower cost to shareholders.
The uncomfortable truth:DraftKings, Vertiv, and the other winners succeeded because they were good companies — not because they used a SPAC. The SPAC structure actually cost their shareholders money through the sponsor promote and excess dilution. If anything, the success stories prove that good companies can overcome the SPAC tax. They don't prove that SPACs add value.
Return data calculated from merger close to 24 months post-merger, sourced from market data. Company financials from SEC filings. Updated March 2026.