5 Tricky Problems Facing a DeSPAC Merger and How to Overcome Them

Going public is never easy. Still, the right software can help you plan and prepare for market success.


There’s a good reason why businesses start trading publicly—because they have a chance to multiply their value. According to Nasdaq, the top 10% of public companies average 300% returns three years after their initial public offering (IPO).


Still, going public is a challenging process with significant risk. (Nasdaq also reports that two-thirds of companies underperform three years post-IPO.) Consequently, some businesses go public through a deSPAC transaction instead of the traditional IPO process. They hope the alternative route will set them up for public trading success.


Unfortunately, SPACs have advantages and disadvantages, so not every deal works out. We want your company to have the best chance on the public market, so we’ve assembled a quick guide to the deSPAC process. It explains a deSPAC transaction, why businesses do it, and how NetSuite software can help overcome some of its biggest challenges.


SuiteDynamics partners with NetSuite to implement and customize digital solutions that could make a difference in your deSPAC success. Schedule a free consultation with our team and prepare to blow the public market away.


Schedule a FREE Consultation
Graphic stating that a deSPAC merger takes an average of 3-6 months.


What Is a SPAC?


A Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) is a shell company established by investors to acquire a private business and take it public. It offers an alternative to the traditional, often more complex, time-consuming IPO process.


What Is a DeSPAC?


The term “deSPAC” describes a private business's process of merging with a SPAC and becoming publicly traded.


The deSPAC process begins after the SPAC has raised funds through an initial public offering of its own and locates a private company for a merger. Regulatory bodies and SPAC shareholders must approve the merger before the private business can become public. Then, the SPAC is dissolved, leaving the once-private company a publicly traded entity.


Why Would a Company Choose a DeSPAC?


The deSPAC route to public trading has gained popularity recently because it has unique advantages compared to traditional IPOs.


Speed to Market: A deSPAC transaction can help you go public faster. Traditional IPOs involve a lengthy and complex process, including roadshows, financial audits, and regulatory approvals. A SPAC merger simplifies and speeds up this process. According to KPMG, a SPAC merger lasts 3-6 months on average, while a traditional IPO often takes about 12-18 months.


Certainty of Financing: The funds raised by the SPAC during its own IPO are held in a trust until it acquires a target company. Therefore, financing is already in place when executives reach a merger agreement. This process provides financial certainty that a traditional IPO, which is subject to market conditions at the time of the offering, might not offer.


Valuation Clarity: In a deSPAC transaction, SPAC sponsors negotiate the private company’s valuation upfront, providing clarity and potentially more control. Conversely, the market determines an IPO’s valuation through the order book-building process.


Experienced Management: A SPAC’s leadership often possesses significant industry and financial experience. Some private companies know relatively little about navigating the public market so that they can lean on SPAC teams for much-needed expertise regarding the merger process and the complexities of public trading.


Less Market Risk: Sponsors can negotiate the terms of a SPAC deal in advance. Therefore, private companies that merge with them can avoid market volatility that might affect a traditional IPO’s pricing and success. This is particularly helpful in uncertain market conditions.


Regulatory and Process Efficiency: The deSPAC process is still subject to regulatory review but can be more streamlined than the IPO route. Since a SPAC isn’t an operating company, it has no operations, liability, or debt and can speed through the IPO regulatory steps.


Strategic Partnerships: Some sponsors form SPACs to find a company in a specific sector. Consequently, they may offer capital, strategic partnerships, and networking opportunities that target companies find valuable.



A deSPAC transaction sounds enticing for all the reasons listed above, but it has downsides, too. Companies preparing for a merger must deal with regulatory and compliance issues, investor share redemptions, shortened IPO readiness timelines, and more.


Organizations considering this route should carefully weigh the pros and cons and consult with financial and legal advisors before deciding. However, if your company pursues a deSPAC transaction, you can use advanced financial and operating systems, like a NetSuite Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, to help overcome several deSPAC obstacles.


SuiteDynamics experts can demo NetSuite for you during a free consultation so you can see how the system streamlines operations and boosts productivity. We can also answer questions about compliance and how the software will prepare your company for public trading.


Schedule a FREE Consultation
Graphic explaining that the exercised redemption rate exceeded 80% on average for deSPAC deals closed in 2022.


How to Overcome the Challenges of a De-SPAC Transaction


A deSPAC merger presents unique challenges that require foresight, preparation, skillful management, and advanced technology. Below, we outline significant issues associated with de-SPAC transactions and strategies that sponsors and target companies can use to overcome them. We also highlight ways NetSuite software supports the process. 


1. Regulatory and Compliance Hurdles


Going public—through an IPO or SPAC—subjects a company to strict regulations. Businesses must comply with a litany of requirements from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulatory bodies.


Overcoming Strategy: Invest early in compliance infrastructure and seek advice from legal and financial advisors experienced in SEC regulations and public company reporting. Preparation for these regulatory demands ahead of the merger can smooth the transition.


NetSuite’s governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) solution offers the advanced visibility and security necessary to meet requirements. It establishes controls within your company and monitors their effectiveness. It also automates those controls, supports electronic audits, and helps manage overall risk.


2. Poor Public Trading Performance


Fluctuations in investor sentiment or broader market downturns can affect the performance of post-deSPAC stock.


Overcoming Strategy: A robust investor relations strategy will communicate clear, long-term growth prospects, and operational milestones can help stabilize performance. SPAC sponsors should also engage with long-term investors instead of focusing solely on speculative short-term traders.


According to a Harvard Business Review article, sponsors can look for PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) investors who agree to be locked in for up to six months.


“They take on this risk because they’re confident in the investment opportunity, they assume the merged entity will be thinly traded after the merger, and they’re offered subscription prices that are expected be at a discount to market prices,” it says.


3. Investor Redemption


The deSPAC process allows shareholders to redeem their investments before the merger. If too many reclaim their shares, they deplete the SPAC’s available capital. Unfortunately, that happens often. Practical Guidance’s “De-SPAC Transaction Trends in 2023,” says the exercised redemption rate exceeded 80% on average for deals closed in 2022.


Overcoming Strategy: To mitigate redemption rates, sponsors can negotiate agreements with PIPE investors to secure additional funding exempt from redemption. Bloomberg Law suggests that SPAC sponsors offer PIPE investors a portion of their common stock, warrants, or cash payments to illicit funding commitments.


4. Meeting and Maintaining Listing Requirements


After a deSPAC transaction, the newly public company must meet and maintain the listing requirements enforced by the exchange on which it is traded. Those conditions include maintaining the minimum share price, ensuring a sufficient number of publicly held shares, and adhering to corporate governance standards. Companies without prior public market experience may find these requirements difficult to meet.


Overcoming Strategy: Find financial advisors and underwriters experienced in post-SPAC challenges. They can offer solid advice on navigating market obstacles and keeping your business profitable.


5. Operational Readiness for Being Public


Some private companies appreciate a deSPAC transaction’s shorter timeline. Yet, what seems like a leg up for going public can become one of a business’s most significant challenges. PwC’s publication “European Companies Considering a US SPAC Merger” points out that a company must still complete several tasks before trading publicly; it just has fewer months to do so.


“With this short runway, companies often have difficulty budgeting adequate time and resources to complete necessary readiness activities for being a public company,” it says.


Those readiness activities include meeting enhanced reporting requirements, establishing solid investor relations, and boosting corporate governance standards.


Overcoming Strategy: There’s no major trick here besides excellent time management. Before the deSPAC merger, companies must prioritize fine-tuning their financial reporting, internal controls, and corporate governance practices to meet public company standards.


However, NetSuite’s cloud accounting software makes that preparation easier. It offers timely and accurate reporting and allows you to quickly and easily generate documents required by government regulations. The software also provides a historical view of financial and operating data you can use to attract new investors.


Schedule a free consultation with SuiteDynamics experts to discover how the system can change your company’s prospects. Our team can help prepare your business for public trading and streamline daily operations to maximize resources and skyrocket productivity.


Schedule a FREE Consultation


Prepare for Public Trading Success with NetSuite


Public trading is risky whether your company enters the market by merging with a SPAC or using the traditional IPO method. Too many businesses undergo rigorous auditing and significant improvements only to fail on the public stage. We don’t want yours to be one of them.


NetSuite ERP software offers tools to help your company meet compliance regulations and thrive in the market. Its advanced financial capabilities ensure financial records pass audits and meet reporting expectations; its GRC solution establishes operational controls to mitigate risk, and its unified database streamlines operations.


The SuiteDynamics team can customize and implement a NetSuite system for your company that meets your unique needs and offers the best chance at public trading success. Together, we’ll ensure your business thrives on the market.


Schedule a FREE Consultation




We pull information from NetSuite material, SuiteDynamics experts, and other reliable sources to compose our blog posts and educational pieces. We ensure they are as accurate as possible at the time of writing. However, software evolves quickly, and although we work to maintain these posts, some details may fall out of date. Contact SuiteDynamics experts for the latest information on NetSuite ERP systems.




Part of this text was generated using GPT-3, OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model. After generating the draft language, our team edited, revised, and fact-checked it to ensure readability and accuracy. SuiteDynamics is ultimately responsible for the content of this blog post.

Why Make-to-Order Manufacturing Breaks Down in Spreadsheets

March 27, 2026
Spreadsheets built modern business. For decades they served as the unofficial operating system of job shops and custom manufacturers everywhere. They are flexible, familiar, and just comfortable enough to feel like a real solution. In the early days of a growing shop, they genuinely work. But as make-to-order complexity increases, as custom BOMs multiply, lead times tighten, and engineering revisions pile up, spreadsheets strain under the pressure. Every job is different, but spreadsheets want everything to be the same. In make-to-order environments, no two jobs are identical. Unique BOMs, custom routings, variable material costs, different setup requirements, customer-specific specs. Spreadsheets, though, thrive on repetition and standardized rows. So the more variation you introduce, the more tabs you create. The more exceptions you add, the more manual overrides appear. The more formulas you patch together, the more fragile the whole thing becomes. Eventually, the file turns into something only one person truly understands. That’s a liability, not a system. Capacity becomes a guessing game. In make-to-order shops, capacity isn’t theoretical. It’s constrained by reality. Machines go down. Operators vary in skill. Setup time fluctuates from job to job. Rush orders blow up carefully planned weeks. Spreadsheets struggle here because they’re built on static inputs. You can build a beautiful planning sheet with machine-hour allocations, but unless it dynamically adjusts for real-time job status, operator availability, overlapping resource conflicts, and maintenance downtime, you’re not really planning. You’re forecasting best-case scenarios. And that’s exactly how shops overpromise delivery dates and end up paying for it later in overtime and expediting costs. Engineering changes don’t cascade cleanly. Change is a constant in make-to-order manufacturing. A customer tweaks a dimension, a material substitution becomes necessary, or a tolerance tightens halfway through production. In an integrated system, that change automatically updates BOMs, routings, cost projections, and scheduling impact all at once. In a spreadsheet environment, it depends entirely on who remembers to update which tab. A routing might change without adjusting the labor estimate. A material substitution might never feed into the margin calculation. A lead-time adjustment might not reach the production schedule until it’s too late. These small disconnects multiply quickly, and because spreadsheets have no enforced relationships between data sets, the errors don’t announce themselves. Institutional knowledge becomes a single point of failure. Ask most growing job shops who owns the master spreadsheet and you’ll get a name. One estimator, planner, or operations manager who has become the living interpreter of years’ worth of embedded formulas, assumptions, and logic that nobody else fully understands. This works fine until it doesn’t. When that person goes on vacation, gets sick, or leaves, the shop loses operational clarity. In an environment already defined by complexity, having critical knowledge live inside one person’s mental model of a file is an inefficient bottleneck. Visibility stops at the file boundary. Spreadsheets are static snapshots. Make-to-order manufacturing is anything but. Without real-time feedback loops, shops find themselves unable to answer questions that should be simple: Are we actually on track this week? Which jobs are consuming more labor than quoted? Where is the bottleneck right now? Which customers consistently drive margin compression? When performance data doesn’t flow automatically from the floor back into quoting and planning, improvement stalls. You can’t refine what you can’t see. Here’s the thing about spreadsheet failure in manufacturing… it’s not dramatic. It’s gradual. First the files get slow, then fragile, then opaque. By the time leadership feels the real pain through late shipments, squeezed margins, and rising overtime, the architectural issues are widespread. Make-to-order manufacturing demands systems that understand relationships: how a routing affects capacity, how a BOM revision affects cost, how a delayed job cascades through the rest of the schedule. The question most shops ask is whether they can make the spreadsheets work. The better question is what it’s actually costing to keep them. The most resilient make-to-order manufacturers are building systems that preserve flexibility without sacrificing the visibility needed to actually run the business. Adaptability is the advantage. 

Where Fabrication Shops Lose Margin (And Don’t Know It)

March 23, 2026
In custom manufacturing , when systems break down, profit rarely disappears all at once. It leaks. Quietly, repeatedly, and often in ways that never show up clearly on any report. Walk into almost any fabrication shop and you’ll hear some version of the same story: the backlog is strong, revenue looks good, we’re staying busy. And yet the margin feels thinner than it should. For job shops running custom work, profitability doesn’t usually collapse because of one bad decision. It erodes through small, daily inefficiencies buried inside quoting, scheduling, engineering changes, and the gap between what was planned and what actually happened on the floor. Here’s where shops most commonly lose efficiency, and how to get it back. The quote that was almost right. For custom orders, every quote is a prediction, and predictions are dangerous when they’re disconnected from real shop-floor data. Outdated labor standards, underestimated setup time, material prices that changed since the template was built, and capacity assumptions based on average weeks instead of current reality. These errors are each small on their own, but a 4% underestimate on labor here, a missed secondary operation there, add up across hundreds of jobs. Small errors compound into real margin loss. The best-performing shops treat quoting as a living system fed by actual job performance data, not static spreadsheets that nobody updates. Capacity that looks available but isn’t. On paper, there’s open space on the schedule. In practice, that open week includes a machine down for maintenance, a senior operator on vacation, two complex jobs already competing for the same bottleneck, and a rush order someone verbally committed to last Thursday. Without finite capacity planning, shops routinely overcommit based on theoretical machine hours rather than real-world constraints. The fallout is predictable: overtime spikes, expedited shipping costs, re-sequencing chaos, and exhausted operators. Margin shrinks not because the shop is incapable, but because it’s planning in averages. Engineering changes that never get repriced. Designs evolve. A hole moves, a weld spec changes, or a tolerance tightens. Each adjustment has a cost. But many shops hesitate to reprice midstream, worried about damaging the customer relationship, and end up absorbing the extra labor and rework time instead. Do this enough times and it becomes a cultural norm: “we’ll just take care of it.” That’s margin erosion disguised as good service. High-performing job shops track engineering change impact in real time and make repricing decisions based on data rather than discomfort. Setup time hiding in plain sight. In low-volume, high-mix environments, setup time is often the silent killer. When shops don’t track setup separately from run time, assume it’ll all come out in the wash, and never refine their routings based on what actually happened, they end up underpricing complexity. In job shops producing one to fifty unit runs, setup can represent a disproportionate share of total labor. If it isn’t measured accurately, it can’t be priced accurately. The spreadsheet layer nobody talks about. Most shops run a hybrid environment where the ERP handles transactions and spreadsheets handle reality. Capacity lives in one file, quoting assumptions in another, and actual job performance in someone’s head. This creates invisible disconnects. Quotes not aligned with current routing, schedules that don’t reflect real constraints, and historical performance that never feeds forward into better decisions. Each disconnect feels manageable in isolation. Collectively, they create margin leakage that leadership can feel but can’t quite locate. What makes all of this so frustrating isn’t that shop owners don’t care. It’s that they can’t see clearly enough to act decisively. Without integrated visibility across quoting, routing, capacity, and quality, operators run on instinct. And instinct works remarkably well until scale and complexity outpace it. The shops that consistently outperform aren’t necessarily the biggest or the busiest. They operate with clarity and consistency. Fewer assumptions and more decisions based on reality. In a manufacturing landscape where lead times keep shrinking and customers expect speed and precision at the same time, margin won’t be protected by effort alone.
Factory worker in hard hat using laptop, monitoring control panel with screens.

Why “Perfect” Production Planning is a Myth, and How Finite Capacity Planning Fixes It

January 5, 2026
Every manufacturing leader has lived this moment: The schedule looks perfect. Orders are slotted. Commitments are made. And then reality shows up. A machine goes down. A key operator calls out. Setup times balloon. One late job cascades into five. Suddenly the plan (built meticulously inside your ERP) falls apart. Not because your team failed, but because the plan was never grounded in reality to begin with.  The Hidden Lie Inside Most ERP Schedules
Woman Working in Modern Factory Setting

Connecting AI to NetSuite Using MCP

August 27, 2025
NetSuite’s Model Context Protocol (MCP), built in partnership with Anthropic, helps users leverage AI
job shop manufacturing

What is Job Shop Manufacturing? Complete 2025 Guide

June 20, 2025
Job shop manufacturing is a production method where small batches of 1-100 units of customized or unique products are made to meet specific customer requirements. Unlike mass production, each order typically requires unique setups, specialized processes, and custom routing through the facility. In this comprehensive guide, you'll learn: The complete definition of job shop manufacturing How job shops differ from other manufacturing types Industries that rely on job shop methods Technology solutions that optimize job shop operations When to consider implementing specialized ERP systems What is Job Shop Manufacturing? (Definition) Job shop manufacturing is a production strategy focused on customization over volume . Instead of producing thousands of identical items, job shops create small quantities of unique products tailored to specific customer specifications. Key defining characteristics: Small batch sizes - Typically 1-100 units per order High product variety - Hundreds or thousands of different products Custom specifications - Each order has unique requirements Project-based workflow - Work orders last days to weeks Skilled labor - Requires specialized expertise and flexibility Job Shop is a powerful, fully integrated solution built for custom manufacturers, combining quoting, configuration, production, and fabrication workflows inside NetSuite. Learn more about SuiteDynamics' NetSuite Job Shop for Manufacturing.
A man is holding a box and a woman is looking at a tablet in a warehouse.

When Non-Standard Data Skews Your DIO: Practical Solutions for Messy Inventory Records

By Grace Martin • May 27, 2025
Uncover the challenges of data quality affecting DIO accuracy, from ghost inventory to inconsistent formats. Find out how to tackle these issues effectively with a NetSuite ERP.

Why PE Firms Are Consolidating NetSuite Instances Across Portfolio Companies

May 8, 2025
In the world of private equity, creating operational value has become increasingly critical as the market evolves. With exit timelines extending and competition for deals intensifying, PE firms are looking beyond financial engineering to drive returns. One emerging strategy that's gaining traction is the consolidation of NetSuite instances across portfolio companies. The Hidden Challenge of System Fragmentation As PE portfolios grow through acquisition, a common pattern emerges: multiple portfolio companies operating on separate NetSuite instances. While each system may work effectively in isolation, the fragmentation creates significant operational inefficiencies at the portfolio level: Redundant Licensing Costs: Each separate instance requires its own licensing structure , creating unnecessary expenses that directly impact EBITDA. Manual Consolidation Effort: Finance teams spend countless hours extracting, transforming, and manually consolidating data from disparate systems. Inconsistent Processes: Basic business functions are handled differently across portfolio companies, limiting standardization efforts. Limited Portfolio-Wide Visibility: Gaining insight across the entire portfolio requires extensive manual effort, delaying strategic decision-making. Integration Challenges: Onboarding new acquisitions becomes increasingly complex when each company maintains its own environment.
Esusu logo

Case Study: Esusu's Journey to Financial Efficiency

April 30, 2025
Explore Esusu's partnership with SuiteDynamics to enhance financial processes. Schedule a consultation to see how your business can thrive with NetSuite solutions.
Image of an office worker and a laptop, illustrating the concept of case management setup.

NetSuite Case Management Set Up: How to Configure Case Statuses, Rules, Types, Priorities, and More

By Brittany Klecker • April 30, 2025
Discover how to effectively set up and configure case statuses, rules, types, priorities, and more in NetSuite's case management system. Streamline your workflow and improve customer support with this comprehensive guide.
A man is holding a stack of cardboard boxes in a warehouse.

Understanding Backorders: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How to Manage Them

By Grace Martin • April 26, 2025
Backorders disrupt revenue and frustrate customers. Learn what "backordered" means, how backorders happen, their impact on businesses, and how NetSuite ERP can minimize the issues.
More Posts