I don’t think the allocation process changes the underlying point. The mechanics may have been unusual, but highly anticipated IPOs almost always attract buyers motivated by participation as much as valuation. Whether they got 10 shares through a special allocation or bought on the open market, there is usually a cohort that wants to say “I got in on the IPO.” Once the novelty fades, some of that demand naturally disappears. I’m not convinced that’s unique enough to call it anomalous.

Edit: why would this get flagged lol?

> No this was anomalous for an IPO. People were limited to something like 10 shares that they had to pre-order like they were special order trading cards with an order cap as direct recipients of the initial shares.

It all depends on your broker. My Australian broker gave everyone ~40% of their request and refunded the rest (typical Australian practice for IPOs). An American friend put in for >20x as much as I did with his US broker, they gave him nothing and refunded the full amount.

IPOs are designed to achieve a 20% pump, generally do achieve it, and did achieve it in the case of SPCX. Buying shares at the base of the pump that you are allowed to sell at +20% is a license to cash in. Why would anyone sell you those shares at that price, then? They are paying you to cultivate the "rare pokemon card" atmosphere that gets the less sophisticated investors excited and willing to buy the top. A dollar spent selling below-market shares to a promoter returns many dollars of exit liquidity. This is how investment banks make their IPO money and it's how social media promoters make their money. The promoters aren't the ones being fleeced. There are people who think they are promoters but are actually suckers -- but that's a separate matter. The price always tells the true story.