Invest1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
Regulators say 800-plus buyers of SpaceX, Anduril, Anthropic and Perplexity stakes paid an average of 46% over what the sponsor paid. The alleged violation is the undisclosed spread.
The Investor · Invest desk

Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
The SEC sued Andrew Spaventa and three entities he controls on Friday in the Southern District of New York, alleging that a Long Island operation raised more than $74 million from more than 800 investors for 11 private funds holding shares in SpaceX, Anduril, Anthropic and Perplexity [1][2][3]. The complaint's theory is not that retail money reached those names; it is that buyers paid on average 46% more than Spaventa's own companies had paid for the same stock, and in some cases 91% more, without knowing it [4].
The mechanics are the whole case. According to the SEC, TSG and a second Spaventa-owned company, TSG Invest Ventures, bought the positions first, then resold them to Spaventa's funds at a higher price, which the funds passed on to investors [5]. Because Spaventa owned the seller and controlled the entities managing the buyers, the SEC says he needed written client consent for those transactions and never obtained it [6]. The funds had no board that could have consented and no third party checking that the transfers were arm's length [7].
The per-name numbers are specific. Fund 8 held Anthropic acquired at $32.62 to $41.53 a share and sold at $58.50, a 41% to 79% markup that raised $5.8 million in 2024 [8]. Funds 10 and 11 held Perplexity bought between $340.72 and $389 and sold at $495 [9]. Fund 2 held SpaceX bought at $595 and sold at $975, a markup of about 64% [10][1]. Anduril appeared across three funds at markups between 29% and 57% [11]. None of the four companies is accused of wrongdoing [12].
The distribution layer is where the money went. More than 100 sales agents cold-called thousands of prospects, many of the agents unregistered and several previously suspended or barred by FINRA [13][14]. They earned roughly 10% commissions, and a handbook Spaventa allegedly approved instructed them never to use that word and to say "referral fee" instead [14]. Asked what the fund paid for shares, agents were coached to say, "I'm not sure, but that's not information I'm privy to" [15]. The script also had them say, "Unlike other firms, we have no hidden fees. So the price we tell you is the price of the investment" [16].
In total the SEC alleges $23 million in undisclosed fees, more than half of it, over $12 million, paid out as sales commissions, with at least $4 million to Spaventa, spent on a home purchase, renovations, travel and luxury car payments [17][2]. That fee take is roughly 31% of gross proceeds [3]. The buyer base was not institutional: more than 650 of the investors put in $100,000 or less, about 81% of the total, and more than 100 were retirees [18][4]. "They get you on the phone and then hit you with the hidden fees," said Sheldon L. Pollock, associate director of the SEC's New York regional office [19].
Spaventa, 40, denied the allegations and said he plans to defend himself [20]. He founded TSG in 2020 after years as a broker selling pre-IPO investments [21].
Watch the backdating allegation: the SEC says some fund equity transfer agreements were backdated after staff opened an inquiry in 2023 [22]. Watch also whether other SPV distributors start disclosing acquisition cost alongside offer price, and whether their sales forces are registered [14][6]. On this complaint, the exposure is not selling private shares to small accounts. It is selling them at a spread you do not name.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
The SEC charged Andrew Spaventa along with three entities he controls, The Spaventa Group (TSG), TSG Capital Advisors, and TSG Alpha Partners, with fraud and violating securities and broker-dealer registration provisions, in a complaint filed on Friday in the Southern District of New York.
More than 800 people bought in, most of them retail investors, to funds pitched as holding shares in SpaceX, Anduril, Anthropic and Perplexity.
More than 650 of the investors put in $100,000 or less, and more than 100 were retirees.
The alleged boiler room raised more than $74 million for 11 private funds run from offices on Long Island and New Jersey over four and a half years, from December 2020 to June 2025.
None of the companies whose shares were sold is accused of any wrongdoing.
'Unsolicited calls and high-pressure sales tactics are the calling cards of so-called boiler room operators. They get you on the phone and then hit you with the hidden fees,' said Sheldon L. Pollock, associate director of the SEC's New York regional office.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Detailed but single-outlet and unadjudicated
The factual base is unusually granular for an enforcement story — per-fund acquisition and resale prices, markup ranges, fee totals, investor counts, script language — but every figure reaches the cluster through one publisher's reading of one complaint, with no docket citation, no second outlet, no regulator document quoted beyond a single official statement, and an express denial from the defendant. Allegations in a freshly filed civil complaint are assertions, not findings.
Real but narrow retail uptake
There is concrete, quantified uptake of the product category at issue: $74 million-plus from 800-plus buyers across 11 vehicles over four and a half years, including a single 2024 fund that raised $5.8 million on Anthropic exposure. That is genuine measured demand for retail-wrapped pre-IPO AI exposure, but it is confined to one sponsor's distribution channel and says nothing about the size of the legitimate market around it.
Slightly ahead of what is proven
The headline and 'boiler room' framing assert conduct that has been charged, not established, and the regulator's own quote supplies the most colorful language in the piece. Offsetting that, the reporting attributes claims to the SEC throughout, states plainly that none of the named private companies is accused of wrongdoing, carries the defendant's denial, and notes no response has been filed — so the overstatement is modest rather than structural.
Strong incentive pressure on every side
The alleged mechanics are themselves an incentive story: roughly 10% commissions to a 100-plus cold-calling sales force, more than $12 million of $23 million in fees routed to those sellers, at least $4 million to the sponsor personally, and handbook language that renamed commissions as referral fees. On the other side, the SEC is an enforcement party seeking disgorgement, penalties and a lifetime bar, and Spaventa has a direct stake in denying. Those pressures are documented in the source rather than inferred.
Moderate
Confidence rests on a well-specified, internally consistent single account of a filed federal complaint with named officials, exact prices and named defendants who were contacted for response. It is held down by the absence of any second publisher, no primary docket in the cluster, no adjudication, and a blanket denial that the cluster cannot test.
invest
The SEC just put a number on the pre-IPO grey market: 46% average markup, $74M, 800 buyers1 distinct publisher
product
OpenAI's CFO calls an IPO "another fundraise" while the model calendar slips2 distinct publishers
invest
IPO proceeds tripled to $205.1B, but the deal count barely moved1 distinct publisher
build
Grok 4.6 lands in Copilot two days after launch, and the model picker becomes a procurement problem1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.