Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 451 posts

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#141

Post by landl0rd »

mattmcknight wrote: post #81

So blocking a sale at a $20B valuation so the company can IPO at a $19.3B valuation 3 years later (a loss of $700M in value over 3 years) is a success?

I’m not especially in favor of all of Khan’s actions but this was an accretive acquisition prospect for Adobe in a way that makes it worth more to them vs as a standalone company. Think how Urchin Analytics was worth a lot to Google but less by itself.

Also, Adobe was massively overpaying, arguably even if you consider that. Even if you assume it was due to seeing Figma as a huge competitive threat the stock nosedived due to the acquisition price.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#142

Post by SilverElfin »

zombiwoof wrote: post #125

People don’t remember the hellscape of computing when Microsoft was an unchecked monopoly

Aren’t they basically the same now, unchecked in power? They’re able to muscle into anything using their money and incumbent strength. They can use existing products to sell new ones. They can copy products and give them away. They can wage legal wars.

Personally, I think it’s unacceptable to have any business worth 4T as a single company. It’s not good for competition and for customers in the long term. But today’s anti competitive tactics are different from the simpler monopolistic tactics of the past. We need all new regulations to deal with it.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#143

Post by franga2000 »

aurareturn wrote: post #120
boroboro4 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Not everything is about capital owners and their profits. There is a lot of importance in the competition in the market and customers having choice of best products around. Figma competing with adobe is one of the examples. Even from capital point of view everyone is now forced to make their bet - either on adobe or figma, so it’s more efficient capital allocation too.

1. Figma actually lost money because their acquisition price was higher than their shares sold in the IPO. 2. Yes, Figma luckily IPOed in an extremely hot market Getting a bit lucky doesn't mean this was a success overall. The conclusion has many more years to go before it gets written. Either way, I don't like the over reach by Lina Khan.

What do you mean over reach? It's the FTC's job to prevent consumer market consolidation. Adobe is already too big and they already abuse that to the detriment of consumers. Buying Figma would make that even worse.

A company exists primarily to make things for consumers and the FTC ensures they do that fairly. The IPO, stock price and everything else is secondary.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#144

Post by andruby »

SilverElfin wrote: post #137
el_nahual wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IPO "pop" is not captured by banks: it's captured by the banks customers that pre-buy at the IPO price. Basically, before an IPO, the underwriters take the company on a "roadshow" in which they pitch the IPO to potential buyers. There's a hierarchy of these: the best are very large buyers that place large orders and trade seldom. Pensions, sovereign wealth funds, etc. Those buyers then make offers ("I'll buy 50MM…

Seems undemocratic. Everyday folks can’t buy even though they would want to

Capital and Finance was never democratic. And I doubt it ever will. It’s literally those with more money have more power.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#145

Post by [deleted] »

conradev wrote: post #139
SilverElfin wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems undemocratic. Everyday folks can’t buy even though they would want to

It’s just a bulk discount: everyday folks simply can’t be relied upon to buy hundreds of millions of dollars the stuff and that’s what the company is selling. Little fish can buy in, but only if the big fish provide liquidity in the first place! In other words: someone needs to be paid to sell it and big buyers need to be incentivized to buy it. Ultimately the IPO price is driven by supply and demand with a limited s…

[deleted]

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#146

Post by andy_ppp »

mattmcknight wrote: post #81

So blocking a sale at a $20B valuation so the company can IPO at a $19.3B valuation 3 years later (a loss of $700M in value over 3 years) is a success?

Why would Figma have sold to Adobe if they were not paying a premium, assuming they’d grow?

I can understand you looking at the headline valuation but as an independent company traded with lots of potential to grow with AI tools their stock will probably double… a quick Google appears to suggest a 250% uplift from the IPO price so the company would potentially have added $58bn (the figure I’ve seen quoted) to Adobe’s bottom line.

Lina Khan was right at least on this merger!

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#147

Post by aurareturn »

franga2000 wrote: post #143
aurareturn wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Figma actually lost money because their acquisition price was higher than their shares sold in the IPO. 2. Yes, Figma luckily IPOed in an extremely hot market Getting a bit lucky doesn't mean this was a success overall. The conclusion has many more years to go before it gets written. Either way, I don't like the over reach by Lina Khan.

What do you mean over reach? It's the FTC's job to prevent consumer market consolidation. Adobe is already too big and they already abuse that to the detriment of consumers. Buying Figma would make that even worse. A company exists primarily to make things for consumers and the FTC ensures they do that fairly. The IPO, stock price and everything else is secondary.

  What do you mean over reach? It's the FTC's job to prevent consumer market consolidation.
It is over reach because it seems arbitrary.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#148

Post by bornfreddy »

SilverElfin wrote: post #137
el_nahual wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IPO "pop" is not captured by banks: it's captured by the banks customers that pre-buy at the IPO price. Basically, before an IPO, the underwriters take the company on a "roadshow" in which they pitch the IPO to potential buyers. There's a hierarchy of these: the best are very large buyers that place large orders and trade seldom. Pensions, sovereign wealth funds, etc. Those buyers then make offers ("I'll buy 50MM…

Seems undemocratic. Everyday folks can’t buy even though they would want to

It is undemocratic, but it is capitalistic.

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#149

Post by ryanjshaw »

SilverElfin wrote: post #137
el_nahual wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IPO "pop" is not captured by banks: it's captured by the banks customers that pre-buy at the IPO price. Basically, before an IPO, the underwriters take the company on a "roadshow" in which they pitch the IPO to potential buyers. There's a hierarchy of these: the best are very large buyers that place large orders and trade seldom. Pensions, sovereign wealth funds, etc. Those buyers then make offers ("I'll buy 50MM…

Seems undemocratic. Everyday folks can’t buy even though they would want to

What makes it undemocratic?

What do you propose? A speculative free-for-all like with crypto meme coins?

Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny

#150

Post by tossandthrow »

SilverElfin wrote: post #137
el_nahual wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IPO "pop" is not captured by banks: it's captured by the banks customers that pre-buy at the IPO price. Basically, before an IPO, the underwriters take the company on a "roadshow" in which they pitch the IPO to potential buyers. There's a hierarchy of these: the best are very large buyers that place large orders and trade seldom. Pensions, sovereign wealth funds, etc. Those buyers then make offers ("I'll buy 50MM…

Seems undemocratic. Everyday folks can’t buy even though they would want to

It is, it is yet another of the constructions that increases inequality and makes rich people richer.

Yes, an ipo is volatile, it should be! You are literally pricing a company.

Sigh, regardless, Thisnis again one of these ways where free markets are being smashed by monopolistic behavior - you can only be a part of the game if you already have enough.

Post reply on HN