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

161–170 of 451 posts

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

#161

Post by tekkk »

ptero wrote: post #135
aschobel wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Google solve this with their dutch auction?

Yes. But Google being Google it got top notch planning advice from world class auction experts that Goldman pulled in to advise them on the IPO. Most companies without such expert advice could step into some pitfalls. Just a guess, I am not an expert, but if my company were doing an IPO I would prefer it not to play financial games to eke out a percent of IPO price and instead focus on long term price stability to be…

Figma's stock quadripled in price from 33 to whatever it is now. Not saying it's good or bad, just that those gains must have been nice with effort akin to staring spreadsheets a while and babbling in meetings.

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

#162

Post by isodev »

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?

Yes, otherwise we get no “free market” and everyone looses a good graphics tool as an option.

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

#163

Post by ic_fly2 »

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

Not all IPOs pop

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

#164

Post by aurareturn »

franga2000 wrote: post #152
aurareturn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not arbitrary, there are many reasons to block the merger and they were explained in depth when the decision was made. Also, the EU and UK also made it clear they were against the merger. In fact, if you look at most reporting, the EU and UK seem to be the main reason they gave up, presumably because they know the US FTC has no teeth, even with a competent chair.

Even if EU and UK wanted to block the deal, it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Free market.

I don't have a popular opinion on HN. I don't think Google should be broken up because new technology has made Google search much less needed. I don't think Apple should relinquish control over its app store because it's Apple's platform and they should do what they want. I don't think Adobe should be stopped from buying Figma because even if Adobe buys it, maybe some rich ex-employees might quit and make another competitor or make an open source alternative. Who knows.

People on HN wants the government to weaken tech companies but not when it's the tech company they're working in.

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

#165

Post by Wilder7977 »

aurareturn wrote: post #164
franga2000 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not arbitrary, there are many reasons to block the merger and they were explained in depth when the decision was made. Also, the EU and UK also made it clear they were against the merger. In fact, if you look at most reporting, the EU and UK seem to be the main reason they gave up, presumably because they know the US FTC has no teeth, even with a competent chair.

Even if EU and UK wanted to block the deal, it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Free market. I don't have a popular opinion on HN. I don't think Google should be broken up because new technology has made Google search much less needed. I don't think Apple should relinquish control over its app store because it's Apple's platform and they should do what they want. I don't think Adobe should be stopped from buyin…

For someone who believes in free market, how is it acceptable to have consolidated monopolies? The market is free when there is competition. If there is no competition there is no freedom. Of course I know that for many "free market defenders" "competition is for losers" (was it Peter Thiel?), and ultimately nobody cares of the abstract value of freedom.

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

#166

Post by franga2000 »

aurareturn wrote: post #164
franga2000 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not arbitrary, there are many reasons to block the merger and they were explained in depth when the decision was made. Also, the EU and UK also made it clear they were against the merger. In fact, if you look at most reporting, the EU and UK seem to be the main reason they gave up, presumably because they know the US FTC has no teeth, even with a competent chair.

Even if EU and UK wanted to block the deal, it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Free market. I don't have a popular opinion on HN. I don't think Google should be broken up because new technology has made Google search much less needed. I don't think Apple should relinquish control over its app store because it's Apple's platform and they should do what they want. I don't think Adobe should be stopped from buyin…

My point is that is is the right thing to do and multiple countries' regulators agree. Monopolies have proven themselves to be bad and consolidation is how they are created. The "free market" (as if there is such a thing) does not take care of this, because it's not profitable to compete with such a powerful incumbent. Any attempt to compete would require insane capex and have a higher price tag for consumers, who would likely have to pay it not instead of but alongside the current incumbent's price, which very few would accept. If instead, you intervene and block the merger, the company can (and is incentivised to) grow and branch out, competing with the one that tried to acquire it.

Obviously this is a YC forum and many people have a startup bias, but I'm nowhere near that scene. Many startups do even worse things than some of the big guys, because they aspire to become them. The "burn investor money to get market share at a loss, kill all competition, become a monopoly, then enshittify and make infinite money" strategy wouldn't be nearly as effective if we had proper antitrust enforcement.

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

#167

Post by saagarjha »

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…

Why can't a bunch of little fish provide the liquidity? Especially since they can provide more without the bulk discount?

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

#168

Post by bravesoul2 »

Sherveen wrote: post #75

Everyone in this thread who posts some variation of "wow love it how the government gets to decide if you get to sell your startup or how the market should work" should be handcuffed to their chair and forced to answer these 3 questions: 1. is there any role for gov't antitrust in your view of modern capitalism? 2. if there is a role, why is Adobe x Figma not the perfect example for enforcement? 3. if your answer is…

And without governments there is no business as we know it, just a Mad Max scenario a bit like rival criminal gangs.

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

#169

Post by saagarjha »

monero-xmr wrote: post #100
kelnos wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "company" is a legal framework that we, society, has decided is allowed to exist. That also means that we are allowed to put any requirements and restrictions on it that we like. The health of our society is what matters, not the wealth of any particular founder.

Yes and in our democracy I can advocate for stronger property rights including over ownership of companies

Yes, but a lot of society will advocate against that.

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

#170

Post by saagarjha »

Spooky23 wrote: post #118
Sherveen wrote: post #75

Everyone in this thread who posts some variation of "wow love it how the government gets to decide if you get to sell your startup or how the market should work" should be handcuffed to their chair and forced to answer these 3 questions: 1. is there any role for gov't antitrust in your view of modern capitalism? 2. if there is a role, why is Adobe x Figma not the perfect example for enforcement? 3. if your answer is…

Keep in mind that this is a forum run by a company that is a funnel for new VC companies and most people are in adjacent places in tech, Principles don’t pay the mortgage.

If your house is in Atherton, maybe.
Post reply on HN