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

211–220 of 451 posts

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

#211

Post by pclmulqdq »

Thorrez wrote: post #174
timr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep. So perhaps don’t block every potential transaction on flimsy pretense? Icing the transaction market seems like a great way to scare off potential competing acquirers in the name of social engineering. I don’t know. All I know is that Lina is out of power, and suddenly we see an upswing in M&A. Coincidence, I’m sure.

Lina claims she let the vast majority of deals through. I wonder what the data shows. >While her aggressive stance led to intense criticism from corners of the tech industry, she defended her approach by saying that only a tiny percentage of deals received “a second look”

Even if "a tiny percentage" is 1%, that's a huge amount more than a normal FTC.

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

#212

Post by benreesman »

dabedee wrote: post #177

I think the Figma IPO proves Khan was right. $60B market cap today vs the $20B Adobe offered in 2023. There was some criticism about regulatory overreach when the deal got blocked. Now Figma employees are rich, the design tools market stays competitive, and we have another major independent tech company instead of just another Adobe product line. This is exactly why we need regulators willing to tell Big Tech "no" so…

It absolutely proves that she was right. If you care about market cap? She was right. If you care about employee comp? She was right. If you care about consumer choice, she was right. Number of listings, new potential acquirers for your startup, more diverse office geography, right right right right.

The idea that there's a significant lobby on fucking Hacker News unhappy that a startup IPO'd for a zillion bucks and made everyone rich is twilight zone shit. It makes no sense according to the stated values in the fucking masthead.

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

#213

Post by MrGilbert »

skrebbel wrote: post #192
MrGilbert wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Figma had 8 funding rounds in 10 years, according to crunchbase. That is an advantage compared to other players on the market that do not receive VC. If it's fair or not, that’s up to everyones own standards.

You do not "receive" VC, you sell shares (and control). You write as if it's some sort of grant that Figma uniquely got access to.

I think the more common term is to "raise money". But at the end, you receive money that you should spend. With strings attached, of course. That’s the nature of VC.

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

#214

Post by benreesman »

tossandthrow wrote: post #151
bornfreddy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is undemocratic, but it is capitalistic.

Even Adam Smith would argue that monopolies are bad - the fact that you are deacriminated upon to buy capital is the direct opposite of capitalism.

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. You clearly read Smith and the downvoters clearly didn't. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations is like an anti-rentier pamphlet in most places.

Ignore the haters, keep being right about books.

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

#215

Post by roenxi »

benreesman wrote: post #206
bko wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this mean? If there is no regulator, someone else will use force to prevent voluntary mutually beneficial deals from taking place?

It means that markets organize somehow. Even black markets in prison have rules (and for all I know, sensible ones under the circumstances). The drug trade has rules and norms. Cartels form and collude, the JP Morgans or Goulds of the world see excessive competition next to their neat steel or railroad trusts and decide to organize it. And sometimes this can even be an improvement (those old telephone poles with like…

> Big Tech is especially good at this (its arguably far more their speciality than technology is).

Well, yes. But that does seem to gloss over the important part which is how they do it - hiring lobbyists and influencing the official regulators. If the frame is that someone is going to be the most powerful force in the market then sure, but the government setting it to be a particular body by fiat just creates a ripe target for corruption.

The history of the tech industry has been one of where if left to their own devices coders would create a thriving and tolerant software ecosystem and the main thing stopping them has been IP law. And a secondary thing stopping them has been government pressure (there has been a bit of a spasm recently because of the aftereffects of, effectively, systems set up to support things like Operation Choke Point, for example).

Assuming some semblance of the rule of law, Google & friends ultimately can't stop someone competing with them unless the government is active in the space the space too. More formal regulation is probably just going to cement their position further.

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

#216

Post by ptero »

wat10000 wrote: post #201
ptero wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An auction for IPO price is much easier to manipulate and can lead to much volatility. Pre-allocating to the entities that are not expected to sell quickly or participate in pump-and-dumps (pension funds, etc.) is considered a better long term strategy for the company, as the sister comment says.

What makes an auction easier to manipulate or more volatile than a stock traded on the market?

Likely nothing once the stock is actually trading with some history. But for initial placement wall-street-bets action could be very disruptive.

The company wants to avoid sharp drops after the IPO, as those encourage employees to get out ASAP, which increases the volatility and discourages large, stable investors.

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

#217

Post by danso »

aurareturn wrote: post #187
Wilder7977 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Monopolies are natural in highly technical industries. But monopolies don't last forever. New technologies wipe out monopolies all the time. ChatGPT is disrupting Google search monopoly. Solar/EV is disrupting oil. Tools like V0 is disrupting Figma. ChatGPT itself is disrupting iOS and Android. The list goes on and on and on.

“Solar/EV is disrupting oil” — where exactly has solar/EVs disrupted oil without the benefit of (wise, IMO) government intervention and subsidies?

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

#218

Post by mattmcknight »

alchemyzach wrote: post #95
mattmcknight wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how is the IPO a sign of success in that case?

because it means they stayed independent and didnt get absorbed by a major megacorp that is already notorious for trying to corner the market of an entire industry and then over-charging

They were independent the whole time and it wasn't considered a success. I suppose IPO is an indicator they might stay independent longer. Now that they are in the public markets even Adobe can buy a few shares. I just don't feel like the IPO event has brought any particular benefits to the consumer and Khan is incorrectly looking at post IPO stock price bounce as some kind of financial indicator that it was a better deal for the company.

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

#219

Post by Apocryphon »

lvl155 wrote: post #199
richwater wrote: post #4

Lina Khan's obsession with "big is bad", especially her preexisting prejudice of Big Tech should have disqualified her from any position well before she took the wheel. How many times did the FTC fail in court under her watch? More than I can count on two hands. Meanwhile local and state utility and cable tv monopolies continue to _flourish_ without so much as a peep.

I don’t get the downvotes. He’s just stating his opinion. Lina Khan had zero real-world experience. She wrote ONE widely circulated opinion piece in law school. It contained barely any rigorous economic analysis. This is akin to giving authority to some 21-yo philosophy major to direct the entire direction of US AI policies.

What AI experience did Sam Altman have before becoming OpenAI CEO? Wasn’t he just a VC wunderkind beforehand?

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

#220

Post by benreesman »

tptacek wrote: post #37
timr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep. So perhaps don’t block every potential transaction on flimsy pretense? Icing the transaction market seems like a great way to scare off potential competing acquirers in the name of social engineering. I don’t know. All I know is that Lina is out of power, and suddenly we see an upswing in M&A. Coincidence, I’m sure.

I'm not a Khan fan, like, at all, but by the time you're at the point where the FTC is getting involved in your M&A, you've crossed the threshold of success; all the signals to future startups about your path being promising have been sent.

Figma's market capitalization as of the close on Friday is 59 billion and change. Adobe offered 20 billion.

Because the shares were sold to the public and now trade at three times what the absolute ceiling on their value would have been, and because everything from early options to later stage RSU equity comp structures will now convert at the full market valuation, the preference ladder and ratchets and all the other ways you can get Windsurf'd as an early employee (sometimes even a founder!) don't kick in, so the rank-and-file equity holder is rich now too.

Future founders now have another well-heeled public suitor.

If you even remotely believe in Hacker News style "tech startups make people rich and this is good" stuff, then this is a grand-slam home run win by any measure.

Maybe time to re-evaluate what you think of Lina Khan's policy agenda in light of data on the outcomes? It's of course possible there is some other data point you have in mind where it went poorly and you keep your opinion. But if that opinion was of the bland "regulation is bad for tech startup people trying to get rich" variety, seems maybe time for a re-think?

Post reply on HN