And yet she allowed Broadcom to purchase and gut VMware.
Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny
31–40 of 451 posts
Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny
#32Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
You expect a perfect success rate against the highest paid lawyers in the world? At least she was trying to enforce antitrust for once. Big is bad bro. There’s like 5 companies carrying the entire S&P rn how is that good for anyone outside of those 5 companies?
> Big is bad bro Using "big" as a synonym for "consumers are worse off than alternatives" does not do anyone justice. > At least she was trying to enforce antitrust for once. Her prejudice against big tech and pretty much ignoring any other industries is not something to be proud of.
Under Khan, the FTC has abandoned the standard of consumer harm, and now just blocks mergers based on vibes. I really liked this article criticizing her approach:
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/the-ftcs-antitrust-ov...
Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny
#34Love the FTC getting to decide if you’re permitted to sell your startup or forced to deliver more shareholder value.
$20 billion sell price is no longer a “startup”
Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny
#35founders would ultimately benefit from “a world in which you have six or seven or eight potential suitors” rather than “just one or two.” Real talk Lina
Except the majority of the Figma IPO was captured by banks due to it's severe pop. So while everyone made a lot of money, the overwhelming majority went to the underwriters [0].
The founding team at Figma would have gotten a similar amount much sooner if the acquisition was let thru OR if the underwriters didn't screw them over by underpricing at $33.
[0] - https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/figma-ipo-pop-spotlight-...
Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny
#36My experience with mergers and acquisitions is that it's akin to keeping a warm body on life support. When I worked at a company that did a lot of M&A I was sitting around like, "Why couldn't you have just built that?" When I worked at a company that was recently acquired and went through the merger process I was like, "wow I see why you bozos would've never built this yourselves." That isn't to say there aren't companies that do them well or there aren't places where it makes sense in an ultra-competitive landscape but I'm curious - when was the last time anyone really considered tech an ultra competitive landscape?
Post-2015 other than large language models this industry has mostly been riding on intellectual property consolidation. That's basically Lina's point; nobody actually benefits from this - not customers, not share holders, not the American people. The over practice of M&A leaves a small pool of winners who are not the kind of people that post on or read this forum.
Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny
#37founders would ultimately benefit from “a world in which you have six or seven or eight potential suitors” rather than “just one or two.” Real talk Lina
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.
Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Big is bad bro Using "big" as a synonym for "consumers are worse off than alternatives" does not do anyone justice. > At least she was trying to enforce antitrust for once. Her prejudice against big tech and pretty much ignoring any other industries is not something to be proud of.
Under Khan, the FTC has abandoned the standard of consumer harm, and now just blocks mergers based on vibes. I really liked this article criticizing her approach: https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/the-ftcs-antitrust-ov...
I stopped reading when they defended Albertsons and Kroger merger. Can anyone defend the consolidation of grocery stores with a straight face? Walmart has obliterated any competition and it has destroyed local food sources everywhere. They can do it at scale that no one can compete with. If the only solution is to further consolidate then we might as well just hand over the government to Walmart.
Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under Khan, the FTC has abandoned the standard of consumer harm, and now just blocks mergers based on vibes. I really liked this article criticizing her approach: https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/the-ftcs-antitrust-ov...
I stopped reading when they defended Albertsons and Kroger merger. Can anyone defend the consolidation of grocery stores with a straight face? Walmart has obliterated any competition and it has destroyed local food sources everywhere. They can do it at scale that no one can compete with. If the only solution is to further consolidate then we might as well just hand over the government to Walmart.
And yet, groceries have never been cheaper. So the question becomes which do you want: consumer benefits, or your aesthetic preferences regarding how big a company should be?
Re: Lina Khan points to Figma IPO as vindication of M&A scrutiny
#40founders would ultimately benefit from “a world in which you have six or seven or eight potential suitors” rather than “just one or two.” Real talk Lina
Except the majority of the Figma IPO was captured by banks due to it's severe pop. So while everyone made a lot of money, the overwhelming majority went to the underwriters [0]. The founding team at Figma would have gotten a similar amount much sooner if the acquisition was let thru OR if the underwriters didn't screw them over by underpricing at $33. [0] - https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/figma-ipo-pop-spotlight-…
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 at $100"), which the bank uses to set the IPO price. The bank then gives them an allocation.
If you're a high (10MM+) net worth individual that banks with one of the underwriters, you can often get an allocation in an IPO. The richer you are, the more of an allocation you can get.
When an IPO pops, it's these people that get the benefit.
The benefit for the company is that the stock is owned by prime people the bank selected: you crucially _don't_ want to just sell to the highest bidder if they are going to dump the stock immediately after the pop (or that's the theory, at least). They have stable shareholders with a vision aligned with management.
The benefit to the bank is that they get to reward their customers with access to profitable trades--but the bank itself does not profit.