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

41–50 of 451 posts

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

#41

Post by wat10000 »

alephnerd wrote: post #35
bix6 wrote: post #5

founders 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-…

Why don’t more IPOs do an auction to set the price? Trying to determine the “right” price ahead of time seems like a really bad way to do things.

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

#42

Post by roughly »

dgfitz wrote: post #25
margalabargala wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's what lowers Amazon's costs. Why would Amazon, having lowered their costs, pass that savings on to the consumer when they could simply profit more?

Are you asking about supply and demand?

I believe he’s asking why the parent poster was suggesting monopolistic consolidation would be good for the consumer, contrary to what all theory and experience would suggest.

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

#43

Post by vasco »

oooyay wrote: post #36

My 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 comp…

[flagged]

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

#44

Post by [deleted] »

vasco wrote: post #43
oooyay wrote: post #36

My 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 comp…

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#45

Post by xrd »

jeffbee wrote: post #39
xrd wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Should jobs be a factor as well? I see a lot of job loss in small town Iowa and Nebraska. I don't live there and people there have definitely voted with their wallets.

Food plus quality price index in Japan and France look better to me despite the lack of Walmarts.

And, I read some things about price collusion of the major grocers during the pandemic that makes me concerned.

I will say, thanks for being a human and discussing this as a human. Too many bots on HN lately.

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

#46

Post by Spartan-S63 »

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.

In fact, if future competition is contingent on successful M&A activity, that’s a sign of such deep organizational rot that you either have to radically transform management or ride the company down.

Not everything needs to last and companies that can’t radically transform their management culture to enable innovation and competition deserve to wane until they’re in a steady-state or they go under to allow for a new competitor to rise.

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

#47

Post by tobinfekkes »

vasco wrote: post #43
oooyay wrote: post #36

My 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 comp…

[flagged]

In context, Lina Khan didn't have authority to regulate non-American entities.

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

#48

Post by tomrod »

roughly wrote: post #42
dgfitz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking about supply and demand?

I believe he’s asking why the parent poster was suggesting monopolistic consolidation would be good for the consumer, contrary to what all theory and experience would suggest.

*shrug* I gave him the argument baseline argument commonly known because it claims that costs become lower (and thus the merged entity claims to pass lower costs to the consumer) that normally flies at the FTC.

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

#49

Post by Invictus0 »

oooyay wrote: post #36

My 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 comp…

[flagged]

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

#50

Post by margalabargala »

dgfitz wrote: post #25
margalabargala wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's what lowers Amazon's costs. Why would Amazon, having lowered their costs, pass that savings on to the consumer when they could simply profit more?

Are you asking about supply and demand?

The context of the conversation is one of a horizontal monopoly, in a market that's near saturation, operated by a megacorporation that could afford to ignore profits or losses indefinitely, in the specific industry of robot vaccuums. So maybe the question is "why on earth would someone think supply and demand does apply here?"
Post reply on HN