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

61–70 of 451 posts

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

#61

Post by rcxdude »

Invictus0 wrote: post #49
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]

Buying a company for its customer base is rarely good for the customers, though. That's the main point, I think. Why should society allow someone to take control productive entity simply so they can extract more value from it? There needs to be some value for the customer or the public as a whole for that to be a good thing.

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

#62

Post by monero-xmr »

rcxdude wrote: post #61
Invictus0 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Buying a company for its customer base is rarely good for the customers, though. That's the main point, I think. Why should society allow someone to take control productive entity simply so they can extract more value from it? There needs to be some value for the customer or the public as a whole for that to be a good thing.

If I build a company I should be able to sell it to whoever I want for any reason. It’s my company

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

#63

Post by timr »

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.

I disagree. A lot of smaller acquisitions went away during the Khan reign, and from what I was hearing it wasn’t coincidental.

Basically the random and aggressive nature of it was having a chilling effect on all M&A. Why would you go thorough the hassle of a small acquisition (as a buyer) if you knew there was a even a 10% chance that the FTC was going to take an interest?

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

#64

Post by rcxdude »

monero-xmr wrote: post #62
rcxdude wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying a company for its customer base is rarely good for the customers, though. That's the main point, I think. Why should society allow someone to take control productive entity simply so they can extract more value from it? There needs to be some value for the customer or the public as a whole for that to be a good thing.

If I build a company I should be able to sell it to whoever I want for any reason. It’s my company

"your company" is an abstract idea in a social framework forming the interactions of many other people. Many decisions are delegated to you by that framework, but it is not a fundamental absolute.

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

#65

Post by mosura »

BobAliceInATree wrote: post #34
DenverR wrote: post #26

Love 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”

Indeed, in a week Meta will offer that to an ML undergrad as a signing bonus.

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

#66

Post by monero-xmr »

rcxdude wrote: post #64
monero-xmr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I build a company I should be able to sell it to whoever I want for any reason. It’s my company

"your company" is an abstract idea in a social framework forming the interactions of many other people. Many decisions are delegated to you by that framework, but it is not a fundamental absolute.

I accept we live in a society which decides at some arbitrary point that my property becomes the collective’s. However I philosophically disagree with this present state of affairs

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

#67

Post by stackskipton »

timr wrote: post #27
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

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.

Problem is, by the time she got into power, everyone had consolidated so icing the transaction market was pretty much only outcome.

Lina Khan was entering a market that was deeply flawed thanks to decades of bad policy.

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

#68

Post by nabakin »

monero-xmr wrote: post #66
rcxdude wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"your company" is an abstract idea in a social framework forming the interactions of many other people. Many decisions are delegated to you by that framework, but it is not a fundamental absolute.

I accept we live in a society which decides at some arbitrary point that my property becomes the collective’s. However I philosophically disagree with this present state of affairs

Ownership is a useful framework for sure, but if it comes at the expense of destroying competition, I think we can agree that's not healthy for the economy and society as a whole.
Post reply on HN