3 ms·

If M&A became harder, more companies would go public; or stay private and distribute profits as dividends. But the problem is not M&A on its own; the problem i

If M&A became harder, more companies would go public; or stay private and distribute profits as dividends. But the problem is not M&A on its own; the problem is that through M&A, big players are able to stifle competition. I'm sure it's possible to define a reasonable law (about company size, market size and kind) that would make it much harder for today's Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon from acquiring potential would-be competitors, without making it harder for two $100M companies to merge, or one $100M company to buy a $20M one.

scarface74 6y ago
Apple buys a company at least every couple of weeks. Most companies that Apple buys would never be successful products as an IPO. They were never products that would have ipo’d
- beagle3 6y ago
  You conveniently ignored the "or would have stayed private" part.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    So in what world would most of the money losing companies that Apple bought remained private and profitable? Instagram had no business model when it was acquired. Could any of the chip design companies remain private? What would have happened to the company that Apple bought that made Workflow - that is now the Shortcuts app - if Apple had just built it in house? Would that have been a better outcome for consumers or the company behind Workflow? In the case of technology companies, do you also want the government to stop acquihires? If the government stopped acquisitions, the bigger companies could still just poach all of the employees.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Instagram had no business model when it was acquired. They would have created one, by doing the obvious thing. Selling ads. I don't think they would need FB to figure out that they need to do that.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        If they hadn’t run out of money first. Also advertisers don’t want to deal with every mom and pop website. If they did, you wouldn’t have the pervasiveness of as networks. What are the chances that they could have grown organically? Do you really want the government to tell founders that they couldn’t accept Facebook’s $1 billion dollars? Would you want the government telling you who you couldn’t sell your property to?
        beagle3 6y ago
        That’s already the case that the government limits these transactions, and for good reasons. Democracies and free markets are good at many things, but staying free is not one of those things. If Google and Facebook decided to merge tomorrow, the government would stop them, for good reasons. If Verizon and AT&T decide to merge, similarly so. I was only suggesting that these restriction apply more strictly; and indeed that would dramatically change the market - similar time how existing regulation change the market so there’s no googbook or veriso&t
        scarface74 6y ago
        You mean like they stopped Sprint and T-Mobile?
        beagle3 6y ago
        Like they should have in my opinion, yes. According to Wikipedia[0], """On August 4, 2014, Bloomberg reported that Sprint had abandoned its bid to acquire T-Mobile, considering the unlikelihood that such a deal would be approved by the U.S. government and its regulators""", that is, the government effectively banned it, but Sprint pulled out ahead of time saving everyone time and money. They recently approved it -- a mistake in my opinion -- but again that just proves my point: This is already the rule. Your position appears to be that the government shouldn't have this power at all, mine is that it should be applied more strictly to enhance competition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_of_Sprint_Corporation_and_T-Mobile_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_of_Sprint_Corporation_a...

scarface74 6y ago

Apple buys a company at least every couple of weeks. Most companies that Apple buys would never be successful products as an IPO. They were never products that would have ipo’d

beagle3 6y ago
You conveniently ignored the "or would have stayed private" part.
- scarface74 6y ago
  So in what world would most of the money losing companies that Apple bought remained private and profitable? Instagram had no business model when it was acquired. Could any of the chip design companies remain private? What would have happened to the company that Apple bought that made Workflow - that is now the Shortcuts app - if Apple had just built it in house? Would that have been a better outcome for consumers or the company behind Workflow? In the case of technology companies, do you also want the government to stop acquihires? If the government stopped acquisitions, the bigger companies could still just poach all of the employees.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Instagram had no business model when it was acquired. They would have created one, by doing the obvious thing. Selling ads. I don't think they would need FB to figure out that they need to do that.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      If they hadn’t run out of money first. Also advertisers don’t want to deal with every mom and pop website. If they did, you wouldn’t have the pervasiveness of as networks. What are the chances that they could have grown organically? Do you really want the government to tell founders that they couldn’t accept Facebook’s $1 billion dollars? Would you want the government telling you who you couldn’t sell your property to?
      - beagle3 6y ago
        That’s already the case that the government limits these transactions, and for good reasons. Democracies and free markets are good at many things, but staying free is not one of those things. If Google and Facebook decided to merge tomorrow, the government would stop them, for good reasons. If Verizon and AT&T decide to merge, similarly so. I was only suggesting that these restriction apply more strictly; and indeed that would dramatically change the market - similar time how existing regulation change the market so there’s no googbook or veriso&t
        scarface74 6y ago
        You mean like they stopped Sprint and T-Mobile?
        beagle3 6y ago
        Like they should have in my opinion, yes. According to Wikipedia[0], """On August 4, 2014, Bloomberg reported that Sprint had abandoned its bid to acquire T-Mobile, considering the unlikelihood that such a deal would be approved by the U.S. government and its regulators""", that is, the government effectively banned it, but Sprint pulled out ahead of time saving everyone time and money. They recently approved it -- a mistake in my opinion -- but again that just proves my point: This is already the rule. Your position appears to be that the government shouldn't have this power at all, mine is that it should be applied more strictly to enhance competition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_of_Sprint_Corporation_and_T-Mobile_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_of_Sprint_Corporation_a...