3 ms·

1. Figma actually lost money because their acquisition price was higher than their shares sold in the IPO. 2. Yes, Figma luckily IPOed in an extremely hot mark

1. Figma actually lost money because their acquisition price was higher than their shares sold in the IPO. 2. Yes, Figma luckily IPOed in an extremely hot market Getting a bit lucky doesn't mean this was a success overall. The conclusion has many more years to go before it gets written. Either way, I don't like the over reach by Lina Khan.

adastra22 1y ago
They lost money (sort-of) because the market cap was $700M less at IPO. The amount of shares sold in IPO is irrelevant. I said sort-of because the economics of this is more complicated. Investors lose their preferences when they sell in an IPO, so this is probably better for common stock holders.
- Jolter 1y ago
  Who is “they”, who lost money? I don’t think 19.3 B is their current market cap, it’s only what was sold at the IPo. Anyway, 19.3 instead of 20 would have been no big deal IMO Adobe certainly lost money, because they have had to compete against the better product, so have been able to charge less for their own offering. And will presumably continue to do so until further notice. Any employees who would have been swiftly laid off after the acquisition should certainly be glad for this outcome. They still have jobs, and if there are layoffs after the IPO it will be less dramatic. If they had equity, they probably got a much better deal in an IPO, especially if they sold some of it off after the “pop”.
franga2000 1y ago
What do you mean over reach? It's the FTC's job to prevent consumer market consolidation. Adobe is already too big and they already abuse that to the detriment of consumers. Buying Figma would make that even worse. A company exists primarily to make things for consumers and the FTC ensures they do that fairly. The IPO, stock price and everything else is secondary.
- aurareturn 1y ago
  What do you mean over reach? It's the FTC's job to prevent consumer market consolidation. It is over reach because it seems arbitrary.
  - franga2000 1y ago
    It's not arbitrary, there are many reasons to block the merger and they were explained in depth when the decision was made. Also, the EU and UK also made it clear they were against the merger. In fact, if you look at most reporting, the EU and UK seem to be the main reason they gave up, presumably because they know the US FTC has no teeth, even with a competent chair.
    - aurareturn 1y ago
      Even if EU and UK wanted to block the deal, it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Free market. I don't have a popular opinion on HN. I don't think Google should be broken up because new technology has made Google search much less needed. I don't think Apple should relinquish control over its app store because it's Apple's platform and they should do what they want. I don't think Adobe should be stopped from buying Figma because even if Adobe buys it, maybe some rich ex-employees might quit and make another competitor or make an open source alternative. Who knows. People on HN wants the government to weaken tech companies but not when it's the tech company they're working in.
      - Wilder7977 1y ago
        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.
        aurareturn 1y ago

adastra22 1y ago

They lost money (sort-of) because the market cap was $700M less at IPO. The amount of shares sold in IPO is irrelevant. I said sort-of because the economics of this is more complicated. Investors lose their preferences when they sell in an IPO, so this is probably better for common stock holders.

Jolter 1y ago
Who is “they”, who lost money? I don’t think 19.3 B is their current market cap, it’s only what was sold at the IPo. Anyway, 19.3 instead of 20 would have been no big deal IMO Adobe certainly lost money, because they have had to compete against the better product, so have been able to charge less for their own offering. And will presumably continue to do so until further notice. Any employees who would have been swiftly laid off after the acquisition should certainly be glad for this outcome. They still have jobs, and if there are layoffs after the IPO it will be less dramatic. If they had equity, they probably got a much better deal in an IPO, especially if they sold some of it off after the “pop”.

franga2000 1y ago

What do you mean over reach? It's the FTC's job to prevent consumer market consolidation. Adobe is already too big and they already abuse that to the detriment of consumers. Buying Figma would make that even worse. A company exists primarily to make things for consumers and the FTC ensures they do that fairly. The IPO, stock price and everything else is secondary.

aurareturn 1y ago
What do you mean over reach? It's the FTC's job to prevent consumer market consolidation. It is over reach because it seems arbitrary.
- franga2000 1y ago
  It's not arbitrary, there are many reasons to block the merger and they were explained in depth when the decision was made. Also, the EU and UK also made it clear they were against the merger. In fact, if you look at most reporting, the EU and UK seem to be the main reason they gave up, presumably because they know the US FTC has no teeth, even with a competent chair.
  - aurareturn 1y ago
    Even if EU and UK wanted to block the deal, it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Free market. I don't have a popular opinion on HN. I don't think Google should be broken up because new technology has made Google search much less needed. I don't think Apple should relinquish control over its app store because it's Apple's platform and they should do what they want. I don't think Adobe should be stopped from buying Figma because even if Adobe buys it, maybe some rich ex-employees might quit and make another competitor or make an open source alternative. Who knows. People on HN wants the government to weaken tech companies but not when it's the tech company they're working in.
    - Wilder7977 1y ago
      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.
      - aurareturn 1y ago