They were independent the whole time and it wasn't considered a success. I suppose IPO is an indicator they might stay independent longer. Now that they are in the public markets even Adobe can buy a few shares. I just don't feel like the IPO event has brought any particular benefits to the consumer and Khan is incorrectly looking at post IPO stock price bounce as some kind of financial indicator that it was a better deal for the company.
[flagged]
They are following, they just understand it better than you do.
I am trying to explore the ways in which the IPO, in particular, separate from the continued operation of the company, is evidence that blocking M&A is good. I have seen nothing from you supporting Khan's position that the IPO is vindication for blocking M&A.
Her particular claim was that it was "a great reminder that letting startups grow into independently successful businesses, rather than be bought up by existing giants, can generate enormous value.” However, the IPO price was $700M less than the value the company was at three years ago, which, given opportunity costs and inflation, would not seem to be an indicator of enormous value being generated.
The current market cap of Figma is around 60B if I read it correctly. Yes, not all of it was IPOd, but from purely this perspective it was hugely successful. But then it’s also unfair to compare this market cap as is, because I would expect Figma as separate entity will grow better than Adobe as a whole. Meaning that people who’ll hold Figma stocks right now have a chance to have better returns in a future.
The amount of money in the pockets of the owners (no matter who they are) is not what antitrust is about.