1 Comment

From the standpoint of being an investor and a capitalist, why does the negation of the Adobe acquisition of Figma suck? As an investor, I get that a $20B liquidity event would be very nice both for investors and Figma employees. But given than Figma is still growing, and given that anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that Figma's user base is glad the acquisition was scuttled, isn't this a good thing? In other words, wouldn't you rather own Figma when it surpasses Adobe than owning a smaller portion of Adobe when it acquires Figma? If, as an investor you believe in Figma as a company, than why not continue to believe in it as a independent entity rather than a part of Adobe?

As a capitalist, wouldn't you rather have true competition in the market than a handful of large players who hoover up any and all competition? Isn't the whole point of "creative destruction" to create an environment where companies that nobody knows about today become the Amazons, Googles, and Apples, and Microsofts of tomorrow?

I get why regulatory scrutiny like this is anathema to investors who want to make a return on their money. But I've got to be honest: I've got a very hard time squaring this sentiment with any of the investing philosophies I've subscribed to. You invest in a company because you believe in its business. One's belief in Figma shouldn't change simply because it won't end up being owned by Adobe. And the whole point of capitalism is to create a free market, where upstarts can compete with the incumbents. That breaks down completely if the success is mostly defined by upstarts being acquired by incumbents.

Expand full comment