I see a lot of people in the thread thinking this is a good thing, it's not.
First of all the reason for the UK not allowing the merger is completely absurd and based on a false premise which is most likely based on not understanding the field they are regulating.
Regulation based on speculation about the future means that regulators can simply just make up reasons. Thats akin to when kings could just make up reason for their ruling. We were supposed to move away from that so that rule of law was the base.
Second, the fact that the UK can kill a deal like this is wildly problematic and unfortunately not the first time. They did the same with Facebook and Giphy where it made no sense either. It's immature and they obviously aren't understanding the field they regulate. Talk about undermining the growth of society.
Lastly I see a lot of people saying exits is not a good thing and shouldn't be the purpose. But the fact is that a healthy M&A culture is good for startups as that will encourage investors. Once you start killing the ability for exits by introducing such unquantifiable into the settings you are making investors more nervous of spending their money and much more risk averse.
You're surely entitled to your opinion. It doesn't mean you're right.
I tend to agree the CMA is pushing some esoteric arguments in their rulings, but I don't thinks deal is at all like Facebook / Giphy.
"A healthy M&A culture" isn't undone by a single deal being pulled, especially when that deal is clearly an anti-competitive one.
Also if anything, Adobe overpaid for Figma given it was one of the last deals before Tech stocks properly melted, so even Adobe shareholders can be happy with this outcome
You are right its not like Facbook/Giphy, it's worse and we aren't talking about a single deal being pulled but multiple.
It's not clearly anti-competitive in fact if anything in the B2B space M&A done by bigger companies is where products go to die and opens up for a whole new set of competitors.
You don't measure this on the size of the company but on market share. By that definition of course it should be allowed. There are many powerful competitors in this space Canva being just one of them.
Depending on how exactly you segment the market, Adobe's market share is somewhere between 33% and 75%. The runner-up is in the single digits.
In my view, the case for blocking this acquisition couldn't be any clearer. If Adobe wants to grow in this space, it should make better software or cut prices or both.
This is a well rehearsed segmentation game that market leaders like to play until even the biggest companies on earth no longer appear to be dominant in any specific segment.
I don't buy it. It's not just about indvidual verticals in their current state. For these conglomerates it's always about buying rising competitors out of the market before they can become a strategic threat.
Figma could have expanded beyond any particular vertical they are currently in. Figma could have been bought buy a stronger competitor from outside the graphics space (such as Microsoft). Adobe didn't want to let that happen.
We should block all of these defensive acquisitions. And we should block all acquisitions that help an already big conglomerate capture the next neighboring vertical without doing any actual engineering work (except for small acqui-hires perhaps)
>You don't have to buy it. That's the reality. [...] You guys are simply factually wrong.
It's the argument and the conclusion that I don't buy, not your (and Adobe's) carefully selected set of facts.
Here's a very big player in the graphics software market that tried to buy a potential strategic threat out of the market. This is the fact that matters in my view.
I wouldn't let the top 5 in any market buy another company that is or could soon become a significant competitor in that or a closely related market.
Again that's not how antitrust regulation works. I am not sure why you keep repeating the same mistake.
Figma have 3 million users. In what world would a purchase of them be dominating Canva with 135 million monthly users and with 16 million paying subscribers.
You are confusing Adobe being a big company with why they are a big company.
Apparently anti-trust regulators disagree. They put up enough of a fight to at least give Adobe an excuse for letting the deal fall through.
>You are confusing Adobe being a big company with why they are a big company.
I have heard your argument and I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, you're not responding to my counter arguments, which makes this not a very interesting debate.
No they don't and both the US and EU had approved it. The UK is using a novel theory that have no basis in reality where they are claiming to be able to predict the future.
You don't have a counter argument, you just have your own opinion on how it should be done. Antitrust is not being done that way you seem to think it's not the reason why the UK didn't allow it.
Canva is nowhere near Adobe. Adobe is the dominant software seller for creatives. Figma and Canva are the two only notable competitors to have emerged in the past 10 years or so. Doing away with one of them isn't better for society.
First of all the reason for the UK not allowing the merger is completely absurd and based on a false premise which is most likely based on not understanding the field they are regulating.
Regulation based on speculation about the future means that regulators can simply just make up reasons. Thats akin to when kings could just make up reason for their ruling. We were supposed to move away from that so that rule of law was the base.
Second, the fact that the UK can kill a deal like this is wildly problematic and unfortunately not the first time. They did the same with Facebook and Giphy where it made no sense either. It's immature and they obviously aren't understanding the field they regulate. Talk about undermining the growth of society.
Lastly I see a lot of people saying exits is not a good thing and shouldn't be the purpose. But the fact is that a healthy M&A culture is good for startups as that will encourage investors. Once you start killing the ability for exits by introducing such unquantifiable into the settings you are making investors more nervous of spending their money and much more risk averse.
Sad.