Figma's Trading Volume Plunges to 487th in U.S. Market Amid Insider Sales and Liquidity Pressures

Market Snapshot

On November 28, 2025, , . . market, reflecting a sharp contraction in liquidity. Concurrently, , underscoring a modest but negative price movement. The significant drop in trading volume, coupled with the downward price adjustment, suggests a potential shift in investor sentiment or short-term market dynamics.

Key Drivers

Three key insider transactions disclosed in the past week appear to have influenced Figma’s market performance. First, on November 24, the company’s Chief Financial Officer, Praveer Melwani, . , the move could signal a reallocation of ownership within the executive’s portfolio. Such transfers, though not direct sales, may raise questions about insider alignment with shareholder interests.

Simultaneously, two major shareholders—Lll Investments LLC and Chairman Dylan Field—filed Form 144s on November 24 to sell restricted securities. , . These filings, executed under trading plans, indicate prearranged liquidity strategies rather than spontaneous decisions. However, the large block sizes and the involvement of a single broker could amplify market pressure, particularly in a stock with relatively low trading volumes.

The timing of these disclosures is notable. The filings occurred just days before the November 28 trading session, during which Figma’s volume plummeted. While the direct causal link between the insider activity and the subsequent price drop remains unclear, the cumulative effect of these transactions may have contributed to a perception of reduced institutional confidence. Investors often interpret large-scale insider sales as signals of potential overvaluation or strategic reallocation, even when executed under predefined plans.

The use of a single broker for multiple sales also raises questions about market impact. Morgan Stanley’s involvement in both the shareholder and chairman’s transactions could lead to concentrated order flow, potentially influencing execution prices and broader liquidity conditions. This concentration might explain the sharp volume contraction observed on November 28, as market participants adjusted to the anticipated selling pressure.

Finally, the absence of price volatility despite the significant volume decline suggests that the market may have priced in these developments ahead of time. , implying that the broader market either discounted the impact of the insider transactions or that other factors—such as sector-wide trends or macroeconomic conditions—offset the immediate effects of the sales.

In summary, the interplay of insider gifts, prearranged sell plans, and concentrated brokerage activity likely contributed to Figma’s subdued performance. While the direct economic impact of these transactions remains speculative, the pattern of activity aligns with broader market behaviors where insider liquidity events can influence investor behavior, even in the absence of explicit bearish signals.