Not if you bought it for $20bn. Wholefoods is publicly owned and the price that Amazon pays is below their price a few years back. It's not about size, $13bn is a lot of money. But Wholefoods needed a strategy or buyer, otherwise they would've faced serious problems in a few years.

How much have they paid in dividends since they cost $20bn?

This is a great question. Are there any open and fee apis where one can look up a publicly traded stock and get out dividends paid out over a time period? Surely that's at least as interesting as the rise and fall of the stock price.

If I had $20bn to buy it in the first place, or be in the position where I could even raise that kind of capital, I would already be successful (in my mind at least).

OK, but WF stock is held mostly by ordinary people (or by pension funds acting on behalf of ordinary people) and the argument being made above is that there are signs that the reason WF ended up being owned by a company without WF's reputation for good treatment of employees is that selling the company was the only way for WF's management to meet their fiduciary responsibility to those ordinary people who hold WF stock.

Whole Foods doesn't have one owner. It's a publicly traded company.

I think what they might be talking about is that Whole Foods has had a rocky few quarters and might be forced to sell, where they wouldn't have sold in a different circumstance.