互聯(lián)網(wǎng)無(wú)泡沫？你錯(cuò)了！
|
???? ????蕾茜對(duì)這類擔(dān)心嗤之以鼻，她表示：“估價(jià)理應(yīng)反映其未來(lái)前景，但這種前景有可能永遠(yuǎn)無(wú)法變成現(xiàn)實(shí)。風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家的本職工作就是冒險(xiǎn)根據(jù)這樣的估價(jià)下賭注?！?/p> ????此言不假，但并非一向如此。過去兩年里，投資行為已經(jīng)發(fā)生了改變。難道帕特里科夫投資的公司在過去半年里“未來(lái)前景”翻了2.5倍？或者由于市場(chǎng)形勢(shì)一片大好，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家欣喜若狂，被沖昏了頭腦，而一頭栽了進(jìn)去而不能自拔？至少，根據(jù)以上數(shù)據(jù)，如果還說風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家是在依照估價(jià)進(jìn)行投資就很難站得住腳了。 ????我們?cè)賮?lái)看看蕾茜更為鋒芒畢露的觀點(diǎn)：即使風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家被沖昏了頭腦（她并不相信存在這種可能性），也不等于就會(huì)形成泡沫，因?yàn)槭艿接绊懙闹挥小熬謨?nèi)人”。不會(huì)出現(xiàn)大量美國(guó)人因此迅速破產(chǎn)、失業(yè)，需要向政府申請(qǐng)食物券的情形。 ????她的看法忽略了一點(diǎn)：事實(shí)上，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家并未將絕大多數(shù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本用于投資。風(fēng)投公司凱鵬華盈（Kleiner Perkins）和紅杉資本公司（Sequoia Capital）等機(jī)構(gòu)的投資活動(dòng)基本上都是代表其他公司或個(gè)人進(jìn)行的。這些機(jī)構(gòu)或個(gè)人包括學(xué)校教師、非營(yíng)利性基金會(huì)、大學(xué)捐款、以及公共養(yǎng)老金領(lǐng)取者等等。 ????風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本導(dǎo)致的投資泡沫殃及最深的是這些個(gè)人或者組織，而不是貝寶（PayPal）黑手黨成員，后者具備較強(qiáng)的能力承受這類損失。風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本中可能包括一小部分這類組織的投資組合，但是表現(xiàn)理應(yīng)好于公共股票和債券的正是這部分投資組合。當(dāng)預(yù)期中的最佳投資表現(xiàn)差強(qiáng)人意，投資人就得冒險(xiǎn)承擔(dān)巨大的未來(lái)債務(wù)。當(dāng)然，這種泡沫造成的破壞力之深、范圍之廣尚無(wú)法與住房危機(jī)相提并論，但誰(shuí)說泡沫一定得像海嘯一樣可怕？ ????但我也不說互聯(lián)網(wǎng)泡沫已經(jīng)萎縮了，盡管有人這么說。公共市場(chǎng)一直以來(lái)過于動(dòng)蕩不安，因而難以對(duì)之做出長(zhǎng)期性總結(jié)。而且，上周的首次公開募股大災(zāi)難基本上還是限于不太知名的股票發(fā)行商（讓我們拭目以待，看下個(gè)月團(tuán)購(gòu)網(wǎng)站Groupon和社交游戲公司Zynga公開上市的情形會(huì)怎樣）。此外，據(jù)報(bào)道，就在上周四，另外一家團(tuán)購(gòu)網(wǎng)站也以7億美元的估價(jià)融到了資金（指專門面向兒童的團(tuán)購(gòu)網(wǎng)站Zulily——譯注）。 ????因此，或許此輪互聯(lián)網(wǎng)泡沫已然宣告終結(jié)，或者它也可能仍然在持續(xù)中。無(wú)論是哪種情形，它都切實(shí)確在，而且不容忽視。 ????譯者：大海 |
???? ?? Lacy basically shrugs off such concerns, saying that "it's the job of a VC to make risky bets at valuations which are supposed to reflect future promise and may never materialize."such concerns, saying that "it's the job of a VC to make risky bets at valuations which are supposed to reflect future promise and may never materialize." ????True, but that's always been the case. What we've seen over the past couple of years is a change in investment behavior. Did the companies in Patricof's queue gain 2.5x in "future promise" over the past six months? Or have VCs gotten caught up in a market euphoria that has clouded their judgment? At the very least, the data makes it impossible to plausibly say that it's just been VC business as usual. ????So we move onto Lacy's more salient point: Even if venture capitalists have lost their heads (which she doesn't believe they have), it doesn't constitute a bubble because only "insiders" will be felled. No rash of Average Joe bankruptcies or mass layoffs or food stamp applications. ????What this ignores, however, is that venture capitalists don't actually invest the vast majority of venture capital. When firms like Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia Capital invest, they are mostly doing it on behalf of others. School teachers. Non-profit foundations. University endowments. Public pensioners. ????These are the people and groups who get most burned by a VC-fueled investment bubble. Not a few members of the PayPal mafia who can better afford to take the loss. Venture capital may only comprise a small part of such groups' investment portfolios, but it is the part that is supposed to outperform public equities and bonds. When expected alpha goes rotten, future obligations get put at risk. It's not as broadly-devastating as the housing crisis, but since when did a bubble have to be of the same mass as a tsunami? ????I also am not yet ready to say that the bubble has deflated, although others are beginning to make that case. The public markets have been too volatile to reach long-term conclusions, and the week's IPO debacle mostly was limited to low-profile issuers (let's wait until next month, when Groupon and Zynga are expected to price). Plus, just today another daily deals site raised money at a reported $700 million valuation. ????So maybe this Internet bubble is already over. Or perhaps it has a bit more runway. Either way, it is real. And it matters. |
最新文章