風投模式的新老之爭
|
????以下是我對風險投資行業(yè)的三點認識： ????1.一直到五、六年前，風險投資模式基本還與上世紀80年代和90年代差不多。人變了，投資額增加了，但總體架構(gòu)和策略沒變。 ????2.如今，有很多不同的新模式。有些專注于向創(chuàng)業(yè)者提供各種融資服務(wù)（市場營銷、人力資源等等）。有些采用眾籌模式融資。有些強調(diào)能更快做出決定，可能比“傳統(tǒng)”風投熨一件藍襯衣還要快。 ????3.如果從創(chuàng)造高回報（這也是風投人真正的職責所在）的角度來考察，我們對于哪種模式更好并沒有概念。 ????這些在薩拉?萊西上周末題為《經(jīng)典風投保衛(wèi)戰(zhàn)》（A rare defense of venture capital classic）的文章中均有闡述。文章旨在反駁這樣的觀念：越新越好，或者說風投公司必須構(gòu)建“多平臺”以便獲得日后成功。事實上，她認為，當今風投的本質(zhì)特征與過去幾十年并沒有什么差異——無論它們的模式被視為是創(chuàng)新模式、還是傳統(tǒng)模式。 ????不錯，相比早年熱投電子產(chǎn)品組裝線和果園時期，風投行業(yè)已發(fā)生了改變。相比50年前，如今風投公司介入投資的時期更晚，獲得的股份也更少。在演示活動(Demo Day)、科技博客和AngelList盛行的當下，交易信息也不再那么專有，變得更加公開。而且，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，很多人做風投真的很差勁... ????但表現(xiàn)出色的風投不是這種做法，他們已搭上新營銷趨勢的順風車。它們這么做，因為它們是不錯的風投，就像風險投資之父阿瑟?洛克、硅谷風險投資之父唐?瓦倫丁和知名投資人湯姆?珀金斯是出色的風投人一樣。他們承擔風險。他們輔導創(chuàng)業(yè)者。他們尊重創(chuàng)業(yè)者的計劃，就算它背離他們自己的計劃。而最重要的是，他們擁有數(shù)百萬的資金來投資到每家公司身上。 ????對于萊西此文的回應基本上可以預見?！敖?jīng)典”風投人士公開感謝他，而有些新一代風投人士指責她。
????但大多數(shù)回應都搞錯了一點，萊西沒有真正站在哪一邊。相反，她正努力引導創(chuàng)業(yè)者走過風投自我提升的進階迷途。 ????更重要的是，現(xiàn)在如果站在某一邊，非常愚蠢。正如我在前面所寫，沒有足夠的數(shù)據(jù)支持哪種模式最優(yōu)。請注意，四年前，安德森-霍羅維茨風險投資公司（Andreessen Horowitz）才籌集了第一只基金。不管是AngelList，還是戴夫?麥庫的500 Startups都是到了2010年才出現(xiàn)的?？勺鲄⒖嫉氖?，馬薩諸塞州養(yǎng)老金系統(tǒng)只披露五年及五年以上的風投基金回報率，因為它發(fā)現(xiàn)早期業(yè)績的統(tǒng)計意義不大（由于J曲線效應，這是普遍看法）。 |
????Here are three things I believe about the venture capital industry: ????1. Until five or six years ago, the venture capital model was largely unchanged from what it had been in the 1980s and 1990s. Different people and bigger dollars, but the same general structure and strategy. ????2. Today there are a variety of new models. Some focus on providing a variety of non-finance services to entrepreneurs (marketing, HR, etc.). Some borrow from the crowdfunding model. Some emphasize their ability to make decisions in less time than it takes a "traditional" VC to iron his blue shirt. ????3. We have no idea which model is actually better, from the perspective of generating high returns (which is the actual job of venture capitalists). ????This is all in the context of a weekend post by Sarah Lacy, titled "A rare defense of venture capital classic." It sought to tamp down on the reflexive notion that newer is better, or that VC firms must become "platforms" in order to achieve future success. Instead, she argues that the fundamental characteristics of today's VCs are the same as they were in past decades -- no matter whether their model is considered innovative or traditionalist: ????Yes, things have changed about venture capital since those halcyon days of silicon assembly lines and fruit orchards. Typical venture firms invest later and get far smaller stakes than they did 50 years ago. Deal flow is far less proprietary in an age of demo days, tech blogs, and AngelList. And we've learned that many people are just awful at the job of venture capital... ????But VCs who perform well aren't doing it, because they are jumping on the bandwagon of new marketing trends. They are doing it because they are good VCs the way Arthur Rock, Don Valentine, and Tom Perkins were good VCs. They take risk. They coach entrepreneurs. The respect an entrepreneur's plan, even if it deviates from their own. And most of all — they have millions to invest in each company. ????The reaction to Lacy's post has been fairly predictable. "Classic" venture capitalists have publicly thanked her, while some next-gen VCs have taken her to task. ????What most of the responses missed, however, was that Lacy wasn't really taking sides. Instead, she was seeking to guide entrepreneurs through the disorienting haze of VC self-promotion. ????More importantly, taking sides right now is a fool's errand. As I wrote above, there is not yet enough data to support a conclusion about which type of model works best. Remember, it's only been four years since Andreessen Horowitz raised its first fund. Neither AngelList nor Dave McClure's 500 Startups showed up until 2010. For context, the Massachusetts state pension system only discloses returns for VC funds that are at least five years-old, because it finds earlier results to be statistically irrelevant (a common sentiment, due to the so-called J-curve). |
最新文章