成人小说亚洲一区二区三区,亚洲国产精品一区二区三区,国产精品成人精品久久久,久久综合一区二区三区,精品无码av一区二区,国产一级a毛一级a看免费视频,欧洲uv免费在线区一二区,亚洲国产欧美中日韩成人综合视频,国产熟女一区二区三区五月婷小说,亚洲一区波多野结衣在线

在“獨(dú)角獸時(shí)代”剛剛到來的時(shí)候，一家名叫“鋒銳資本”的風(fēng)投機(jī)構(gòu)曾經(jīng)宣布，公司將放棄對(duì)所投資的初創(chuàng)公司創(chuàng)始人投反對(duì)票的權(quán)利。當(dāng)時(shí)這種做法還很少見，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》曾表示，這說明了風(fēng)投資本家們“把創(chuàng)業(yè)者當(dāng)皇上一樣供著?！?/p>

在創(chuàng)業(yè)界內(nèi)部，鋒銳資本的這種表態(tài)也受到了廣泛好評(píng)，成為“創(chuàng)業(yè)者友好型”創(chuàng)投的又一范本。曾幾何時(shí)，董事會(huì)一旦覺得創(chuàng)始人跟不上公司的增長(zhǎng)節(jié)奏，往往就會(huì)二話不說地將他換掉，另外聘請(qǐng)一個(gè)CEO來摘桃子。而馬克·扎克伯格卻開啟了一種全新的模式，防止了有第二個(gè)喬布斯因?yàn)椴怀墒旎蛘呷狈芾斫?jīng)驗(yàn)之類的原因被風(fēng)投趕出公司。這樣一來，創(chuàng)始人就能保住他們的CEO職位，只需要再聘請(qǐng)一個(gè)雪莉·桑德伯格之類的管理高才，就可以替他們搞定公司日常管理中的瑣碎事。

風(fēng)投機(jī)構(gòu)ffVC甚至在自己的名字中也不忘標(biāo)榜這一理念，“ff”就是英文“創(chuàng)始人友好型”的縮寫。這種情形在創(chuàng)投界變得越來越普遍，我甚至覺得就算他們投資的創(chuàng)始人殺了人，風(fēng)投也有法子讓他逃避法律的制裁?！安恍旁囋嚒S便找個(gè)人殺殺，我們一點(diǎn)也不在乎，記得花我們的錢哦！”

為啥風(fēng)投對(duì)創(chuàng)業(yè)者會(huì)像霸道總裁對(duì)白蓮花一樣寵溺呢？因?yàn)槔嵌嗳馍?，風(fēng)投的錢太多了，而值得投資的初創(chuàng)公司則是稀缺的。這種相對(duì)的稀缺性是不太可能改觀的，不過我認(rèn)為，近來的幾起事件有可能會(huì)給風(fēng)投當(dāng)頭一棒，讓他們重新加大對(duì)所投資公司的控制。

首先，我們來看看Blue Apron和Snap這兩家公司糟糕的股市業(yè)績(jī)。這兩家公司的股票結(jié)構(gòu)都是不利于投資人的。Snap更是將公司的所有控制權(quán)賦予了其創(chuàng)始人。Blue Apron在六月份上市之前將它的建議IPO價(jià)格憑空砍掉了３４％，才過了6個(gè)星期，它的交易價(jià)格又被腰斬了50%。另外，標(biāo)普和富時(shí)也表示，鑒于Snap的普通股無投票權(quán)，這兩家公司將不會(huì)把Snap股票納入他們各自的指數(shù)，因此，被動(dòng)投資者們將根本無法接觸到他們的股票。

接下來是Uber的例子。在經(jīng)歷了公開撕逼后，Uber公司CEO特拉維斯·卡蘭尼克被董事會(huì)逼著辭了職，不過他仍然擁有公司10%的股權(quán)和16%的投票權(quán)。今年8月，Uber的早期投資者Benchmark公司出乎意料地對(duì)卡蘭尼克提起訴訟，控告他涉嫌欺詐，違反信托責(zé)任，徇私枉法。（卡蘭尼克的發(fā)言人表示，這起訴訟“充滿了謊言和不實(shí)指控”。）

投資者們終于開始意識(shí)到，他們?cè)谒^的“創(chuàng)始人友好型投資”上，犯了“是我給你自由過了火”的右傾投降主義錯(cuò)誤。創(chuàng)始人們或許也已經(jīng)意識(shí)到，如果他們想讓公司上市，就必須要放棄一部分對(duì)公司的控制權(quán)?！蔼?dú)角獸時(shí)代”使很多創(chuàng)業(yè)公司長(zhǎng)期保持私有化，避免了外部的仔細(xì)審查。而隨后即將到來的“冷靜創(chuàng)投”時(shí)代，將意味著這些公司終將成長(zhǎng)為負(fù)責(zé)任的成年人。

最近，各大出版商一窩蜂地炮制出了許多“成長(zhǎng)”主題的書，目的就是要給那些不成熟的千禧一代“催熟”?；蛟S出版界也應(yīng)該考慮出一本創(chuàng)業(yè)題材的成長(zhǎng)指南了。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

本文另載于2017年9月1日刊的《財(cái)富》。

譯者：賈政景

At the dawn of the Age of Unicorns, a venture capital firm called Felicis Ventures announced it would forgo its right to vote against the founders of its portfolio companies. Giving up those rights was a curious move; the New York Times declared it as evidence that venture capitalists were “coddling entrepreneurs as royalty.”

Inside startup circles, though, the announcement was applauded as another positive step for “founder-friendly” investing. In the past, boards of directors would push aside startup founders when the top job outgrew them. The new approach, ushered in by Mark Zuckerberg, prevents venture investors from forcing a future Steve Jobs out of his or her startup for reasons of, say, immaturity or a total lack of management experience. Instead, those founders get to keep their CEO jobs and simply “hire a Sheryl Sandberg” to deal with the tedious matter of running a company.

Venture firm ffVC even named itself after the concept; the “ff” stands for “founder-friendly.” The stance has become so popular that I’m waiting for a venture firm to declare it will let founders literally get away with murder: “Seriously, try it—just kill someone! We don’t even care, just take our money.”

Why are venture capitalists so eager to seem like “cool moms” to founders? Because competition hurts leverage. (Or in VC parlance, there’s too much money chasing too few deals.) That dynamic isn’t likely to change, but I predict recent events might bring strong governance back into fashion.

See the disappointing stock performance of Blue Apron and Snap, two companies with share structures that deny voting rights to investors and in Snap’s case, give total control to the founders. Blue Apron slashed its proposed IPO price by 34% before its June offering; six weeks later, its shares were trading 50% below that. Meanwhile Standard & Poor’s and FTSE Russell declared that, because of Snap’s nonvoting class of common shares, they would exclude the company from their indexes, blocking its access to an entire class of passive investors.

And then there’s Uber. Despite years of misbehavior, CEO Travis Kalanick was pressured to resign by the board only after a messy, public fight. He still owns a 10% stake and 16% of the voting power. In August, early investor Benchmark took the extraordinary step to sue Kalanick for fraud and breaching his fiduciary duty to investors by advancing “his own selfish ends.” (A spokesperson for Kalanick said the suit is “riddled with lies and false allegations.”)

Investors are finally realizing they went too far with the “founder-friendly” thing. And founders may be realizing that if they want their companies to go public, they need to give up some control. The Age of Unicorns did these companies a disservice by allowing them to stay private and avoid scrutiny. The Age of Startup Sobriety suggests it’s time they grow up.

Recently, publishers have been churning out books about “adulting,” meant to deliver tough love to immature millennials. Maybe they should consider selling a startup edition.?

A version of this article appears in the Sept. 1, 2017 issue of Fortune with the headline "Once Coddled, Now Curbed."