風(fēng)投界不能只盯著“獨角獸”式的公司
|
????上周五晚些時候，我計劃采訪一家企業(yè)技術(shù)公司的CEO。這家公司本周將宣布新一輪的風(fēng)投融資。我經(jīng)常接到這類邀請，可能每天都有十幾次。我之所以同意做這次采訪是因為它的邀請函。它管十分簡短，甚至連這家公司的名稱都沒有提到。相反，它只是透露，本輪融資對這家神秘公司的估值為10億美元。 ????是的，10億美元。又是一家獨角獸式的企業(yè)。拉風(fēng)的存在。這樣的描述（顯然）激發(fā)了我打電話的念頭，盡管我連要打給誰都不知道。 ????這將是我兩周來的第3篇“獨角獸”報道，3月13日的報道是網(wǎng)絡(luò)訂票平臺Eventbrite，3月20日報道了移動信息傳輸公司Tango。如果算上我采訪Castlight投資人布萊恩?羅伯斯的文章，這篇可以說是第四篇。我甚至都擠不出時間來報道Airbnb的融資交易，這家公司顯然正在竭力按100億美元估值進(jìn)行融資（即非常神秘的Decacorn）。 ????每一家獲得10億美元估值的非上市公司都非常了不起。要知道，十年前，這些公司就算是在創(chuàng)始人本人的眼中也是前景難料。因此，在此向所有這些成功者致敬，然后繼續(xù)進(jìn)行跟蹤報道。 ????但有一個問題有點開始困擾我：我們這樣關(guān)注階段性估值龐大的公司，可能導(dǎo)致我們一定程度上忽視那些估值未達(dá)到10位數(shù)但財務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)更好的公司。我們報道投資人時，這一點尤其突出。 ????我的意思是：假設(shè)ABC風(fēng)投對一家交易后估值10億美元的公司投資了5,000萬美元，獲得5%股份（是的，這里我進(jìn)行了簡化分析）。隨后，這家公司上市，獲得估值20億美元，然后二級市場市值升到了50億美元。突然之間，這筆投資的價值達(dá)到了2.50億美元。太棒了。另外，假設(shè)123風(fēng)投對一家交易后估值2,500萬美元的公司投資500萬美元，這家公司被雅虎（Yahoo）以2.50億美元收購（因此向123風(fēng)投支付5,000萬美元）。在我看來，123風(fēng)投的交易似乎更劃算，因為它實現(xiàn)了10倍的投資回報，而ABC風(fēng)投僅實現(xiàn)了5倍投資回報。 ????但媒體不會公開為123風(fēng)投唱頌歌，因為他們沒有逮住“獨角獸”。不過，現(xiàn)實是投資10億美元以上公司的風(fēng)投大部分也沒有抓住“獨角獸”。當(dāng)然，有些公司確實捕獲了“獨角獸”（往往投資時間很早），但大多數(shù)進(jìn)入很晚，只是搭一段順風(fēng)車。 ????以《福布斯》（Forbes）雜志年度最佳創(chuàng)投人排行榜（Midas List）為例，這份排行榜宣稱對全球頂尖的科技風(fēng)投人進(jìn)行排行。排行計算的主要依據(jù)是退出成本（即收購或IPO），但同時也收錄了幾家尚未上市的獨角獸公司(這可以解釋為什么Accel的吉姆?布雷耶即使是在Facebook上市前也能在排行榜上占據(jù)榜首位置)。就算123風(fēng)投有十幾家賬面市盈率達(dá)到兩位數(shù)的未上市公司也沒用，因為這些公司沒有一家的估值達(dá)到了10億美元。相比持有一家籍籍無名的生物科技公司的Series A優(yōu)先股（剛剛以1.50億美元或2億美元的估值完成了Series D融資），不如參與Airbnb大規(guī)模的Series C融資。 ????是的，風(fēng)投是一項關(guān)于關(guān)注度的生意。每只基金都需要一、兩家表現(xiàn)特別出眾的公司來實現(xiàn)他們向投資者承諾的回報率。但可能我們都需要更加努力地來找到這些表現(xiàn)出眾的公司，而不只是癡迷于那些獨角獸。（財富中文網(wǎng)） |
????Later today I'm scheduled to interview the CEO of an enterprise technology company that next week will announce a new round of venture capital funding. It's the sort of thing that I get asked to do a lot -- probably a dozen times per day -- but agreed to this one because of a very brief PR pitch that didn't even include the company's name. Instead, it simply informed me that the funding valued this mystery company at $1 billion. ????Ah, $1 billion. The thing that unicorns are made of. The thing that's cool. The thing that (apparently) gets me to take a call before I even know who's going to be calling. ????It would be my third "unicorn" story in the past two weeks, following online ticketing platform Eventbrite last Thursday and mobile messaging company Tango yesterday morning. Or my fourth, if you include my Q&A with Castlight investor Bryan Roberts. And I couldn't even find time to write about Airbnb's apparent efforts to raise at a whopping $10 billion valuation (i.e., the much mythologized Decacorn). ????In each and every case, hitting a $1 billion private valuation is a remarkable accomplishment. Remember, these usually are companies that weren't even a gleam in their founder's eyes at this time last decade. So kudos to all to achieve, and continued coverage. ????But here's the thing that's beginning to trouble me a bit: The collective we are focusing so much on these massive interim valuations that we, arguably, aren't paying enough attention to better financial outcomes that don't include nine zeros. And this is particularly true when we cover those who are writing the checks. ????Here's what I mean: Imagine that ABC Ventures invests $50 million at a $1 billion post-money valuation, in exchange for a 5% equity stake (yes, I'm really simplifying things here). Then the company goes public at a $2 billion valuation, and later trades up to $5 billion. Suddenly that investment is valued at $250 million. Fantastic. Now what if 123 Ventures invests $5 million at a $25 million post-money valuation, and the company gets acquired by Yahoo for $250 million (thus paying out $50 million to 123 Ventures). Seems to me that 123 Ventures arguably got the better deal, in that it recognized a 10x multiple, whereas ABC Ventures recognized a 5x multiple. ????But we don't publicly venerate 123 Ventures, because they didn't have a "unicorn." The reality, however, is that the majority of VC firms invested in $1 billion+ companies didn't really have unicorns either. A few certainly did -- those who were at the very beginning -- but most came along so late in the game that they were just hitching a ride. ????Take what Forbes does with its annual Midas List, which purports to rank the world's top tech venture capitalists. Most of the calculations are done based on exits (i.e., M&A or IPOs), but Forbes also incorporates data on a handful of unicorn-type companies that are still private (thus explaining, for example, how Accel's Jim Breyer topped the list even before Facebook went public). Never mind if 123 Ventures has a dozen still-private companies where it has double-digit paper multiples, because none of those companies are valued at $1 billion. Better to buy into a big Series C for Airbnb than to have Series A preferred stock in a quasi-anonymous biotech that just raised its Series D at a $150 million or $200 million valuation. ????Yes, venture capital is a hits business. Each fund needs one or two giant outliers in order to generate the returns they promise investors. But perhaps we all need to do a better job identifying those outliers, as opposed to just obsessing over unicorns. |
最新文章