????“我該怎樣為我的初創(chuàng)企業(yè)融資？”——這是很多初次創(chuàng)業(yè)者以及連續(xù)創(chuàng)業(yè)的企業(yè)家們常常會問的問題。對此我們并沒有現(xiàn)成的操作指南，在缺乏經(jīng)驗和指導(dǎo)的情況下，你只能依賴直覺行事。正如投資者如何對初創(chuàng)企業(yè)進行評估一樣，最重要的往往是以人為本。與你的投資者建立深厚的信賴關(guān)系，相信他們帶來的價值，絕對是至關(guān)重要的——這遠比估值，甚至任何其他因素都重要。選錯投資者不僅會阻礙一家企業(yè)充分實現(xiàn)自身潛力，也會影響到企業(yè)能否安然度過創(chuàng)業(yè)初期不可避免的諸多挑戰(zhàn)和瀕死體驗。這個問題絕不可輕視。

????不妨先回答幾個基本問題，然后再慎重考慮融資架構(gòu)事宜：

問題1：你的初創(chuàng)企業(yè)在早期有現(xiàn)金流產(chǎn)生嗎？

????? 若有，現(xiàn)金流數(shù)量能實現(xiàn)自我維持嗎？若能，不妨保持低成本，繼續(xù)自力更生。不要將事情復(fù)雜化，讓創(chuàng)始人繼續(xù)保留100%的股權(quán)，對外融資時間可推遲至你確實需要建設(shè)資金或是注資能加快企業(yè)增速之時。屆時憑借企業(yè)已取得的進展、里程碑以及過往業(yè)績記錄，創(chuàng)始人往往能獲得比種子期條件更優(yōu)厚的融資 (言外之意：更高的估值)。

????? 若無，請看下一個問題。

問題2: 你的初創(chuàng)企業(yè)需要大量資金(300萬美元以上)來驗證其核心理論嗎？

????? 是的，不是每家初創(chuàng)企業(yè)都能憑著5,000美元在車庫中攢出來。如果你的企業(yè)是那種科技密集型企業(yè)，那么不僅首輪募資需求量會較大，在市場推廣和成長期所需的資金支持甚至可能更多。鑒于此，需要找一支規(guī)模較大的基金(承諾資本超過2億美元)作為早期領(lǐng)投者，除了提供首輪融資外，更重要的是能有相當(dāng)數(shù)量的資金用于后續(xù)投資。像這樣的企業(yè)不是很適合天使融資，因為一旦企業(yè)發(fā)展遇到問題，必然需要與龐大的投資聯(lián)盟進行協(xié)商，缺乏領(lǐng)投者會使協(xié)調(diào)既耗時又痛苦。最后，天使投資人通常缺乏大筆的后續(xù)資金和文化來支持接下來的融資。與之形成鮮明對比的是規(guī)模較大的風(fēng)投基金，他們早已知曉購買的是“兩程票”，為給予企業(yè)搏擊成功的機會，愿意風(fēng)雨無阻地提供融資。

????? 如果不是，那太好了，你的選擇余地很大。如果你開發(fā)一款功能性“最簡可行產(chǎn)品”(MVP)的人力和基建成本足夠低(比如，50-75萬美元)，那么一個純天使投資聯(lián)盟或者天使投資人外加一個規(guī)模較小的、了解該領(lǐng)域的風(fēng)險基金可能就夠了。不過，如果公司的性質(zhì)是核心產(chǎn)品開發(fā)成本低，但預(yù)計規(guī)模化運營所需的資金量大，可能還是應(yīng)該在投資聯(lián)盟中包括一家規(guī)模較大的風(fēng)投公司，這樣的公司能輕松地連接起首輪融資（Series A），甚至領(lǐng)投一輪內(nèi)部融資。我不是很相信大基金參與首輪融資傳遞出負面信號的說法。以我的經(jīng)驗，好的風(fēng)投公司會按章行事，比如按比例進行投資 (除非標的企業(yè)根本不行或者管理層糟糕/不道德、不值得信賴)，并常常提高投資比例、進行領(lǐng)投。我從未看到由于首輪融資有規(guī)模較大的參與者，嚇跑了本想領(lǐng)投下一輪融資的風(fēng)投公司，特別是如果之前他們的投資額較低、缺乏董事會席位和具體保護條款等。

問題3: 你的企業(yè)有“最佳投資者”嗎？

????? 有時，超強的行業(yè)經(jīng)驗、人脈和知識能讓在特定領(lǐng)域經(jīng)營的初創(chuàng)企業(yè)受益匪淺。在當(dāng)今這個時代，如有可能，在你的投資者聯(lián)盟中包括一家“夢想公司”很重要。充分運用你的網(wǎng)絡(luò)，爭取獲得熱情的引薦，然后兜售、兜售、兜售。要爭取到對的投資者，怎么做都不嫌過，特別是在某些領(lǐng)域，消息靈通的天使投資人或高凈值風(fēng)險投資者完全能改變企業(yè)的命運。

????? 如果沒有，也別擔(dān)心。但我不太相信。總有適合你的“最佳投資者”。唯一的問題是： (a) 你能不能找到他們；(b) 一旦找到，你能不能爭取到他們作為投資者、顧問等？這是你要做的。開始吧。

????總而言之，你需要先了解自己企業(yè)的需求，才能搞清需募集多少資金以及向誰募資。一旦搞清楚這些，就需有精準的定位和做大量工作來打造正確的投資者團隊。只要你做到了，對企業(yè)的積極影響就難以盡述。

????Roger Ehrenberg是IA Ventures的創(chuàng)始人。他的博客見InformationArbitrage.com

????"How should I finance my start-up?" is a common refrain from first-time founders and serial entrepreneurs alike. There is no manual for how to best do this, and intuition can only get you so far in the absence of experience and mentoring. As with investors evaluating start-ups, it is and always has been people first. Having a deep trust relationship with your investors and confidence in the value they bring is absolutely critical -- it's more important than valuation and more important than pretty much anything. Making the wrong investor decisions might not only hurt a company's chances to reach full potential, they might impact the company's ability to survive the inevitable challenges and near-death experiences borne by early-stage companies. This is not an issue to be taken lightly.

????There are a few basic questions that need to be answered, however, before a reasoned approach to syndicate construction can be developed:

Question #1: Does your start-up generate cash flow early in its life?

????? If yes, is the quantity of cash flow such that it could be self-sustaining? If so, keep costs low and bootstrap out-of-the-gate. Keep things simple, enable the founders to retain 100% of the equity and defer raising external capital until you either absolutely need it to build or you'd benefit from acceleration capital to support rapid growth. These are generally nicer financing events for founders than pure seed capital (read: higher valuations) because of the progress that has been demonstrated, the milestones that have been reached and the track record that has been achieved.

????? If not, see below.

Question #2: Does your start-up require significant capital (>$3 million) in order to validate or invalidate its core thesis?

????? Yes, Virginia, not every start-up can be hacked together for $5k in the garage. If yours is one of those deep-tech companies for which prudence indicates a significant initial capital raise, it is likely that even greater amounts of capital will be needed to support the go-to-market and growth phases. In light of this, a larger fund (>$200 million in committed capital) should be sought as an early lead to both provide seed dollars but more importantly to reserve a significant amount of capital for follow-on investment. Opportunities like these don't subject themselves well to angel financing, as bumps in the road will necessitate negotiating with an unwieldy syndicate and the lack of a single deal lead will make coordination time-consuming and painful. Finally, angels generally lack the big-dollars follow-on capital and culture to support future rounds, in stark contrast to larger venture funds who fully expect that they've purchased a "two-ride ticket" and will be able to fund into good and bad in order to give the company a fighting chance at success.

????? If no, hooray, the options open to you are extensive. If your costs of people and infrastructure are low enough to create a functional minimum viable product or "MVP" (say $500-$750k), then a pure angel syndicate or angels plus a smaller, domain-knowledgeable venture fund might be just the thing. However, if the nature of the company is such that the costs of developing the MVP are low but the anticipated dollars required to operate at scale are high, it might make sense to include a larger venture firm in the syndicate that can comfortably bridge to a Series A or even lead an inside round. I am not a huge believer in the adverse signaling of larger funds in seed rounds. In my experience good firms do the right thing, e.g., doing their pro rata unless the company is outright failing or management is poor and/or unethical and untrustworthy, and often times step up to lead the round. I also haven't seen larger VC seed round participants scare off other VCs wanting to lead a subsequent round, especially if they have written a smallish check, lack a board seat and specific protective provisions, etc.

Question #3: Is there a "best investor" for your company?

????? Sometimes a company is operating in a specific domain that would benefit from extreme expertise, industry contacts and competitive intelligence. At these times, it is essential to include a "dream firm" in your investor syndicate if you can get them. Leverage the full extent of your networks to get a warm introduction and sell, sell, sell. You simply can't do enough to get the right investors behind you, especially in a particular area where an super-connected angel or a specific high-value venture investor can be life transforming.

????? If not, don't worry about it. But I don't believe you. There are always "best investors" for your company. The only questions are (a) can you identify them; and (b) once you identify them, can you persuade them to get on board as investors, advisers, etc.? That is your job. Get it done.

????In summary, you need to understand your business requirements before figuring out how much to raise and from whom to raise it. Once these requirements are known, it takes laser focus and a ton of work to build the right investor group. But to the extent you are successful, the positive impact on your business cannot be overstated.

????Roger Ehrenberg is founder of IA Ventures. He blogs at InformationArbitrage.com