??? 下面我們再來看看這兩家公司成立3-5年后的表現(xiàn).

??? Let's look at years 3-5 of the two companies.

????雖然頭幾年公司B的業(yè)績看來更穩(wěn)健，但最終是公司A的人員投資令其獲得更高的年增長率。到了第五年年底，公司A累積盈利1,400萬美元（收益減去各年投資），而公司B累積盈利卻只有500萬美元。

????如今公司A的年營業(yè)收入為4,700萬美元，公司B僅為1,200萬美元，因此6-10年的前景對于公司A而言也更光明。

????現(xiàn)在，我知道我當(dāng)初該投資哪家公司了。成長才是關(guān)鍵。

????但不妨設(shè)想一個更極端的情形，我們姑且稱之為“超高成長”互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公司。你知道此類公司由于沒有實現(xiàn)盈利，往往立刻會遭到無知評論者的抨擊，指責(zé)其浪費揮霍。

????Even though Company B initially looked prudent, it turns out that the investment that Company A made in people led to a higher annual growth rate. At the end of year 5 Company A has earned $14 million in cumulative profits (gains – investment years) while Company B has made $5 million.

????Company A is now doing $47 million in annual revenue which Company B is doing $12 so years 6-10 appear rosier for Company A as well.

????I know which company I'd rather have invested in. Growth matters.

????But let's consider an even more aggressive scenario. Let's call it the "super high growth" Internet company. You know, the kind that unknowing commentators would be quick to lambast as being wasteful because it's not profitable.

????上圖這家公司將必須籌集至少3,500萬美元的風(fēng)險資本來支撐這樣的運營。更有可能的情況是它籌集了5,000萬美元或更多。請注意，這可能要通過2-3輪融資，并非所有資金都能預(yù)先到位或者一次性到位。

????瘋狂？愚蠢？難道它不應(yīng)當(dāng)放緩運營支出、“實現(xiàn)盈利”嗎？

????還是得看情況。如果公司成長速度像圖表中反映的一樣驚人，如果它們能夠獲得廉價的資本，那么它們不進行風(fēng)險融資，只是一味要盈利，那才是瘋了。

????這就是盈利與成長之間的取舍。如果不把今天的盈利投資到明天的成長上，當(dāng)然可以推高利潤。

????下一次如果還有記者想抨擊亞馬遜（Amazon）沒有實現(xiàn)更高的盈利時，我希望他們能夠理解這一點。亞馬遜保持著這么高速的成長，當(dāng)然需要將當(dāng)前的部分利潤投資于公司成長。

????如果一家公司不能實現(xiàn)足夠快的成長，那么它應(yīng)當(dāng)把公司的利潤用來做些其他事情，比方說回饋股東。

????馬克?薩斯特2007年加盟GRP Partners，擔(dān)任一般合伙人，此前他將自己的公司售予了企業(yè)云計算公司Salesforce.com。他專注于早期科技公司。他的博客地址Bothsidesofthetable.com。

????The company would have had to raise at least $35 million in venture capital to have funded operations like this. More likely it raised $50 million or more. Note that it likely raised this in 2-3 tranches, not all up front or all at once.

????Crazy? Stupid? Should it have slowed down operating costs in order to "make a profit."

????Again, it depends. If the growth is as spectacular as it is here and IF they have access to cheap capital then they'd be crazy not to have raised the VC and instead stayed unprofitable.

????This is the trade-off between profits & growth. You can drive profits up by not investing today's dollars in tomorrow's growth.

????The next time a journalist wants to slam Amazon (AMZN) for not being more profitable I wish they'd understand this. Amazon is continuing to grow at such a rapid pace that of course it should take some of today's profits and reinvest them in growth.

????If there is a company that can't grow fast enough then they should do other things with their profits, like return it to shareholders.

????Mark Suster joined GRP Partners in 2007 as a general partner after selling his company to Salesforce.com. He focuses on early-stage technology companies. He blogs at Bothsidesofthetable.com.