|
在風險投資界，科技風投公司好比是電影明星，生命科學風投公司則是跑龍套的。或者說，他們是冠軍與參與獎的區別。最近的福布斯最佳創投人排行榜（Forbes Midas List）就說明了這一點，排名最前的生命科學投資人僅在榜單中位列第16名【Venrock風投公司（Venrock）的布萊恩?羅伯茨】 但新的研究表明，在過去的10年中，顛覆性的格局已悄然產生。 最近，風投資本家布魯斯?布斯【投資機構Atlas Venture公司（Atlas Venture）】和比讓?賽爾黑嘉德 【高原資本合伙人（Highland Cipital）】逐筆統計分析了過去10年中來自于近1，300家風投公司的交易反饋。他們發現，在2000-2010年當中，在已完成交易方面，投資美國生命科學的風投資本的總平均內部收益率（IRR）達到了15%。即便將未完成交易統計在內，收益率也達到了7.4%。相比較而言，同期信息技術行業的已完成交易的收益率只有3%，軟件行業為4.1%。 除此之外，生命科學每個子領域的交易至少是信息技術類子領域的兩倍。這跟90年代相比完全就是一個大逆轉，當時信息技術交易收益要大大優于生命科學的交易收益。即使不計算2000年這一網絡泡沫破滅年份的交易量，結果也是一樣。 “按照普通合伙人和有限合伙人的說法，與信息技術相比，生命科學只不過是風投資本的繼子，而且相貌丑陋，”布斯說。“所以我們對于研究結果感到很驚訝。” 該研究的4個備注： 1. 研究數據是按交易統計的，不是按基金種類。因此不能就此說明生命科學基金比信息科技基金的收益更高。有些大規模的生命科學交易來自于具有多重商業性質的公司。 2. 數據截止時間是2010年底，因此也就不包括今年大型信息技術公司的上市，例如職業社交網站LinkedIn、在線音樂服務網站Pandora等公司 3.有些讀者對于我在前一篇文章中采納康橋咨詢公司（Cambridge Associates）數據的做法頗有微詞，認為這有失公允。不過康橋公司的數據是來自于基金財務報表（不是財務調查）而且大多來源于康橋公司的有限合伙人的客戶（不是普通合伙人客戶） 4. 最新一期的《自然生物技術》雜志（Nature Biotechnology）將刊登布斯和賽爾黑嘉德研究之全文，并于7月11日出版。 |
????In the world of venture capital, tech is the movie star and life sciences the second banana. The champion and the also-ran. Just look at the most recent Forbes Midas List, in which the first life sciences investor doesn't appear until #16 (Bryan Roberts of Venrock). ????But new research suggests that this hierarchy has quietly reversed itself over the past decade. ????Venture capitalists Bruce Booth (Atlas Venture) and Bijan Salehizadeh (Highland Capital Partners) recently analyzed the past 10 years of returns from nearly 1,300 VC firms, on a deal-by-deal basis. What they found was that VC investments into U.S. life sciences companies between 2000 and 2010 yielded a gross pooled mean IRR of 15% for realized deals and 7.4% once unrealized deals were included. This compares to a 3% IRR for realized IT deals over the same time period, a 4.1% IRR for realized software deals. ????Moreover, each sub-category of life sciences deals came in at least 2x better than did realized results of IT sub-categories. All of this is a complete reversal of the 1990s, when IT deal performance absolutely dominated life sciences deal performance. And it holds even if you remove deals done in 2000, which was just before the dotcom bubble burst. ????"There is a widely-held perception among both GPs and LPs that life sciences is venture capital's ugly stepchild compared to tech," says Booth. "So we were surprised to find what we did." ????Four notes on the study: ????1. The data is based on deals, not on funds. As such, it does not necessarily mean that funds dedicated to life sciences outperform funds dedicated to IT. Some of the strongest life sciences deals may have come from generalist firms. ????2. The data only goes through the end of 2010, so does not include this year's big tech IPOs like LinkedIn, Pandora, etc. ????3. Some readers complained about selection bias in a prior piece I wrote utilizing Cambridge Associates data. Please remember that CA data is based on fund financial statements (not surveys), and often comes from CA's LP clients (i.e., not GP-directed). ????4. Booth and Salehizadeh have published their entire paper in the new issue of Nature Biotechnology, out today. |
?
相關稿件
最新文章