互聯網無泡沫？你錯了！
|
????近4年前，微軟公司（Microsoft）以150億美元的估價，向Facebook注資2.4億美元。我相信這是人們首次開始公開擔心新一輪互聯網泡沫的到來，此后這種擔心逐漸蔓延開來并達至最高點。但直到最近市場出現動蕩之前，此類擔憂被認為是不明智的，往壞里說就是愚蠢的。 ????對于拒絕承認互聯網泡沫的人而言，這段時間是他們“揚眉吐氣”的大好時光。在這些人中，最能言善辯且頑固不化的要數科技博客TechCrunch的薩拉?蕾茜。上周二，她又在一篇題為《好消息！從未膨脹過的泡沫破滅了》（Good News! The Bubble that Never Inflated Has Popped）的博文中對互聯網泡沫論發起猛烈攻擊。 ????我喜歡薩拉，但她的觀點大錯特錯了。她不僅錯在拒絕承認存在互聯網泡沫，更錯在對泡沫后果的判斷上。 ????首先，我得聲明，我寫此文的本意既非要做事后諸葛亮，也不是要顯擺我明察秋毫，沒有漏掉任何重要的市場趨勢。換言之，就是有可能成為互聯網泡沫論的彼得?謝夫（美國經濟學家、作家、商人及金融評論家，一貫唱空美國經濟——譯注），我也不在乎。此外，就此事來說，我也并非獨行俠。 ????我之所以在意這件事，是因為所有泡沫最終都會破滅（或者至少會癟掉），隨后引發的混亂會傷及人們的利益。最初引發通貨膨脹的人需要迅速認清自己的所作所為，承擔責任，確保這類泡沫不會繼續膨脹。 ????蕾茜認為有兩種泡沫：經濟泡沫和心理泡沫。最近的住房泡沫就是典型的經濟泡沫，而17世紀30年代的郁金香泡沫則屬于典型的心理泡沫。她還分析說，這二者之間的主要分別在于其產生的影響不同。她認為，經濟泡沫會切實引發經濟損失。而心理泡沫由于腐蝕了社會信心，會影響到人們未來的行為模式。因此，上世紀90年代的互聯網泡沫同時帶有二者的味道。 ????按照這一理論，我認為，眼下的互聯網泡沫屬于經濟泡沫。因為它自始至終屬于私有市場現象，而遠非公共市場現象。具體而言，靠風險資本支持的互聯網公司以過高的估價獲得了太多的資金。這種做法必然導致經濟困境。以下是一些數據： ????律師事務所Fenwick & West的報告顯示，2010年第四季度，硅谷的風險融資估價增長了61%。這是該公司的監測報告連續第六個季度顯示，硅谷的風險融資平均估價呈現增長之勢；2010年第三季度增長了28%。 ????湯森路透社（Thomson Reuters）的數據顯示，自2007年以來，美國IT領域的風險資本交易的投資前估值翻了一番還多。 ????搖錢樹報告【MoneyTree reports：根據美國市場調查機構普華永道和美國風險投資協會(NVCA)基于分析Thomson Reuters數據庫生成的投資報告——譯注】顯示，自2000年第四季度以來，按美元計算，“專注于互聯網”的公司在2011年第二季度融到的首輪風險資本創下了最高值。 ????如果只是當作奇聞趣事來聽，在早期風險投資圈里，幾乎所有的人都說，互聯網公司估價一直在瘋狂地飆升，即將失控。就在前幾天，我曾引用阿倫?帕特里科夫（美國投資家——譯注）的話說：“許多半年或一年前定價僅為200萬美元的早期交易，現在其投資前價格已飛漲至700美元。”另一位風險資本家最近給我看了一張冰球桿圖表（a hockey-stick chart：某一數據在長時間持平后突然直線飆升，與橫軸形成了一個接近90度的夾角，形似一個直立的冰球桿——譯注），我開始還以為它反映的是一家初創公司的營業收入，但他告訴我說，該圖實際上記錄的是他的投資機構一直以來支付的互聯網交易的平均價格。 ???? |
????Nearly four years ago, Microsoft (MSFT) invested $240 million in Facebook at a valuation of $15 billion. I'm pretty sure that's the first time people began publicly worrying about another Internet bubble, and it's been a slowly crescendoing chorus ever since. Well, until the recent market tumult seemed to render such concerns uncouth at best and asinine at worst. ????That means it's salad days for Internet bubble deniers, the most eloquent and persistent of whom has been TechCrunch's Sarah Lacy. Her latest salvo came Tuesday, in a post titled: Good News! The Bubble that Never Inflated Has Popped. ????I like Sarah, but she's dead wrong on this. Not only about the bubble's existence, but also about its consequences. ????First, let me be clear that my intent isn't future vindication. Or relief that I didn't overlook a major market trend. In other words, I could care less about becoming the Internet bubble's Peter Schiff. Moreover, it's not exactly like I'm a lone wolf on this. ????Instead, I care because all bubbles ultimately pop (or at least deflate) -- and people get hurt in the resulting mess. Those responsible for the original inflation need to quickly recognize what they've done, own it and be sure to stop perpetuating it. ????Lacy argues that there are two types of bubbles: Economic and psychological. The recent housing bubble was an example of the former, while the tulip bubble of the 1630's was an example of the latter. The primary difference, she argues, is the type of impact. Economic bubbles, she says, cause actual pocketbook pain. Psychological ones, on the other hand, impact future behavior by eroding at societal trust. The 1990s Internet bubble, therefore, was a little bit of both. ????Adopting this dichotomy, I believe that the current Internet bubble is economic. It has been a private market phenomenon much more than a public market one. Specifically, too much money has gone into VC-backed Internet companies at too high a valuation, which will result in some economic hardships. Some data: ????? Law firm Fenwick & West reports that valuations for Silicon Valley venture financings rose 61% in Q4 2010. This was the sixth straight quarter in which their barometer showed an average valuation increase, including a 28% bump the prior quarter. ????? Thomson Reuters data indicates that pre-money valuations for VC deals in the U.S. tech sector have more than doubled since 2007. ????? MoneyTree reports that "Internet-specific" companies raised more first-round VC dollars in Q2 2011 than in any other quarter since Q4 2000. ????From a more anecdotal perspective, it's hard to find an early-stage VC who won't tell you Internet company valuations have been spiraling out of control. Just the other day, I quoted Alan Patricof as saying: "A lot of earlier-stage deals that would have been priced at $2 million six or twelve months ago have risen to $7 million pre-money." Another recently showed me a hockey-stick chart that I first thought was a startup's projected revenue, before he told me it was the average prices his firm had been paying for Internet deals. |
最新文章