精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

????上周四， 《華爾街日報》(Wall Street Journal)一篇探討互聯網初創企業正面臨“現金緊張”的文章在風投界引發熱議。

????這篇文章主要是基于業界網站AngelList的數據(也可能不是，參見下文更新)，外加道瓊斯公司（Dow Jones）的風投融資統計數據。我無意質疑這些數據，但相信須放在更宏觀的范圍內來考量。更重要的是，我認為這些數據反映的真實情況被忽視了。

????首先，總體風投活動沒有下降。正式的三季度數據要到本周晚些時候公布，但初步數據顯示美國公司募資額雖然低于二季度，但仍然要高于一季度。而且，由于7、8月份時值很多人度假，三季度的募資活動傳統上就相對處于低谷，總量數據看來沒什么出人意料之處。

????而且，過去3個月完成的美國風投交易有約49%面向種子期或早期公司。過去12個月的這一比例在47%。投資額占比的差幅可忽略不計（過去3個月為30.4%，過去12個月是30.6%）。

????AngelList數據是一項重要指標，但它反映的是相對較小范圍內的投資者的傾向，而且可能這部分投資者的態度并不公允。例如，近期的市場震蕩可能已嚇跑了很多曾將10-15%的資產配置于風險投資的天使觀光者（分母，不只影響公共退休基金）。但機構風投迄今并未受到類似影響（我把超級天使投資人也歸入此類）。

????的確，募集資金的風投公司數量越來越少，但這股趨勢已持續多年，目前風投業仍有充足的彈藥。畢竟，超級天使的崛起只有一年而已。而且，過去18個月里許多大中型公司推出了種子期投資項目——加大了新興初創企業的總資本池。例子包括恩頤投資（New Enterprise Associates）、Greylock風投公司和Menlo Ventures投資公司。有些人認為這些項目只是裝點門面，但在統計中錢就是錢（而且，我反而認為這些項目大多數都是實實在在的）。

????對我而言，更大的問題是種子期之后的資本供應情況。我說的不是Facebook或Groupon規模龐大的Series F輪融資，而是500萬美元至2,500萬美元的Series A或B融資。我認為在這個階段有點資本供應不足。首先，現在有多少風投公司自封為Series B投資者？不多(這并不奇怪，第一輪資本未得到第二輪或第三輪資本的響應)。

????例如，擴張期交易占過去12個月美國完成的風投交易數的28%，投資額占比約為35%。五年前，這兩個比例分別是36%和42%。

????為什么未出現這種情況？因為種子期后的A或B輪融資風險往往和種子期一樣高，但潛在回報相對較低。原有的種子投資者按比例繼續參與融資是一回事，外部投資者參與則完全是另外一回事（除非成功顯而易見，在這種情況下會出現天價估值）。事實上，創業者在種子期完全可以與大中型機構風投簽約，而不是依賴那些道指跌上400點就要害怕跑路的天使投資人。

????我知道有些創業者不愿意“淹沒”在大中型機構風投，而是更喜歡天使投資人的個人關注和人脈。當然也有兩全其美的情況。但如果二者只能選一，機構要有價值得多。如果網絡初創企業正面臨現金緊張，可能是因為它們選擇了錯誤的種子期投資者（假定他們當初有“選擇的余地”），導致如今沒有足夠的中間期融資者幫助它們渡過困境。

????更新：AngelList的內維爾?拉維坎特(Naval Ravikant)剛剛在Twitter上發了下述信息：

????Venture capitalists today are buzzing about a Wall Street Journal story about how Internet startups are facing a "cash crunch."

????It's mostly based on AngelList data (or not, see update below), plus venture fund-raising statistics from Dow Jones. I don't dispute either of them, but believe they need to be viewed in a broader context. More importantly, I think the real story they tell was overlooked.

????First, overall venture capital activity is not decreasing. Official Q3 data won't be released until later this week, but a preliminary look shows that U.S.-based companies raised less money than in Q2 but more than in Q1. And since third quarters are traditionally slow due to the vacation months of July and August, there doesn't seem to be much news in the top-line numbers.

????Moreover, around 49% of completed U.S. venture deals in the past three months were for seed-stage or early-stage companies. For the past 12 months, the figure stands at 47%. The difference in dollars invested as a percentage of the whole was negligible (from 30.4% for past 3 months to 30.6% for past 12 months).

????AngelList data is an important metric, but it also reflects the biases of a relatively small -- and arguably skewed -- subset of venture investors. For example, the recent market volatility has likely knocked out a lot of angel tourists who had been allocating 10 or 15% of their assets to venture investing (denominators don't only affect public pension funds). Institutional VCs, however, have not been similarly affected (and I include super-angels in this category).

????It certainly is true that fewer and fewer VC firms are raising money, but that trend has been in place for years and there is still plenty of dry powder. After all, the rise of super-angels is barely one year old. Moreover, many larger firms have launched seed-stage investing programs within the past 18 months -- thus increasing the overall capital pool for nascent startups. Examples include New Enterprise Associates, Greylock and Menlo Ventures. Some folks discount these programs as cynical window-dressing, but money is money within this particular argument (and I happen to think most of the programs are legit).

????To me, the larger issue is capital availability beyond the seed-stage. I'm not talking about massive Series F rounds for Facebook or Groupon, but rather Series A or B deals in the $5 million to $25 million range. This is where I see a bit of capital gap. How many venture firms out there market themselves as Series B investors, first and foremost? Not many (it's no surprise that First Round Capital hasn't been copied by a Second Round Capital or Third Round Capital).

????For example, expansion-stage deals made up 28% of all U.S. venture deals completed in the past 12 months, and around 35% of the total invested capital. Five years ago those figures were 36% and 42%, respectively.

????How come? Because post-seed A or B rounds often carry the same risks as seed with less potential reward. It's one thing for an existing seed investor to participate pro rata, but quite another for an outsider to join the party (unless success seems obvious, at which point the valuation will be sky-high). In fact, that's a pretty good case for entrepreneurs to sign on with larger institutional VCs at the seed-stage, rather than trying to rely on angels who are one 400-point Dow loss away from being tapped out.

????I know some entrepreneurs don't want to get "lost" in a larger firm, and appreciate the personal attention and networks of angels. And there certainly can be a happy mix of both. But, if you have to choose, the institution is far more valuable. If Web startups are hitting a cash crunch, it's likely because they chose the wrong seed-stage investors (assuming they had a "choice") and there aren't enough mid-round institutions to help them out.

????Update: AngelList's Naval Ravikant just tweeted the following: