|
????Facebook下周將進行IPO，對于風險投資基金Accel Partners而言，這將是收獲累累碩果的時刻。后者在馬克?扎克伯格2005年籌建Facebook時提供過初始資金，現在仍是Facebook的最大外部投資者。Accel Partners的成功驗證了一個定理：最成功的風險投資基金往往是小型風投。 ????近年來，風險投資基金流年不利，Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation最近發布報告指出，“在我們的投資組合中，沒有哪只規模超過5億美元的基金，在扣除相關費用后，能帶來我們投入資本兩倍以上的收益。”無獨有偶，另一位風投家最近給我發來了一份未經公開的白皮書，該報告引用湯森路透（Thomson Reuters）的數據，一針見血地指出，“在超過7.5億美元的風險投資基金中，沒有一筆能為有限合伙人投資者帶來兩倍以上的收益。” ????讓我們來回顧一下Accel：早在2002年，該公司陷入困境。當時，該公司Accel Partners VIII基金的規模達到16億美元，這支基金募集于互聯網泡沫的巔峰時期，但隨后的失敗意味著Accel的資金已經超出它能合理投資的范圍。這是風險投資公司當時普遍面臨的問題，很多公司都向投資者表示，他們不會調用承諾資本的40%或50%。 ????然而，Accel嘗試了一種不同的戰略——分裂。我當時撰文寫道： ????Accel希望保存已經受托的16億美元，將這些資金分散到Fund VIII以及全新的Fund IX這兩只基金中。如此一來，Accel將能夠鎖定其30%的附帶收益結構，并顯著延長其投資跑道。 ????不過，Accel的投資者們認為自己上當受騙了。他們拒絕了這項提議，最終，Accel不得不將基金規模削減至大約7.7億美元（通過兩次削減）。 ????隨后兩年，Accel一蹶不振，不斷虧錢。在目睹Accel的悲慘境地及其少得可憐的回報后，許多有限合伙人決定與其分道揚鑣。哈佛大學、麻省理工學院和普林斯頓大學決定不再向Accel Partners IX投資，后者最終僅僅籌集到4.4億美元。 ????事實證明，這些學校所犯的錯誤堪稱昂貴。因為Accel Partners IX目前持有大約1.495億股Facebook股票。Facebook將其IPO發行價定在28至35美元區間，如果最終價格取中間值的話，Acce所持有的股票將價值超過47億美元。我們還未將Accel此前在二級市場售出的Facebook股票計算在內，有人聲稱僅僅通過之前的這些交易，Accel就已經收回了對Facebook的全部投資。 ????現在看來，Accel完全可能在2005年時通過其“分裂”的16億美元基金投資Facebook。但情況并非如此。在手握16億美元時，Accel的風投基金是失敗者。在僅剩4.4億美元后，它極有希望成為有史以來效益最好的風投基金——尤其是將Accel投資的Glam Media等公司計算在內的話。 ????“風投基金越袖珍越好”，Accel堪稱這一論點最新也是最強有力的證據。 ????譯者：項航 |
????When Facebook goes public next week, it will mean a massive payday for Accel Partners -- the venture capital firm that originally backed Mark Zuckerberg in 2005 and remains the company's largest outside investor. It also could help support an argument that the most successful VC funds are small VC funds. ????In a recent report on the sad stage of venture capital, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation wrote: "We have no funds in our portfolio that raised more than $500 million and returned more than two times our invested capital after fees." More broadly speaking a venture capitalist recently sent me an unpublished white paper (dated March 2011) that uses Thomson Reuters data to claim that "no venture fund larger than $750 million has ever returned more than 2.0x to its limited partner investors." ????This brings us to Accel: Back in 2002, the firm was in trouble. It was investing out of a $1.6 billion fund (Accel Partners VIII) that had been raised at the height of the dotcom bubble, but the resulting bust meant that Accel had more money than it could reasonably invest. It was a common problem in VC-land, with many firms simply telling investors that they wouldn't call down 40% or 50% of committed capital. ????Accel, however, tried a different strategy -- split. From a story I wrote at the time: ????Accel, on the other hand, wants to maintain the $1.6 billion already committed by spreading it over the life of both Fund VIII and a brand new Fund IX. By doing so, Accel would be able to lock in its 30% carried interest structure and significantly lengthen its investment runway. ????Accel's investors, however, thought they smelled a shell game. They rejected the proposal, and Accel ultimately agreed to slash the fund size down to around $770 million (via a pair of cuts). ????When Accel went back out for money two years later, it learned that the episode -- plus poor returns -- had burned bridges with a number of limited partners. Longtime investors like Harvard, MIT and Princeton decided not to come back for Accel Partners IX, which closed on just $440 million. ????It has proven to be a costly mistake for the Ivys, because Accel Partners IX currently holds around 149.5 million shares of Facebook stock. If the social network prices its IPO in the middle of its proposed $28-$35 range, the position would be worth more than $4.7 billion. And that doesn't even include the Facebook shares Accel already has sold on the secondary market, which some say may have already returned the entire fund. ????Now it's entirely possible that Accel would have funded Facebook in 2005 through its "split" $1.6 billion fund. But that's not what happened. At $1.6 billion, Accel's fund was a loser. At $440 million, it likely will become the best-performing venture capital fund of all time -- particularly once other portfolio companies like Glam Media get factored in. ????Consider it just the latest, and largest, data point to support the "smaller VC funds are better" argument. |
最新文章