紅襪隊(duì)英雄投手創(chuàng)業(yè)失手的4大教訓(xùn)
|
????五年之前，波士頓紅襪隊(duì)的王牌投手柯特?希林率隊(duì)在四年內(nèi)兩奪美國(guó)職棒大聯(lián)盟冠軍，成為與保羅?里維爾（美國(guó)獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)英雄，以列克星敦戰(zhàn)役前夜通知英軍來(lái)襲而聞名）、肯尼迪總統(tǒng)比肩的新英格蘭英雄。今天他卻淪為笑柄，他的游戲公司倒閉，導(dǎo)致數(shù)百人失業(yè)，納稅人損失至少7,500萬(wàn)美元。他的支持者日益流逝，對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)，他不過(guò)是一個(gè)缺乏商業(yè)嗅覺(jué)的好人。同時(shí)，他的批評(píng)者隊(duì)伍區(qū)在日益壯大，他們認(rèn)為希林就是個(gè)偽君子。而對(duì)其他所有人來(lái)說(shuō)，他的故事則令人警醒。 ????關(guān)于希林和38號(hào)工作室（38號(hào)正是希林的球衣號(hào)碼）的故事錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜，這里只給出一個(gè)概要：出于對(duì)大型多玩家在線(xiàn)游戲（可容納數(shù)千人同時(shí)對(duì)戰(zhàn)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲）的個(gè)人熱情，希林五年前在馬薩諸塞州成立了38號(hào)工作室。他試圖籌集風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資但未果。最后他投入超過(guò)3,000萬(wàn)美元的個(gè)人積蓄，并在2009年買(mǎi)下馬里蘭州一家制作單人游戲的大型工作室。2010年，38號(hào)工作室從羅德島州得到7,500萬(wàn)美元的貸款擔(dān)保（羅德島州當(dāng)選州長(zhǎng)林肯?查菲曾表示反對(duì)），作為交換條件，希林將公司總部遷至該州，并承諾雇傭數(shù)百名新員工。公司曾發(fā)布一款熱門(mén)的單人游戲，但在5月份突然違約，未能向馬里蘭州支付110萬(wàn)美元的利息，當(dāng)時(shí)該公司距離發(fā)布多玩家游戲至少還有一年以上的時(shí)間。希林試圖向私人投資者募集資金，并向羅德島州申請(qǐng)稅收抵免，均未獲成功，最終38號(hào)工作室解雇了其在羅德島州和馬里蘭州的全體員工，共計(jì)約400人。 ????顯然，那些失業(yè)的人們深陷困境，正面臨巨大財(cái)政問(wèn)題的彈丸之地羅德島州也是如此。但我們也得到四個(gè)教訓(xùn)，可以幫助避免下一個(gè)38號(hào)工作室的產(chǎn)生。 ????別讓政客扮演風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家的角色。就連多數(shù)職業(yè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家都會(huì)投資虧損，難道天天蹲辦公室的業(yè)余選手會(huì)做得更好嗎？政府只需要為公司和新興產(chǎn)業(yè)創(chuàng)造出成功條件，剩下的交給市場(chǎng)就可以了。 ????如果政客堅(jiān)持進(jìn)行風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資，就該學(xué)會(huì)分散風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。羅德島對(duì)38號(hào)工作室的貸款中最驚人的問(wèn)題就是沒(méi)有要求外部投資者的認(rèn)可。人們一向說(shuō)狼多肉少，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家有錢(qián)沒(méi)處花，但就連他們都繞著走。難道普羅維登斯（羅德島州府）的政客們還不應(yīng)該警醒嗎？不管你怎么看Solyndra（已倒閉的美國(guó)太陽(yáng)能公司，它得到的5.35億聯(lián)邦貸款擔(dān)保還是讓奧巴馬政府極為難堪——譯注），至少它在拿到聯(lián)邦貸款前還曾經(jīng)被要求籌集等量的私人資金。雖然這也并不是個(gè)萬(wàn)全之策（參見(jiàn)教訓(xùn)1，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家也虧錢(qián)），但和第三方共同分擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)依然具有判斷和財(cái)務(wù)上的價(jià)值。 |
????Five years ago Curt Schilling was a hero in New England, right up there with Paul Revere, J.F.K., and the mustachioed Dunkin' Donuts man. Today the former Red Sox pitcher is a pariah after his videogame company went bust, taking hundreds of jobs and at least $75 million in taxpayer money along with it. To his dwindling number of defenders, Schilling is a good guy with a lousy business sense. To his growing legion of detractors, he's a hypocrite. To everyone, he should be a cautionary tale. ????The full story of Schilling and 38 Studios is complicated, so here's the game summary: Schilling founded 38 Studios in Massachusetts five years ago to pursue a personal passion for massive multiplayer online games, which are web-based games that can be played by thousands of people simultaneously. He tried to raise venture capital, but couldn't. So he plugged more than $30 million of his savings into the company and in 2009 bought a large studio in Maryland that created single-player games. In 2010, 38 Studios received a $75 million loan guarantee from Rhode Island in exchange for moving his company's headquarters there and promising to hire hundreds of new workers (over the objections of future Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee). The company later released a popular single-player game and was at least a year from releasing its multiplayer game when it unexpectedly defaulted on a $1.1 million interest payment to Rhode Island in May. Schilling tried getting alternative funding from private investors or tax credits from the state, but failed, and 38 Studios fired all of its workers in Rhode Island and Maryland -- around 400 people. ????It is obviously a terrible situation for those who lost their jobs -- and for a tiny state already facing giant fiscal problems. But there are four lessons that could help prevent the next 38 Studios. ????Stop letting politicians play venture capitalist. Most professional venture capitalists lose money, so why would amateurs in political office do any better? Create the conditions for businesses and emerging industries to succeed, and then let the private market have at it. ????If they insist on playing VC, they should share the risk. The most egregious part of Rhode Island's loan to 38 Studios was that it required no validation from outside investors. Venture capitalists, who are always said to have too much money chasing too few deals, had all passed. Did that not set off any alarms in Providence? Say what you will about Solyndra, but at least the company was required to raise private matching funds before getting federal dollars. Obviously it isn't foolproof (see No. 1), but there is judgmental and financial value in shared risk with third parties. |
最新文章