活躍風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資公司已不足百家？
|
????自從網(wǎng)絡(luò)運(yùn)送服務(wù)商Kozmo.com倒閉以來(lái)，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資家們就在討論行業(yè)重組。最新數(shù)據(jù)顯示，行業(yè)的頹勢(shì)比人們此前想象的更嚴(yán)峻，目前活躍在科技行業(yè)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資公司已經(jīng)不足一百家。 ????數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)自“基金中的基金”管理公司Flag Capital。日前，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家馬克?蘇斯特在一次會(huì)議演示中引用了這些數(shù)據(jù)。蘇斯特演示的幻燈片如下： |
????Venture capitalists have been talking about an industry shakeout since Kozmo.com delivered its last box of doughnuts. New data suggests the decline has been more severe than previously thought, finding fewer than 100 active U.S. VC firms in the technology sector. ????The numbers come from fund-of-funds manager Flag Capital, and recently were cited in a conference presentation by venture capitalist Mark Suster. Here was Suster's slide: |
|
????重要的是，F(xiàn)lag公司的數(shù)據(jù)剔除了那些不再進(jìn)行新投資的“僵尸”風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資基金。只有那些一年內(nèi)至少進(jìn)行了4筆新投資（且在嚴(yán)格意義上，部署資金總額不少于400萬(wàn)美元）的公司，才會(huì)被Flag定義為“活躍”公司。 ????Flag副總裁柯爾斯頓?莫林稱：“我們的初衷是想了解一下到底有多少活躍風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資。一些人將‘活躍’定義為過(guò)去8年至少有過(guò)一筆投資，不過(guò)我們發(fā)現(xiàn)如果這樣算的話，現(xiàn)在的活躍風(fēng)投可謂多如牛毛。于是我們特意排除了追加投資，以便更好地了解那些真正在投資新項(xiàng)目的公司，而不是那些勉力維持——追加投資純粹是為了避免股權(quán)被稀釋（并寄希望于發(fā)生點(diǎn)什么事，使其能募集后期基金）的公司。有趣的是，如果回過(guò)頭看看2000年，如今的活躍風(fēng)投數(shù)量要比那時(shí)少了很多。” ????同時(shí)，F(xiàn)lag的數(shù)據(jù)還表明，2010至2012年間，“活躍”風(fēng)投公司的數(shù)量略有回升，或許是因?yàn)樵诖似陂g，不少以前的天使投資人紛紛成立了小型的風(fēng)投基金。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)） ????譯者：項(xiàng)航 |
????What's important about Flag's data is that it excludes the legions of "zombie" venture capital funds that no longer make new investments. It does so by qualifying "active" firms made a minimum of four new investments over the course of a year (and technically deployed at least $4 million total). ????"The original intent of the exercise was to try to get a sense of how many firms are truly active," explains Kirsten Morin, a vice president with Flag. "Others define 'active' as those firms that have raised a fund in the last eight years, but as we look around it doesn't feel as though there are [hundreds] of active firms today. We specifically excluded follow-on investments to try to gain a better understanding of those firms actually deploying fresh capital versus those just running on fumes -- in many cases only deploying capital in follow-ons to avoid dilution (and, of course, with the hope that something would break out and propel them to a successor fund). Interestingly, if you look back to 2000, the shakeout in active firms by that definition actually happened pretty quickly." ????Flag's data also suggests a modest comeback between 2010 and 2012, perhaps owing to the rise of micro-VC funds by investors who previously were acting as individual angels. |
最新文章