風(fēng)投也燒錢(qián)：15億募資周期不到1年 警惕流動(dòng)性問(wèn)題
|
????近來(lái)輿論界似乎有種普遍看法：獲得風(fēng)投撐腰的那些熱門(mén)初創(chuàng)企業(yè)燒錢(qián)太多了。部分錢(qián)被用來(lái)租下高價(jià)寫(xiě)字樓，里面盡是花哨的設(shè)施；而大多數(shù)錢(qián)正被用來(lái)提升收入，因?yàn)榇蟛糠謩?chuàng)業(yè)者發(fā)現(xiàn)，收入對(duì)自己公司未來(lái)估值（無(wú)論是私下還是公開(kāi)估值）的影響，要比利潤(rùn)大得多。 ????上個(gè)月，風(fēng)投資本家比爾?格利接受《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》（Wall Street Journal）采訪時(shí)提到“燒錢(qián)速度”問(wèn)題，引起了人們的重視。上周，他又在消費(fèi)者新聞與財(cái)經(jīng)電視頻道（CNBC）上稱(chēng)這種思路為“不惜一切代價(jià)來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)增長(zhǎng)”，這是一個(gè)瘋狂的循環(huán)過(guò)程，“公司花的錢(qián)越多，就必須籌集更多資金，而后又必須花掉更多的錢(qián)。” ????我同意格利的看法。這可能是因?yàn)槲覀儌z在這個(gè)行當(dāng)待的時(shí)間夠長(zhǎng)，還記得上次曲終人散時(shí)的情形。基于此，我想給出一個(gè)推論，總體而言，風(fēng)投資本家也存在“燒錢(qián)速度”問(wèn)題。 ????風(fēng)投的融資周期已經(jīng)開(kāi)始縮短，特別是對(duì)許多大型風(fēng)投公司而言。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，老虎環(huán)球基金（Tiger Global）正忙于為一只15億美元的新基金募資，離上次他們這么做還不到一年時(shí)間。安德森-霍羅維茨風(fēng)投公司（Andreessen Horowitz）今年3月份結(jié)束了一只15億美元基金的募集工作，距離上一只基金完成募集只有兩年。凱鵬華盈（Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers）在融資方面也只間隔了兩年，貝恩資本風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資公司（Bain Capital Ventures）則隔了兩年半。 ????這些融資活動(dòng)像連珠炮一樣，主要原因就是風(fēng)投公司加快了投資步伐，尤其是為“獨(dú)角獸”式的公司進(jìn)行大規(guī)模融資。如果想在這些估值超過(guò)10億美元的“獨(dú)角獸”公司持有一定股份，最好大把投錢(qián)。而且這樣的投資對(duì)象越多越好。 ????有些風(fēng)投公司燒的一直是自有資金，而且覺(jué)得后續(xù)融資輕而易舉，這種環(huán)境難道不會(huì)對(duì)它們產(chǎn)生不利影響嗎？如果回報(bào)率停滯不前甚至倒退，或風(fēng)投基金的有限合伙人自己也可能出現(xiàn)了流動(dòng)性問(wèn)題時(shí)，他們需要再次籌集資金。沒(méi)錯(cuò)，風(fēng)投公司隨時(shí)可以壓縮融資規(guī)模預(yù)期，但許多大型風(fēng)投公司已經(jīng)建立了龐大的基礎(chǔ)體系，而這些體系高度依賴(lài)大型基金的手續(xù)費(fèi)[格利的基準(zhǔn)資本（Benchmark）顯然是個(gè)例]。這些體系包括內(nèi)部公關(guān)部門(mén)、招聘機(jī)構(gòu)、項(xiàng)目活動(dòng)甚至準(zhǔn)媒體組織。 ????風(fēng)投資本家警告創(chuàng)業(yè)者勿“引火燒身”，這是對(duì)的。但風(fēng)投界也應(yīng)該自我審視一番，因?yàn)樗麄冎械脑S多人都積極參與了類(lèi)似的循環(huán)，不停地投資-融資-再投資。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)） ????譯者：Charlie ????審校：Lina |
????There seems to be an emerging consensus that popular venture-backed startups are burning too much cash. Some of it is spent on high-rent offices will all sorts of extraneous amenities. Most of it is spent on growing top-line financials, as most entrepreneurs have figured out that future valuations (whether private or public) are tied much more closely to revenue than they are to profit. ????The “burn rate” issue was brought to the forefront last month by venture capitalist Bill Gurley in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. Last week on CNBC, he called it a “growth at all costs mentality” — a fiery cycle in which companies spend more so they must raise more so they must spend more.” ????I agree with Gurley, perhaps because we both have been around long enough to remember what happened the last time the music stopped. And, with that in mind, I’d like to offer a corollary: Venture capitalists, by and large, also have a burn rate problem. ????The venture capital fundraising cycle has compressed, particularly for many of the industry’s largest firms. Tiger Global, for example, is raising a new $1.5 billion fund less than a year after raising its last $1.5 billion fund. Andreessen Horowitz closed its own $1.5 billion fund back in March, just two years after its predecessor. Kleiner Perkins Caufield& Byers also waited just two years, while Bain Capital Ventures held out for 2.5 years. ????One big reason for these rapid-fire fundraises are that firms have quickened their investment paces, particularly when it comes to participating in large rounds for so-called unicorns. If you want to own a meaningful stake in a company that’s already valued at $1 billion, then you had better write a big check. And the more such portfolio companies the better. ????d many of those cash-burning startups? Wouldn’t the same environment adversely affect the VC firms that have been “burning” their own cash, under the presumption of an easy follow-on fundraise? Limited partners would be asked to re-up at a time when returns have flatten/fallen, and when they may have their own liquidity troubles. Yes, VC firms could always scale back new fund expectations, but many of the larger ones have built up giant infrastructures that are heavily reliant on fees that come with giant funds (Gurley’s Benchmark is a notable exception here). In-house PR, recruiters, events and even quasi-media organizations. ????Venture capitalists are right to warn entrepreneurs of getting caught with their pants singed. But VCs also should look in the mirror, because many of them are active participants in a similar cycle of spend/raise/spend. |
最新文章