????這是敝人所撰寫的另外一篇有關(guān)風(fēng)險行業(yè)復(fù)雜性和挑戰(zhàn)的文章，借此談?wù)劚秩藢Υ藛栴}的進一步看法。具體來說，本文將教你如何成為一位精明的投資者以及一名能干的有限合伙資金的管家，讓企業(yè)家們對你敬重有加，推崇備至，盡管其中大多數(shù)人最終將失望而歸，因為他們的公司最終并不能拿到所需的投資。直白點來講，要成為一名優(yōu)秀的風(fēng)險資本家你必須做到：替有限合伙人賺錢；為人處事公平、誠實；提出有用的看法，盡管這可能與你的投資決策不一致；報憂的時候要委婉（因為幾乎總是壞消息居多）；你可以讓別人失望，但不能讓別人恨你。大家是不是覺的這是小菜一碟？相信我，恰恰相反。

????讓我們先來說說有限合伙人（LPs）。人們投資風(fēng)險基金的目的只有一個：賺取與風(fēng)險對等的豐厚回報。顧名思義，他們用大量的流動性不足來換取他們所向往的，理所當(dāng)然的，在彩虹那頭堆砌如山的銅板。他們重視“人際關(guān)系”嗎？要知道，這可是風(fēng)險資本家（VC）成名立業(yè)之根本。只有認(rèn)為這種關(guān)系會直接影響到收益的時候，合伙人才會關(guān)心。收益是他們的終極目標(biāo)——過程并不重要。好消息就是普通合伙人知道如何干好本行。壞消息就是做短期暴發(fā)戶容易，做具有長遠眼光的風(fēng)險資本家很難。

????坊間多認(rèn)為資本風(fēng)險家無非就是手里同時握著幾家公司，偶爾做個投資決策，在辦公室擺幾張桌子，暗中運籌帷幄，整天穿著保羅衫和卡其褲，靠著管理費過日子，但我認(rèn)識的風(fēng)險資本家大都忙得焦頭爛額，成天嫌網(wǎng)速太慢。他們每年至少要處理上千個項目，要與傳統(tǒng)的投資公司緊密合作來發(fā)家興業(yè)，而且經(jīng)常抱怨能用來處理問題投資的時間老是不夠，亦或正著手籌集新基金。此外，對于公司，他們盡量做到分內(nèi)之事事必躬親，并樂意花時間捕獲商機，雖然這些商機現(xiàn)階段還欠火候，然而一旦東風(fēng)具備，便“錢”途不可限量。所有這些都需要風(fēng)險資本家奉獻其最寶貴、最稀缺的資源（不是金錢）——時間。

????俗話說“有錢就有權(quán)”，企業(yè)家們經(jīng)常認(rèn)為自己根本無法在話語權(quán)問題上與風(fēng)險資本家抗衡。至少我周邊不是這樣的情況。企業(yè)家做生意需要的資金風(fēng)險資本家有嗎？有。但最優(yōu)秀的企業(yè)家都會同時擁有多家機構(gòu)性投資者（這其中還包括那些財大氣粗的天使投資者）為其投資，對不對？那是自然。

????因此，成為一名成功的風(fēng)險資本家就要學(xué)會推銷，對象包括有限合伙人、公司和潛在的合作對象，就像公司創(chuàng)建之初那樣，拼命籌集資金、推銷產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)，并招聘新人。其實，風(fēng)險資本家和企業(yè)家好比硬幣的正反面，大家都需要吸引并利用資金，然后把錢花在刀刃上，這也是大家賴以生存的根基。既然潛在的機遇和挑戰(zhàn)都是大同小異，敝人實在不理解為什么風(fēng)險資本家和企業(yè)家就不能換位思考一下？“創(chuàng)業(yè)公司投創(chuàng)業(yè)”，這一直是IA Ventures公司的宗旨。我自己就成立了一家公司，因此對于投資對象，我一直懷著滿腔熱忱、寧缺毋濫、小心謹(jǐn)慎的態(tài)度，其實我的投資對象又何嘗不是如此呢。

????創(chuàng)業(yè)很難，真的很難。即便如此，我仍樂此不疲。

????羅杰?恩瑞伯格（Roger Ehrenberg）是IA Ventures公司的創(chuàng)始人。他的博客地址是InformationArbitrage.com

????This is yet another missive on my growing awareness of the complexities and challenges of the venture business. More specifically, how to be a good investor and steward of limited partner capital while being respected, and, in fact, sought after, by entrepreneurs, most of whom you will leave disappointed by not investing in the their company. Let me get this straight -- to be a good VC you have to: make your limited partners money; be fair and honest in all your dealings; provide constructive input, regardless of your investment decision; deliver bad news well (which, by the way, is almost all the time); and avoid being hated by those whom you disappoint. Does anyone think this is easy? I can assure you it is not.

????Let's start with LPs. They invest in venture funds for one reason: to make attractive risk-adjusted returns. By definition, they are accepting a disgusting amount of illiquidity in exchange for what they hope - and expect - to be a lot of coin at the end of the rainbow. Do they care about "people" issues, the very foundation of how a VC builds and maintains their reputation and deal flow? Not unless they perceive those people issues to directly influence their economics. At the end of the day they have a "single bottom line" - how the sausage is made is not really their concern. The good news is that the GP knows what they are managing. The bad news is that being a VC with a long-term perspective is much more complex than maximizing short-run profits.

????Notwithstanding the perception that most VCs see a bunch of companies, make a few investment decisions, sit on a handful of boards, pull meddlesome strings behind the scenes all while wearing Polo shirts and khakis and living off management fees, most venture investors I know are crazy busy and grossly bandwidth constrained. They see hundreds if not thousands of deals a year, have legacy portfolio companies with whom they are working closely to help build their businesses, are spending an unsatisfying amount of time working out problem investments, and might be raising their next fund. Further, they want to be helpful to companies where they can, particularly investing time in opportunities which might be underdeveloped at present but could be attractive investment opportunities after a few key milestones are reached. All of this requires the VCs' most scarce and valuable resource (and it's not money) - time.

????Entrepreneurs often think there is a massive power imbalance between themselves and the VC, as captured by the phrase "Those who have the gold make the rules." At least in my reality this is hardly the case. Do VCs have money that entrepreneurs want and need to execute their plans? Yes. But do the best entrepreneurs have companies which far more than one institutional investor (not to mention large and powerful angel investors) want to fund? Absolutely.

????Being a successful VC involves a lot of selling, to LPs, companies and potential recruits, quite similar to the way a start-up seeks to raise capital, sell its products and services and hire new talent. At the end of the day the VC and the entrepreneur are really two sides of the same coin - they both need to attract and deploy capital in the most effective way possible, and their livelihoods depend upon it. Why there isn't more empathy between VCs and entrepreneurs is beyond me, because the underlying opportunities and challenges are really quite similar. "A start-up investing in start-ups" is how I conceive of IA Ventures. I am the founder of a start-up and have the same passion, laser-focus and insecurities as the companies in which we're investing.

????Building and running a start-up is hard. Really hard. I get it. And there is nothing on this Earth I'd rather be doing.

????Roger Ehrenberg is founder of IA Ventures. He blogs at InformationArbitrage.com