????成長型股權投資市場已經(jīng)今非昔比。過去是早期風投只做早期投資，后期風投只做后期投資，公開上市股票投資者只投資公開交易的股票。但最近，我在進行新一輪融資時驚奇地發(fā)現(xiàn)，如今似乎誰都在投資后期非上市公司。

????當然，這不是什么“官方”觀點，但我在與不同類型的投資者接觸后形成了這樣的看法。

????1.擁有成長型股權基金的典型早期風投公司——比如，紅杉（Sequoia）、Accel、General Catalyst、Redpoint和DFJ等等。他們通常會用新的團隊設立新的基金，專注于投資后期公司。據(jù)我所知，他們提供的資金從1,500萬至1億美元不等，他們整體而言對估值相當敏感。他們通常想獲得一個董事會席位，他們的知識、關系網(wǎng)和出身背景也確實可以增加很多價值——紅杉曾經(jīng)領投HubSpot最新一輪融資，歷來在這方面出手不凡。

????2.后期風投基金——比如，Meritech、Adams Street、August、Norwest、 Tenaya、Questmark、SAP和DAG，等等。這些基金只做后期股權投資，據(jù)我所知，他們提供的資金在1,000萬美元至4,000萬美元之間。我認為，他們在估值方面沒有傳統(tǒng)的早期投資人那么敏感。他們通常在參與公司管理方面會保持一點距離，獲得董事會觀察員席位——他們似乎總是追隨一流的早期投資者，依賴他們的建議和關系網(wǎng)。

????3.大手筆的后期風投基金——GA、TCV等等，似乎只做后期股權投資，投資金額在4,000萬美元以上。我認為它們對估值相對敏感。但請注意，我的樣本規(guī)模較小。看起來他們想獲得董事會席位，參與企業(yè)管理——而且，他們可以提供很多價值。

????4.私募股權基金——TA、Summit等等，我對這些公司了解最少，但我的感覺是他們做后期投資，而且提供“大筆”資金。他們似乎熱衷于全盤收購現(xiàn)有投資者的股權，注入一些經(jīng)營資金以及提高負債。這種做法或許不錯，但對于一家已經(jīng)有很多風投資金的公司而言就很難奏效。我的感覺是，他們希望參與公司管理，能提供很多價值。

????5.公眾基金——這一撥人是富達（Fidelity）、T. Rowe、Janus、Cross Creek/Wasatch、Altimeter、Tiger和摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）這樣的投資者。他們依靠公眾股權基金投資，單筆投資資金似乎1,000萬美元以上，對估值略不敏感（我們稍后將討論原因）。他們是財務投資者，不想過度介入，也就是說大多數(shù)情況下，不會要求獲得董事席位或觀察員席位。

公眾投資者投資私營公司的驚人價值

????我們選擇了公眾基金——上述第五類——而非私募基金，是有三大原因。這三大原因?qū)ξ覀円饬x非凡，但對貴公司也許毫無意義。

????1.一家公司上市后，公眾投資者傾向于增持這家公司的股票，而私募投資者往往會賣出原來所持股票。風投基金的激勵體系就是這樣，在所投資公司IPO后一個合理時間段后，他們將賣出股票，將利潤分配給投資者。我的感覺是，IPO與風投投資者售股之間的時間差長短不一。公司狀況越好，他們繼續(xù)持有的可能性越大。不過，我覺得傳統(tǒng)風投在公開市場上買入更多股票的情形相當罕見。需要指出的一點是，賣出與否并不是最重要的。

????Times have changed in the growth equity game. It used to be that early-stage venture folks just did early-stage investing, late-stage venture folks just did late stage investing, and public equity investors only invested in publicly traded stocks. What surprised me when raising new funding is that now, it seems like everybody invests in late-stage private companies.

????This is certainly not the "official" way to look at it, but here's the way I ended up bucketing types of investors in my own head.

????1.Typical Early Stage VC Firms with Growth Equity Funds – These are folks like Sequoia, Accel, General Catalyst, Redpoint, DFJ, etc., that have typically started new funds with new teams focused only on investing in late stage companies. They write checks from $15 million to $100 million as far as I can tell, and I think they're pretty valuation sensitive as a group. They usually want to take a board seat and can add a lot of value in terms of knowledge, connections, and pedigree -- Sequoia led HubSpot's last round and has been huge on those fronts.

????2.Late Stage VC Funds – Think Meritech, Adams Street, August, Norwest, Tenaya, Questmark, SAP, and DAG. These folks only do late-stage equity and write checks from $10 million to $40 million as far as I can tell. I think they are less valuation sensitive than the traditionally early stage folks. They are typically a bit more arms length in their level of involvement which often translates into a board observer seat -- they seem to follow-on the top tier early stage folks and rely on them for their advice and connections.

????3.Big Check Late Stage Funds – GA, TCV, etc. seem to only do late stage equity and write checks north of $40 million. I think they are relatively valuation sensitive, but keep in mind I only have a small sample size here. It seems they'll want a board seat and to be very involved – and they can add a lot of value.

????4.Private Equity Funds – TA, Summit, etc. are the types of firms I know the least about, but my sense is that these folks do late stage investing and write "biggish" checks. They seem to be wired to buy out existing investors, put in some working capital, and raise debt. This can be a great approach for a company, but it's probably hard to work for a firm that already has a lot of venture money in it. My sense is that they want to be involved and are value-add.

????5.Public Funds – The last bucket is folks like Fidelity, T. Rowe, Janus, Cross Creek/Wasatch, Altimeter, Tiger and Morgan Stanley. They invest out of public equity funds, seem to write checks from $10 million on up, and tend to be slightly less valuation sensitive (we'll talk about why below). They are financial investors and do not want to be overly involved, which means no board seats or observer seats for the most part.

The Surprising Value Of Public Investors Investing In Your Private Company

????We went with public funds -- #5 above -- not private funds for three main reasons that made a lot of sense for us, though they might not make sense for your company:

????1.Public investors tend to buy more of your shares after you go public, while private investors will typically look to sell their shares after you go public. The venture funds incentive system is set up such that they are supposed to sell the shares and distribute the profits to their investors after a reasonable time elapses following the IPO. My sense is that the period of time between when you go public and when they sell varies widely, and the better the firm's footing the more likely it is they will hold. Having said that, I think it's pretty rare that the traditional venture folks actually buy more in the public markets. It's important to note that this does not matter if your most likely outcome is a trade sale.