下面我们再来看看这两家公司成立3-5年后的表现.

    Let's look at years 3-5 of the two companies.

    虽然头几年公司B的业绩看来更稳健，但最终是公司A的人员投资令其获得更高的年增长率。到了第五年年底，公司A累积盈利1,400万美元（收益减去各年投资），而公司B累积盈利却只有500万美元。

    如今公司A的年营业收入为4,700万美元，公司B仅为1,200万美元，因此6-10年的前景对于公司A而言也更光明。

    现在，我知道我当初该投资哪家公司了。成长才是关键。

    但不妨设想一个更极端的情形，我们姑且称之为“超高成长”互联网公司。你知道此类公司由于没有实现盈利，往往立刻会遭到无知评论者的抨击，指责其浪费挥霍。

    Even though Company B initially looked prudent, it turns out that the investment that Company A made in people led to a higher annual growth rate. At the end of year 5 Company A has earned $14 million in cumulative profits (gains – investment years) while Company B has made $5 million.

    Company A is now doing $47 million in annual revenue which Company B is doing $12 so years 6-10 appear rosier for Company A as well.

    I know which company I'd rather have invested in. Growth matters.

    But let's consider an even more aggressive scenario. Let's call it the "super high growth" Internet company. You know, the kind that unknowing commentators would be quick to lambast as being wasteful because it's not profitable.

    上图这家公司将必须筹集至少3,500万美元的风险资本来支撑这样的运营。更有可能的情况是它筹集了5,000万美元或更多。请注意，这可能要通过2-3轮融资，并非所有资金都能预先到位或者一次性到位。

    疯狂？愚蠢？难道它不应当放缓运营支出、“实现盈利”吗？

    还是得看情况。如果公司成长速度像图表中反映的一样惊人，如果它们能够获得廉价的资本，那么它们不进行风险融资，只是一味要盈利，那才是疯了。

    这就是盈利与成长之间的取舍。如果不把今天的盈利投资到明天的成长上，当然可以推高利润。

    下一次如果还有记者想抨击亚马逊（Amazon）没有实现更高的盈利时，我希望他们能够理解这一点。亚马逊保持着这么高速的成长，当然需要将当前的部分利润投资于公司成长。

    如果一家公司不能实现足够快的成长，那么它应当把公司的利润用来做些其他事情，比方说回馈股东。

    马克•萨斯特2007年加盟GRP Partners，担任一般合伙人，此前他将自己的公司售予了企业云计算公司Salesforce.com。他专注于早期科技公司。他的博客地址Bothsidesofthetable.com。

    The company would have had to raise at least $35 million in venture capital to have funded operations like this. More likely it raised $50 million or more. Note that it likely raised this in 2-3 tranches, not all up front or all at once.

    Crazy? Stupid? Should it have slowed down operating costs in order to "make a profit."

    Again, it depends. If the growth is as spectacular as it is here and IF they have access to cheap capital then they'd be crazy not to have raised the VC and instead stayed unprofitable.

    This is the trade-off between profits & growth. You can drive profits up by not investing today's dollars in tomorrow's growth.

    The next time a journalist wants to slam Amazon (AMZN) for not being more profitable I wish they'd understand this. Amazon is continuing to grow at such a rapid pace that of course it should take some of today's profits and reinvest them in growth.

    If there is a company that can't grow fast enough then they should do other things with their profits, like return it to shareholders.

    Mark Suster joined GRP Partners in 2007 as a general partner after selling his company to Salesforce.com. He focuses on early-stage technology companies. He blogs at Bothsidesofthetable.com.