立即打开
企业家来自火星,风险资本家…同样来自火星

企业家来自火星,风险资本家…同样来自火星

Roger Ehrenberg 2011年07月11日
企业家们经常认为自己根本无法在话语权方面与风险资本家抗衡。事实并非如此。

    这是敝人所撰写的另外一篇有关风险行业复杂性和挑战的文章,借此谈谈敝人对此问题的进一步看法。具体来说,本文将教你如何成为一位精明的投资者以及一名能干的有限合伙资金的管家,让企业家们对你敬重有加,推崇备至,尽管其中大多数人最终将失望而归,因为他们的公司最终并不能拿到所需的投资。直白点来讲,要成为一名优秀的风险资本家你必须做到:替有限合伙人赚钱;为人处事公平、诚实;提出有用的看法,尽管这可能与你的投资决策不一致;报忧的时候要委婉(因为几乎总是坏消息居多);你可以让别人失望,但不能让别人恨你。大家是不是觉的这是小菜一碟?相信我,恰恰相反。

    让我们先来说说有限合伙人(LPs)。人们投资风险基金的目的只有一个:赚取与风险对等的丰厚回报。顾名思义,他们用大量的流动性不足来换取他们所向往的,理所当然的,在彩虹那头堆砌如山的铜板。他们重视“人际关系”吗?要知道,这可是风险资本家(VC)成名立业之根本。只有认为这种关系会直接影响到收益的时候,合伙人才会关心。收益是他们的终极目标——过程并不重要。好消息就是普通合伙人知道如何干好本行。坏消息就是做短期暴发户容易,做具有长远眼光的风险资本家很难。

    坊间多认为资本风险家无非就是手里同时握着几家公司,偶尔做个投资决策,在办公室摆几张桌子,暗中运筹帷幄,整天穿着保罗衫和卡其裤,靠着管理费过日子,但我认识的风险资本家大都忙得焦头烂额,成天嫌网速太慢。他们每年至少要处理上千个项目,要与传统的投资公司紧密合作来发家兴业,而且经常抱怨能用来处理问题投资的时间老是不够,亦或正着手筹集新基金。此外,对于公司,他们尽量做到分内之事事必躬亲,并乐意花时间捕获商机,虽然这些商机现阶段还欠火候,然而一旦东风具备,便“钱”途不可限量。所有这些都需要风险资本家奉献其最宝贵、最稀缺的资源(不是金钱)——时间。

    俗话说“有钱就有权”,企业家们经常认为自己根本无法在话语权问题上与风险资本家抗衡。至少我周边不是这样的情况。企业家做生意需要的资金风险资本家有吗?有。但最优秀的企业家都会同时拥有多家机构性投资者(这其中还包括那些财大气粗的天使投资者)为其投资,对不对?那是自然。

    因此,成为一名成功的风险资本家就要学会推销,对象包括有限合伙人、公司和潜在的合作对象,就像公司创建之初那样,拼命筹集资金、推销产品和服务,并招聘新人。其实,风险资本家和企业家好比硬币的正反面,大家都需要吸引并利用资金,然后把钱花在刀刃上,这也是大家赖以生存的根基。既然潜在的机遇和挑战都是大同小异,敝人实在不理解为什么风险资本家和企业家就不能换位思考一下?“创业公司投创业”,这一直是IA Ventures公司的宗旨。我自己就成立了一家公司,因此对于投资对象,我一直怀着满腔热忱、宁缺毋滥、小心谨慎的态度,其实我的投资对象又何尝不是如此呢。

    创业很难,真的很难。即便如此,我仍乐此不疲。

    罗杰•恩瑞伯格(Roger Ehrenberg)是IA Ventures公司的创始人。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

  • 热读文章
  • 热门视频
活动
扫码打开财富Plus App