“创始人友好型”创投即将成为历史

在“独角兽时代”刚刚到来的时候，一家名叫“锋锐资本”的风投机构曾经宣布，公司将放弃对所投资的初创公司创始人投反对票的权利。当时这种做法还很少见，《纽约时报》曾表示，这说明了风投资本家们“把创业者当皇上一样供着。”

在创业界内部，锋锐资本的这种表态也受到了广泛好评，成为“创业者友好型”创投的又一范本。曾几何时，董事会一旦觉得创始人跟不上公司的增长节奏，往往就会二话不说地将他换掉，另外聘请一个CEO来摘桃子。而马克·扎克伯格却开启了一种全新的模式，防止了有第二个乔布斯因为不成熟或者缺乏管理经验之类的原因被风投赶出公司。这样一来，创始人就能保住他们的CEO职位，只需要再聘请一个雪莉·桑德伯格之类的管理高才，就可以替他们搞定公司日常管理中的琐碎事。

风投机构ffVC甚至在自己的名字中也不忘标榜这一理念，“ff”就是英文“创始人友好型”的缩写。这种情形在创投界变得越来越普遍，我甚至觉得就算他们投资的创始人杀了人，风投也有法子让他逃避法律的制裁。“不信试试——随便找个人杀杀，我们一点也不在乎，记得花我们的钱哦！”

为啥风投对创业者会像霸道总裁对白莲花一样宠溺呢？因为狼多肉少，风投的钱太多了，而值得投资的初创公司则是稀缺的。这种相对的稀缺性是不太可能改观的，不过我认为，近来的几起事件有可能会给风投当头一棒，让他们重新加大对所投资公司的控制。

首先，我们来看看Blue Apron和Snap这两家公司糟糕的股市业绩。这两家公司的股票结构都是不利于投资人的。Snap更是将公司的所有控制权赋予了其创始人。Blue Apron在六月份上市之前将它的建议IPO价格凭空砍掉了３４％，才过了6个星期，它的交易价格又被腰斩了50%。另外，标普和富时也表示，鉴于Snap的普通股无投票权，这两家公司将不会把Snap股票纳入他们各自的指数，因此，被动投资者们将根本无法接触到他们的股票。

接下来是Uber的例子。在经历了公开撕逼后，Uber公司CEO特拉维斯·卡兰尼克被董事会逼着辞了职，不过他仍然拥有公司10%的股权和16%的投票权。今年8月，Uber的早期投资者Benchmark公司出乎意料地对卡兰尼克提起诉讼，控告他涉嫌欺诈，违反信托责任，徇私枉法。（卡兰尼克的发言人表示，这起诉讼“充满了谎言和不实指控”。）

投资者们终于开始意识到，他们在所谓的“创始人友好型投资”上，犯了“是我给你自由过了火”的右倾投降主义错误。创始人们或许也已经意识到，如果他们想让公司上市，就必须要放弃一部分对公司的控制权。“独角兽时代”使很多创业公司长期保持私有化，避免了外部的仔细审查。而随后即将到来的“冷静创投”时代，将意味着这些公司终将成长为负责任的成年人。

最近，各大出版商一窝蜂地炮制出了许多“成长”主题的书，目的就是要给那些不成熟的千禧一代“催熟”。或许出版界也应该考虑出一本创业题材的成长指南了。（财富中文网）

本文另载于2017年9月1日刊的《财富》。

译者：贾政景

At the dawn of the Age of Unicorns, a venture capital firm called Felicis Ventures announced it would forgo its right to vote against the founders of its portfolio companies. Giving up those rights was a curious move; the New York Times declared it as evidence that venture capitalists were “coddling entrepreneurs as royalty.”

Inside startup circles, though, the announcement was applauded as another positive step for “founder-friendly” investing. In the past, boards of directors would push aside startup founders when the top job outgrew them. The new approach, ushered in by Mark Zuckerberg, prevents venture investors from forcing a future Steve Jobs out of his or her startup for reasons of, say, immaturity or a total lack of management experience. Instead, those founders get to keep their CEO jobs and simply “hire a Sheryl Sandberg” to deal with the tedious matter of running a company.

Venture firm ffVC even named itself after the concept; the “ff” stands for “founder-friendly.” The stance has become so popular that I’m waiting for a venture firm to declare it will let founders literally get away with murder: “Seriously, try it—just kill someone! We don’t even care, just take our money.”

Why are venture capitalists so eager to seem like “cool moms” to founders? Because competition hurts leverage. (Or in VC parlance, there’s too much money chasing too few deals.) That dynamic isn’t likely to change, but I predict recent events might bring strong governance back into fashion.

See the disappointing stock performance of Blue Apron and Snap, two companies with share structures that deny voting rights to investors and in Snap’s case, give total control to the founders. Blue Apron slashed its proposed IPO price by 34% before its June offering; six weeks later, its shares were trading 50% below that. Meanwhile Standard & Poor’s and FTSE Russell declared that, because of Snap’s nonvoting class of common shares, they would exclude the company from their indexes, blocking its access to an entire class of passive investors.

And then there’s Uber. Despite years of misbehavior, CEO Travis Kalanick was pressured to resign by the board only after a messy, public fight. He still owns a 10% stake and 16% of the voting power. In August, early investor Benchmark took the extraordinary step to sue Kalanick for fraud and breaching his fiduciary duty to investors by advancing “his own selfish ends.” (A spokesperson for Kalanick said the suit is “riddled with lies and false allegations.”)

Investors are finally realizing they went too far with the “founder-friendly” thing. And founders may be realizing that if they want their companies to go public, they need to give up some control. The Age of Unicorns did these companies a disservice by allowing them to stay private and avoid scrutiny. The Age of Startup Sobriety suggests it’s time they grow up.

Recently, publishers have been churning out books about “adulting,” meant to deliver tough love to immature millennials. Maybe they should consider selling a startup edition. 

A version of this article appears in the Sept. 1, 2017 issue of Fortune with the headline "Once Coddled, Now Curbed."