|
在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資界，科技風(fēng)投公司好比是電影明星，生命科學(xué)風(fēng)投公司則是跑龍?zhí)椎??；蛘哒f(shuō)，他們是冠軍與參與獎(jiǎng)的區(qū)別。最近的福布斯最佳創(chuàng)投人排行榜（Forbes Midas List）就說(shuō)明了這一點(diǎn)，排名最前的生命科學(xué)投資人僅在榜單中位列第16名【Venrock風(fēng)投公司（Venrock）的布萊恩?羅伯茨】 但新的研究表明，在過(guò)去的10年中，顛覆性的格局已悄然產(chǎn)生。 最近，風(fēng)投資本家布魯斯?布斯【投資機(jī)構(gòu)Atlas Venture公司（Atlas Venture）】和比讓?賽爾黑嘉德 【高原資本合伙人（Highland Cipital）】逐筆統(tǒng)計(jì)分析了過(guò)去10年中來(lái)自于近1，300家風(fēng)投公司的交易反饋。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在2000-2010年當(dāng)中，在已完成交易方面，投資美國(guó)生命科學(xué)的風(fēng)投資本的總平均內(nèi)部收益率（IRR）達(dá)到了15%。即便將未完成交易統(tǒng)計(jì)在內(nèi)，收益率也達(dá)到了7.4%。相比較而言，同期信息技術(shù)行業(yè)的已完成交易的收益率只有3%，軟件行業(yè)為4.1%。 除此之外，生命科學(xué)每個(gè)子領(lǐng)域的交易至少是信息技術(shù)類子領(lǐng)域的兩倍。這跟90年代相比完全就是一個(gè)大逆轉(zhuǎn)，當(dāng)時(shí)信息技術(shù)交易收益要大大優(yōu)于生命科學(xué)的交易收益。即使不計(jì)算2000年這一網(wǎng)絡(luò)泡沫破滅年份的交易量，結(jié)果也是一樣。 “按照普通合伙人和有限合伙人的說(shuō)法，與信息技術(shù)相比，生命科學(xué)只不過(guò)是風(fēng)投資本的繼子，而且相貌丑陋，”布斯說(shuō)?！八晕覀儗?duì)于研究結(jié)果感到很驚訝?！?/p> 該研究的4個(gè)備注： 1. 研究數(shù)據(jù)是按交易統(tǒng)計(jì)的，不是按基金種類。因此不能就此說(shuō)明生命科學(xué)基金比信息科技基金的收益更高。有些大規(guī)模的生命科學(xué)交易來(lái)自于具有多重商業(yè)性質(zhì)的公司。 2. 數(shù)據(jù)截止時(shí)間是2010年底，因此也就不包括今年大型信息技術(shù)公司的上市，例如職業(yè)社交網(wǎng)站LinkedIn、在線音樂服務(wù)網(wǎng)站Pandora等公司 3.有些讀者對(duì)于我在前一篇文章中采納康橋咨詢公司（Cambridge Associates）數(shù)據(jù)的做法頗有微詞，認(rèn)為這有失公允。不過(guò)康橋公司的數(shù)據(jù)是來(lái)自于基金財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表（不是財(cái)務(wù)調(diào)查）而且大多來(lái)源于康橋公司的有限合伙人的客戶（不是普通合伙人客戶） 4. 最新一期的《自然生物技術(shù)》雜志（Nature Biotechnology）將刊登布斯和賽爾黑嘉德研究之全文，并于7月11日出版。 |
????In the world of venture capital, tech is the movie star and life sciences the second banana. The champion and the also-ran. Just look at the most recent Forbes Midas List, in which the first life sciences investor doesn't appear until #16 (Bryan Roberts of Venrock). ????But new research suggests that this hierarchy has quietly reversed itself over the past decade. ????Venture capitalists Bruce Booth (Atlas Venture) and Bijan Salehizadeh (Highland Capital Partners) recently analyzed the past 10 years of returns from nearly 1,300 VC firms, on a deal-by-deal basis. What they found was that VC investments into U.S. life sciences companies between 2000 and 2010 yielded a gross pooled mean IRR of 15% for realized deals and 7.4% once unrealized deals were included. This compares to a 3% IRR for realized IT deals over the same time period, a 4.1% IRR for realized software deals. ????Moreover, each sub-category of life sciences deals came in at least 2x better than did realized results of IT sub-categories. All of this is a complete reversal of the 1990s, when IT deal performance absolutely dominated life sciences deal performance. And it holds even if you remove deals done in 2000, which was just before the dotcom bubble burst. ????"There is a widely-held perception among both GPs and LPs that life sciences is venture capital's ugly stepchild compared to tech," says Booth. "So we were surprised to find what we did." ????Four notes on the study: ????1. The data is based on deals, not on funds. As such, it does not necessarily mean that funds dedicated to life sciences outperform funds dedicated to IT. Some of the strongest life sciences deals may have come from generalist firms. ????2. The data only goes through the end of 2010, so does not include this year's big tech IPOs like LinkedIn, Pandora, etc. ????3. Some readers complained about selection bias in a prior piece I wrote utilizing Cambridge Associates data. Please remember that CA data is based on fund financial statements (not surveys), and often comes from CA's LP clients (i.e., not GP-directed). ????4. Booth and Salehizadeh have published their entire paper in the new issue of Nature Biotechnology, out today. |
?
相關(guān)稿件
最新文章