風(fēng)投模式的新老之爭
|
????即便是堪稱新模式教父的First Round Capital創(chuàng)立也不滿10年。而且，雖然它迄今為止的回報一直相當強勁，但它們不一定比Foundry Group、星火資本（Spark Capital）或合廣投資（Union Square Ventures）的回報率高——這幾家都是相對年輕的公司，主要采用經(jīng)典模式?；蛘?，像凱鵬華盈（Kleiner Perkins）這樣更老一點的公司，擁有人力資源合作伙伴、市場營銷合作伙伴（而且已有時日）。 ????我們真正需要的是更多的時間來觀察新型風(fēng)投和經(jīng)典風(fēng)投是否存在統(tǒng)計學(xué)上的差異，還是每個陣營中只是有幾個異數(shù)。如果是前者，那么“失敗”的一方需要進行調(diào)整。如果是后者，這將推翻萊西的主旨思想（文章題目沒有很好地體現(xiàn)）。 ????與此同時，當今的創(chuàng)業(yè)者不應(yīng)該按模式來評判風(fēng)投。不管它們是多么新潮，還是多么經(jīng)典。（財富中文網(wǎng)）?? |
????Even First Round Capital, arguably the new model's godfather, was founded less than a decade ago. And while its returns so far have been very strong, they are not necessarily better than those produced by Foundry Group, Spark Capital or Union Square Ventures -- all relatively young firms that primarily employ classic models. Or an older firm like Kleiner Perkins, which has an HR partner, marketing partner, etc. (and has for some time). ????What we really need is more time to see if there is a statistical differentiation between new and classic VC, or just several outliers in both camps. If the former, then the "losing" side will need to make adjustments. If the latter, then it would validate Lacy's central thesis (which isn't terribly well-served by her post's title). ????In the meantime, today's entrepreneurs shouldn't judge a VC firm by its model. No matter how novel or antiquated. |
最新文章