????“如果披露未上市的、獲風(fēng)投支持公司的財(cái)務(wù)數(shù)據(jù),，會(huì)毀了它們,。”
????這是2002年一位風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資人對(duì)我說(shuō)的話,，當(dāng)時(shí)圍繞公共養(yǎng)老金體系是否應(yīng)披露其風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資和私募股權(quán)投資的具體回報(bào)率數(shù)據(jù)有一場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論,。事實(shí)上當(dāng)時(shí)根本沒(méi)人認(rèn)為應(yīng)進(jìn)行組合層面的披露，但風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本時(shí)常抬出“滑坡論”(slippery slope),，因?yàn)樗麄兒ε屡恫焕幕貓?bào)率數(shù)據(jù)(即用所投資公司的良好現(xiàn)狀掩蓋投資者尷尬),。
????快進(jìn)到9年后的今天，似乎相應(yīng)組合的數(shù)據(jù)有望披露。但披露將是有限的,，而且是基于自愿,。
????我的意思是：目前風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本達(dá)成的共識(shí)是，創(chuàng)始人應(yīng)在退出前獲得部分股份流動(dòng)性,，而且這對(duì)公司是有益的(當(dāng)你無(wú)須擔(dān)心買(mǎi)車款時(shí),，更能集中精力工作)。當(dāng)然,，這并非適用于所有公司,，但適用于那些一段時(shí)間以來(lái)已有營(yíng)收的公司。
????不過(guò),，問(wèn)題在于絕大部分此類公司發(fā)現(xiàn)很難利用被大肆宣揚(yáng)的二級(jí)市場(chǎng)——在這個(gè)市場(chǎng)中占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位的是面向消費(fèi)者,、個(gè)人投資者能“參與”的企業(yè)。在財(cái)務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)未知的情況下買(mǎi)入Facebook股票是一回事,，但買(mǎi)入一家私人持股的導(dǎo)管生產(chǎn)商或人力資源管理軟件公司,，又是另一回事。
????當(dāng)然,，增加流動(dòng)性不一定需要個(gè)人投資者參與,。你也可以通過(guò)新一輪融資來(lái)增加流動(dòng)性，融資可包括一些套現(xiàn)條款[多年前有Webroot,，近期有39desgins,、高朋（Groupon）等]。你也可以通過(guò)“傳統(tǒng)”的二級(jí)市場(chǎng)來(lái)做(Saints Capital,、 Millennium,、W Capital、Industry Ventures等等),。不過(guò)這兩種方式對(duì)現(xiàn)有投資者可能都有一定的稀釋效應(yīng),。
????真正的目的是接觸到個(gè)人投資者，最好的辦法是通過(guò)像SecondMarket這樣的平臺(tái)披露某些財(cái)務(wù)信息,。而且,，根據(jù)與硅谷風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資人的交談，很快就會(huì)有此類行動(dòng),。
????“所有財(cái)務(wù)信息都保密顯然具有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì),，但現(xiàn)在為了幫助公司創(chuàng)始人和雇員套現(xiàn)，披露其中一些信息也能帶來(lái)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì),，”一個(gè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資人日前告訴我,。
????當(dāng)然，這不同于在一個(gè)公共養(yǎng)老金網(wǎng)站公布相應(yīng)財(cái)務(wù)數(shù)據(jù),，那樣所有人都能看到,。潛在投資者可表達(dá)初步意向,，由公司在投資者中有選擇地分享數(shù)據(jù)。但事實(shí)上,，吸引此類意向的最好辦法是首先披露少許防火墻后的數(shù)據(jù),。而且，由于個(gè)人投資者對(duì)面向消費(fèi)者以外的公司興趣相對(duì)缺乏,，公司在決定與哪些投資者分享數(shù)據(jù)時(shí)可能不會(huì)有太多限制條件,。
????必須重申，這不是完全的透明,，但這也不是企業(yè)自殺行為,。 |
|
|
????"If you disclose the underlying financials of still-private, VC-backed companies, you will destroy them."
????That's what a venture capitalist told me in 2002, amidst debate over whether or not public pension systems should disclose fund-specific performance data for their VC and PE investments. No one was actually advocating for portfolio-level disclosure at the time, but the "slippery slope" argument was regularly employed by VCs who were terrified of recessionary returns being publicized (i.e., portfolio company wellbeing used as cover for investor embarrassment).
????Fast forward nine years, and it appears that underlying portfolio disclosure is coming. It will be limited. And it will be voluntary.
????Here's what I mean: VC consensus now is that company founders not only deserve partial liquidity pre-exit, but also that it is beneficial for the company (easier to concentrate on work when you're not worrying about car payments). Not applicable to all companies, of course, but for revenue-generating companies that have been around for a while.
????The problem, however, is that the vast majority of these companies have a very difficult time tapping the hyped-up secondary markets – which are dominated by consumer-facing companies that retail buyers can "play" with. It's one thing to buy Facebook shares without knowing the financials, but it's quite another to buy a privately-held maker of catheters or HR management software.
????To be sure, retail investors are not required for incremental liquidity. You could get some via a new funding round that also includes some cash-out provisions (done years ago by Webroot, and more recently by 39desgins, Groupon, etc.), or via the "traditional" secondaries market (Saints Capital, Millennium, W Capital, Industry Ventures, etc.). Both of those options, however, are likely to include some sort of dilution for existing investors.
????The real goal is to access those retail investors, and the best way to do it is by disclosing certain pieces of financial information via a platform like SecondMarket. And, from speaking to VCs out here inSilicon Valley, that's exactly what's about to begin happening.
????"There are obviously competitive advantages of keeping all of your financial information private, but there now are competitive advantages of letting some of it loose in order to help out founders and company employees," one VC told me yesterday.
????To be sure, this isn't the same as publishing underlying financials on a public pension website where anyone can view it. Prospective investors would indicate basic interest, and companies can pick and choose with whom to share data. The reality, however, is that the best way to attract that interest in the first place is to let a few to-line numbers out behind the firewall. And, given the relative dearth of retail interest beyond consumer-facing companies, it's unlikely that companies will be too restrictive on who they hand keys out to.
????Again, this isn't total transparency. But it also isn't corporate suicide. |
