????過(guò)去幾年，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資基金領(lǐng)域的一大趨勢(shì)是大型機(jī)構(gòu)投資者的錢(qián)越來(lái)越向少數(shù)風(fēng)投經(jīng)理、旗艦品牌和/或新興的明星經(jīng)理集中。

????由于風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資基金大多同質(zhì)化，有限合伙人幾乎別無(wú)選擇，只能更多地倚重歷史回報(bào)數(shù)據(jù)。

????如今，整體市場(chǎng)正處于大幅收縮期（這里說(shuō)的是“活躍的”風(fēng)投公司數(shù)量），每家風(fēng)投公司都必須回答一個(gè)根本的生存問(wèn)題：為什么存在？除了將資金從A投入到B、從中抽取管理費(fèi)之外，有什么確鑿的理由繼續(xù)存在嗎？你代表什么？為什么市場(chǎng)需要你？

????因此，有限合伙人做了兩件事：

????1、將資金更多地向少數(shù)風(fēng)投經(jīng)理集中

????2、將資金投向差異化的風(fēng)投產(chǎn)品

????風(fēng)投公司可以大致分為四類：

?????旗艦品牌。擁有一流的風(fēng)投經(jīng)理，有能力贏得任何金額的光環(huán)交易，比如Accel、紅杉（Sequoia）、A16Z、凱鵬華盈（KPCB)、格雷洛克（Greylock）和星火資本（Spark Capital）等。

?????高度專業(yè)化的風(fēng)投公司。在特定領(lǐng)域占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位，但（大多）維持較小的規(guī)模，比如USV、Foundry、基準(zhǔn)資本（Benchmark）、首輪資本（First Round）等。

?????實(shí)現(xiàn)重生或大跨越的老品牌。它們?cè)谌碌囊话愫匣锶祟I(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，重現(xiàn)活力并顯現(xiàn)出好于行業(yè)整體表現(xiàn)的跡象，比如CRV、Mayfield和Atlas Venture——通常信奉“小而專”（如前述）。

?????新興的明星經(jīng)理和超級(jí)天使基金，規(guī)模已經(jīng)達(dá)到機(jī)構(gòu)投資，是上述類型的加強(qiáng)版，比如IA Ventures、True Ventures、Felicis、Softtech等。

????無(wú)論選擇哪種策略，風(fēng)投公司必須能令人信服地回答這個(gè)根本的生存問(wèn)題：為什么存在？

????任何一家風(fēng)投公司在自我推介時(shí)，都會(huì)把自家的策略包裝成能夠取得成功的策略。這些常見(jiàn)的討論有時(shí)令人莞爾：小基金、還是大基金，相信或不相信種子投資。只投資種子/加速期或任何你認(rèn)為在融資周期中最好的投資期。

????比如，恩頤投資（NEA）信奉“大就是好”，大基金變得越來(lái)越大，是因?yàn)樗麄儽憩F(xiàn)更好。與之形成鮮明對(duì)比的是，基準(zhǔn)資本的比爾?格利對(duì)有限合伙人所說(shuō)的：“你在場(chǎng)內(nèi)。如果你（把你的資本）過(guò)量配置勻給排名前1/4的公司，就會(huì)影響到事態(tài)的發(fā)展。（...）如果你問(wèn)人們會(huì)不會(huì)持有過(guò)多資金，回答是肯定的。”

????現(xiàn)實(shí)的狀況是，不管進(jìn)行多少歷史市場(chǎng)數(shù)據(jù)分析，都不能告訴你將來(lái)應(yīng)該投資哪只基金，特別是考慮到現(xiàn)在市場(chǎng)變化如此之快。如果下次再有人告訴你，他找到了確保自己基金能夠賺錢(qián)的、萬(wàn)無(wú)一失的方法，就把下面這張表格發(fā)給他吧。

????The big story of the past few years in Venture Fund Land has been that large institutional investors concentrate money with fewer managers and flagship brands and/or find emerging managers.

????Since VC offerings have generally been undifferentiated, LP's had little choice but to overweight historical returns in their decision making algorithms.

????Now the market is in radical reduction mode (speaking of the number of active venture firms out there) and every venture firm has to answer a simple existential question : Why do you even exist? Is there a valid reason to continue beyond the funneling of money from A to B and the siphoning of management fees? What do you stand for? Why does the market need you?

????So the LP's have done two things:

????1.Concentrate more money with fewer managers

????2.Radically concentrate their bets into differentiated offerings

????You can group these offerings into four broad categories:

?????Flagship brands with both exceptional entrepreneur mindshare able to compete at whatever dollar amount required for halo deals (Accel, Sequoia, A16Z, KPCB, Greylock, Spark Capital, etc.)

?????Highly focused funds with dominant presence in their chosen field or area of focus but (broadly) choosing to remain small (USV, Foundry, Benchmark, First Round)

?????Turnaround stories / successful generational transition stories of strong (or formerly strong) brands being reinvigorated by hungry / rejuvenated GP teams and showing signs of out-performance (CRV, Mayfield, Atlas Venture) -- usually espousing the small / focused mantra described above.

?????Emerging managers and super angel funds whose size now allows institutional investments, hyper-focused versions of the above (IA Ventures, True Ventures, Felicis, Softtech etc.)

????Again, no matter which strategy you choose, your venture firm has to be able to compellingly answer that simple existential question: Why do you even exist?

????When any VC firm pitches their story, they're always presenting their strategy as the one that works. I am slightly amused by the constant back and forth between small and large funds, believers in seed and non-believers in seed, folks who pretend you should only play seed/acceleration rounds and not in the middle, or whatever flavor you think is going to work best in this cycle of fundraising.

????Take NEA's "Big is Beautiful" argument that bigger funds are bigger simply because they are, well, better. Compare and contrast with Bill Gurley (Benchmark Capital) and his comments to LP's ("You are Are Blowing It"): "You're in the field. And when you allocate [your capital] obsessively to firms in the top quartile, it will have an impact on how things play out. [...] If you ask if people will take an excessive amount of money, the answer is yes."

????The reality is that no amount of historical market data analysis is going to tell you which fund to invest in next, especially given the speed of market disruption. When the next guy comes in telling you he's found a bulletproof may to make money on his fund, send him this: