“創始人友好型”創投即將成為歷史
Erin Griffith
2017-08-17
|
在“獨角獸時代”剛剛到來的時候，一家名叫“鋒銳資本”的風投機構曾經宣布，公司將放棄對所投資的初創公司創始人投反對票的權利。當時這種做法還很少見，《紐約時報》曾表示，這說明了風投資本家們“把創業者當皇上一樣供著。” 在創業界內部，鋒銳資本的這種表態也受到了廣泛好評，成為“創業者友好型”創投的又一范本。曾幾何時，董事會一旦覺得創始人跟不上公司的增長節奏，往往就會二話不說地將他換掉，另外聘請一個CEO來摘桃子。而馬克·扎克伯格卻開啟了一種全新的模式，防止了有第二個喬布斯因為不成熟或者缺乏管理經驗之類的原因被風投趕出公司。這樣一來，創始人就能保住他們的CEO職位，只需要再聘請一個雪莉·桑德伯格之類的管理高才，就可以替他們搞定公司日常管理中的瑣碎事。 風投機構ffVC甚至在自己的名字中也不忘標榜這一理念，“ff”就是英文“創始人友好型”的縮寫。這種情形在創投界變得越來越普遍，我甚至覺得就算他們投資的創始人殺了人，風投也有法子讓他逃避法律的制裁。“不信試試——隨便找個人殺殺，我們一點也不在乎，記得花我們的錢哦！” 為啥風投對創業者會像霸道總裁對白蓮花一樣寵溺呢？因為狼多肉少，風投的錢太多了，而值得投資的初創公司則是稀缺的。這種相對的稀缺性是不太可能改觀的，不過我認為，近來的幾起事件有可能會給風投當頭一棒，讓他們重新加大對所投資公司的控制。 首先，我們來看看Blue Apron和Snap這兩家公司糟糕的股市業績。這兩家公司的股票結構都是不利于投資人的。Snap更是將公司的所有控制權賦予了其創始人。Blue Apron在六月份上市之前將它的建議IPO價格憑空砍掉了３４％，才過了6個星期，它的交易價格又被腰斬了50%。另外，標普和富時也表示，鑒于Snap的普通股無投票權，這兩家公司將不會把Snap股票納入他們各自的指數，因此，被動投資者們將根本無法接觸到他們的股票。 接下來是Uber的例子。在經歷了公開撕逼后，Uber公司CEO特拉維斯·卡蘭尼克被董事會逼著辭了職，不過他仍然擁有公司10%的股權和16%的投票權。今年8月，Uber的早期投資者Benchmark公司出乎意料地對卡蘭尼克提起訴訟，控告他涉嫌欺詐，違反信托責任，徇私枉法。（卡蘭尼克的發言人表示，這起訴訟“充滿了謊言和不實指控”。） 投資者們終于開始意識到，他們在所謂的“創始人友好型投資”上，犯了“是我給你自由過了火”的右傾投降主義錯誤。創始人們或許也已經意識到，如果他們想讓公司上市，就必須要放棄一部分對公司的控制權。“獨角獸時代”使很多創業公司長期保持私有化，避免了外部的仔細審查。而隨后即將到來的“冷靜創投”時代，將意味著這些公司終將成長為負責任的成年人。 最近，各大出版商一窩蜂地炮制出了許多“成長”主題的書，目的就是要給那些不成熟的千禧一代“催熟”。或許出版界也應該考慮出一本創業題材的成長指南了。（財富中文網） 本文另載于2017年9月1日刊的《財富》。 譯者：賈政景 |
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." |
