有筹钱的能力，并不一定意味着有赚钱的能力。但投资者总是会把这两种技能混为一谈，于是就导致了具有破坏性的资金配置。
从本质上讲，早期风险投资是押注于其中的创业者。对于预期收入和利润的预测永远都会偏高：但谁都无法预知未来，我见过的所有商业计划，最后几乎都以失败告终。一般来说，项目启动所需的成本和时间都会超出预算水平，而且经常还会出现整个商业模式出现问题的情况——但有时候会出现其他机遇，并成为企业的救星。在这种“终极博弈”中，赢家与输家之间的区别，完全在于你支持哪个人。
我认识一些很有才干的推广人才，他们非常善于为新项目拉来资金。他们能够流畅自如地从一个项目转到下一个项目：十年前是互联网，然后是中国概念、采矿业、基建行业，凡此种种。在他们心目中，拥有真正的专业技术并不是必须的。他们拥有抓住时代精神的伟大天赋——这正是当下最火的资产类别。他们学习一套脚本，招揽一批“专家”，再准备一份颇具说服力的商业计划书。他们熟悉时下所有的热门词语——可攀登性、牵引、杠杆、烧钱率、特别保护权，等等。他们懂得结构性交易的错综复杂之处，从而为自己牟利。然而上述种种优势，都不意味着他们能够在现实世界中实施伟大的远见。
但热切盼望参与最新时尚投资的机构投资者以及一些私人投资者，却争相为他们提供支持。于是公司上市了，初创企业拿到了风投——如果不是因为推动这些事情的人魔鬼般的超凡魅力，恐怕没人会认真对待它们。这些人物深谙“讲故事”和“忽悠”听众的重要性。我研究了一些公司的IPO，奇怪他们究竟是怎样获得融资的。然后我想到了在金融界，形式胜于实质的情况也十分普遍。正如剧作家席勒(Schiller)所言：“外表统治世界”。(Appearance rules the world.)
推广者是一群非常有趣的心理学研究对象。他们大多十分自恋且惯于浮夸，这也是他们作为表演者，在对未来的合作伙伴施展财务魔法时所需的魅力的一部分。他们异常自信，不知羞耻：一个项目失败后立刻转投下一个项目，对他人的损失漠不关心。他们唯一的兴趣就是做交易——对于他们来说，花费多年时间，亲身建立一家企业的艰巨工作太慢，也太无聊。
说来惭愧，我也有好几次醉心于一些荒谬的前景——比如秘鲁的木材、女性专用健身房、新颖的汽车报警器，等等。这个单子长得让人压抑，它们当时看起来似乎都是明智的点子，但回想起来就觉得毫无新意。大多数情况下，我都被巧妙的演示所蒙蔽，被出面来谈的人说服——他们训练有素、侃侃而谈，热情洋溢且一派乐观。他们懂得一段出色表演的力量。
但来之不易的经验告诉我：应当更深入地审视。现在我更青睐的是不那么浮华、更平凡、低调而务实的商业提案。我会回避热门行业和超高回报率。要有一个在职业生涯中实际经营过一家盈利企业、有经验的经理人。要了解专业领域的知识和实际状况，而不是营销技巧或虚夸的宣传。有野心和希望不难，但真正重要的是一个强大的团队、良好的记录和一项真正经得起仔细审核的业务。
尽管如此，我倒不认为所有疯狂的梦想家都是危险的。我们需要有一些有远见的人，才能推动产业进步，尽管他们的许多发明和策划最终归于尘土。毕竟，每一位伟大的商业领袖身上，都有一些江湖术士的元素——我们都知道他们都练习过如何讲话，而他们的奉承也都恰到好处。有能力说服投资者的人，常常也能激励员工。一位坚忍不拔的经营者，配上一个善于鼓动的推广者，简直是无人能敌的绝配——这样的合作怎么可能失败呢？
译者/王柯伦
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001035740
An ability to raise money does not necessarily signify an ability to make money. But investors forever confuse the two skills, and this leads to a damaging misallocation of capital.
Early-stage ventures are in essence a gamble on the entrepreneurs involved. The projections of expected revenues and profits always point upwards: but no one knows the future and almost every business plan I’ve ever seen ended up wrong. Usually, launches cost more and take longer than budgeted, and often the entire model proves to be flawed – but sometimes another opportunity presents itself and becomes the enterprise’s salvation. In this, the ultimate game, the difference between the winners and losers depends entirely on the men and women you back.
I have known a number of talented promoters who are brilliant at obtaining finance for new schemes. They move, apparently seamlessly, from one project to the next: a decade ago it was the internet, then China, then mining, then infrastructure – and so on. In their minds, possessing genuine technical expertise is not seen as a requirement. They have a great instinct for the zeitgeist – the asset class of the moment. They learn a script and recruit a gang of “experts”, and prepare a very persuasive business plan. They know all the buzz words – scalable, traction, leverage, burn rate, vesting and so on. They understand the intricacies of structuring transactions to benefit themselves. But none of this means they can execute their great vision in the real world.
Yet institutional and sometimes private investors queue up to back them, desperate for exposure to the latest fashion. And so companies go public and start-ups receive VC funding – which would never have been taken seriously were it not for the devilish charisma of those fronting the undertaking. Such characters know so well the importance of storytelling and spin yarns to entrance audiences. I look at certain initial public offerings and wonder how on earth they obtained equity. Then I remember that form so commonly prevails over substance in the financial world too. As the playwright Schiller said: “Appearance rules the world.”
Promoters are a fascinating psychological study. They are mostly narcissists and given to grandiosity. This is part of their charm: in a sense they are performers, conjuring financial magic for their prospective partners. They are ultraconfident and shameless: they leap from one crashed scheme to the next, indifferent to others’ losses. Their exclusive interest will be the deal – the hard graft of actually building a business over a number of years is all too slow and boring.
I am ashamed to say on occasion I have fallen for ridiculous prospects: timber in Peru, female-only gyms, newfangled car alarms – to name but a few. The list is a depressingly long one. They all seemed like sensible ideas at the time, although with hindsight they were obvious duds. In most such cases I was blinded by the slick presentation and convinced by the front men – well-rehearsed, articulate and roaring with enthusiasm and optimism. They knew the power of a great pitch.
But hard-won experience has taught me to look deeper. I now prefer the less glossy, more mundane, subdued and practical proposition. I avoid the hot sectors and super returns. Give me the veteran manager who has spent his or her career actually running profitable organisations. I want domain knowledge and facts, rather than salesmanship and hype. Ambition and hope are easy – what matters are a strong team, a sound record and an operation that can really stand up to scrutiny.
Nevertheless, I don’t believe all mad dreamers are a menace. We need a smattering of visionaries to advance industry, even if so many of their inventions and plots turn to dust. After all, there is an element of the charlatan in every great leader of commerce – we know the lines are practised, the flattery well-judged. And those with the ingenuity to persuade investors can frequently motivate staff too. An irresistible combination would be a gritty operator and an inspirational promoter – how could that partnership fail?
没有评论:
发表评论