我想看一级黄色片_欧美性爱无遮挡电影_色丁香视频网站中文字幕_视频一区 视频二区 国产,日本三级理论日本电影,午夜不卡免费大片,国产午夜视频在线观看,18禁无遮拦无码国产在线播放,在线视频不卡国产在线视频不卡 ,,欧美一及黄片,日韩国产另类

????上周四,， 《華爾街日報》(Wall Street Journal)一篇探討互聯(lián)網(wǎng)初創(chuàng)企業(yè)正面臨“現(xiàn)金緊張”的文章在風(fēng)投界引發(fā)熱議。

????這篇文章主要是基于業(yè)界網(wǎng)站AngelList的數(shù)據(jù)(也可能不是,，參見下文更新),，外加道瓊斯公司（Dow Jones）的風(fēng)投融資統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)。我無意質(zhì)疑這些數(shù)據(jù),，但相信須放在更宏觀的范圍內(nèi)來考量,。更重要的是，我認為這些數(shù)據(jù)反映的真實情況被忽視了,。

????首先,，總體風(fēng)投活動沒有下降。正式的三季度數(shù)據(jù)要到本周晚些時候公布,，但初步數(shù)據(jù)顯示美國公司募資額雖然低于二季度,，但仍然要高于一季度。而且,，由于7,、8月份時值很多人度假，三季度的募資活動傳統(tǒng)上就相對處于低谷,，總量數(shù)據(jù)看來沒什么出人意料之處,。

????而且,，過去3個月完成的美國風(fēng)投交易有約49%面向種子期或早期公司。過去12個月的這一比例在47%,。投資額占比的差幅可忽略不計（過去3個月為30.4%,，過去12個月是30.6%）。

????AngelList數(shù)據(jù)是一項重要指標,，但它反映的是相對較小范圍內(nèi)的投資者的傾向,，而且可能這部分投資者的態(tài)度并不公允。例如,，近期的市場震蕩可能已嚇跑了很多曾將10-15%的資產(chǎn)配置于風(fēng)險投資的天使觀光者（分母,，不只影響公共退休基金）。但機構(gòu)風(fēng)投迄今并未受到類似影響（我把超級天使投資人也歸入此類）,。

????的確,，募集資金的風(fēng)投公司數(shù)量越來越少，但這股趨勢已持續(xù)多年,，目前風(fēng)投業(yè)仍有充足的彈藥,。畢竟，超級天使的崛起只有一年而已,。而且,，過去18個月里許多大中型公司推出了種子期投資項目——加大了新興初創(chuàng)企業(yè)的總資本池。例子包括恩頤投資（New Enterprise Associates）,、Greylock風(fēng)投公司和Menlo Ventures投資公司,。有些人認為這些項目只是裝點門面，但在統(tǒng)計中錢就是錢（而且,，我反而認為這些項目大多數(shù)都是實實在在的）,。

????對我而言，更大的問題是種子期之后的資本供應(yīng)情況,。我說的不是Facebook或Groupon規(guī)模龐大的Series F輪融資,，而是500萬美元至2,500萬美元的Series A或B融資。我認為在這個階段有點資本供應(yīng)不足,。首先,，現(xiàn)在有多少風(fēng)投公司自封為Series B投資者？不多(這并不奇怪,，第一輪資本未得到第二輪或第三輪資本的響應(yīng)),。

????例如，擴張期交易占過去12個月美國完成的風(fēng)投交易數(shù)的28%,，投資額占比約為35%,。五年前，這兩個比例分別是36%和42%,。

????為什么未出現(xiàn)這種情況,？因為種子期后的A或B輪融資風(fēng)險往往和種子期一樣高,，但潛在回報相對較低。原有的種子投資者按比例繼續(xù)參與融資是一回事,，外部投資者參與則完全是另外一回事（除非成功顯而易見,，在這種情況下會出現(xiàn)天價估值）,。事實上,，創(chuàng)業(yè)者在種子期完全可以與大中型機構(gòu)風(fēng)投簽約，而不是依賴那些道指跌上400點就要害怕跑路的天使投資人,。

????我知道有些創(chuàng)業(yè)者不愿意“淹沒”在大中型機構(gòu)風(fēng)投,，而是更喜歡天使投資人的個人關(guān)注和人脈。當(dāng)然也有兩全其美的情況,。但如果二者只能選一,，機構(gòu)要有價值得多。如果網(wǎng)絡(luò)初創(chuàng)企業(yè)正面臨現(xiàn)金緊張,，可能是因為它們選擇了錯誤的種子期投資者（假定他們當(dāng)初有“選擇的余地”）,，導(dǎo)致如今沒有足夠的中間期融資者幫助它們渡過困境。

????更新：AngelList的內(nèi)維爾?拉維坎特(Naval Ravikant)剛剛在Twitter上發(fā)了下述信息：

????Venture capitalists today are buzzing about a Wall Street Journal story about how Internet startups are facing a "cash crunch."

????It's mostly based on AngelList data (or not, see update below), plus venture fund-raising statistics from Dow Jones. I don't dispute either of them, but believe they need to be viewed in a broader context. More importantly, I think the real story they tell was overlooked.

????First, overall venture capital activity is not decreasing. Official Q3 data won't be released until later this week, but a preliminary look shows that U.S.-based companies raised less money than in Q2 but more than in Q1. And since third quarters are traditionally slow due to the vacation months of July and August, there doesn't seem to be much news in the top-line numbers.

????Moreover, around 49% of completed U.S. venture deals in the past three months were for seed-stage or early-stage companies. For the past 12 months, the figure stands at 47%. The difference in dollars invested as a percentage of the whole was negligible (from 30.4% for past 3 months to 30.6% for past 12 months).

????AngelList data is an important metric, but it also reflects the biases of a relatively small -- and arguably skewed -- subset of venture investors. For example, the recent market volatility has likely knocked out a lot of angel tourists who had been allocating 10 or 15% of their assets to venture investing (denominators don't only affect public pension funds). Institutional VCs, however, have not been similarly affected (and I include super-angels in this category).

????It certainly is true that fewer and fewer VC firms are raising money, but that trend has been in place for years and there is still plenty of dry powder. After all, the rise of super-angels is barely one year old. Moreover, many larger firms have launched seed-stage investing programs within the past 18 months -- thus increasing the overall capital pool for nascent startups. Examples include New Enterprise Associates, Greylock and Menlo Ventures. Some folks discount these programs as cynical window-dressing, but money is money within this particular argument (and I happen to think most of the programs are legit).

????To me, the larger issue is capital availability beyond the seed-stage. I'm not talking about massive Series F rounds for Facebook or Groupon, but rather Series A or B deals in the $5 million to $25 million range. This is where I see a bit of capital gap. How many venture firms out there market themselves as Series B investors, first and foremost? Not many (it's no surprise that First Round Capital hasn't been copied by a Second Round Capital or Third Round Capital).

????For example, expansion-stage deals made up 28% of all U.S. venture deals completed in the past 12 months, and around 35% of the total invested capital. Five years ago those figures were 36% and 42%, respectively.

????How come? Because post-seed A or B rounds often carry the same risks as seed with less potential reward. It's one thing for an existing seed investor to participate pro rata, but quite another for an outsider to join the party (unless success seems obvious, at which point the valuation will be sky-high). In fact, that's a pretty good case for entrepreneurs to sign on with larger institutional VCs at the seed-stage, rather than trying to rely on angels who are one 400-point Dow loss away from being tapped out.

????I know some entrepreneurs don't want to get "lost" in a larger firm, and appreciate the personal attention and networks of angels. And there certainly can be a happy mix of both. But, if you have to choose, the institution is far more valuable. If Web startups are hitting a cash crunch, it's likely because they chose the wrong seed-stage investors (assuming they had a "choice") and there aren't enough mid-round institutions to help them out.

????Update: AngelList's Naval Ravikant just tweeted the following: