FT社評(píng)：硅谷“風(fēng)投派對(duì)”把公開(kāi)市場(chǎng)甩在后面

A year or two ago, there were warnings that the party was ending in Silicon Valley. “The crazy money is drying up,” one observer claimed. This newspaper cited “growing caution” among venture capitalists. The party may have ended, but it has been followed by a wilder, if more exclusive, after-party. While venture investment overall has been more or less constant over the past few years, slugs of cash have been shovelled into established start-ups.

一兩年前，有人警告稱，硅谷“派對(duì)”即將結(jié)束。“瘋狂資金正在枯竭，”一位觀察家稱。本報(bào)提到了風(fēng)投圈子中“謹(jǐn)慎情緒加重”。那場(chǎng)派對(duì)或許已經(jīng)結(jié)束，但緊接著又有一場(chǎng)更狂熱——可能也更排外的——余興派對(duì)。近幾年，雖然風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資總量大體保持穩(wěn)定，但有大量資金流向了那些已經(jīng)羽翼豐滿的創(chuàng)業(yè)企業(yè)。

Much of the shovelling has been done by the Vision Fund, a tech investment vehicle operated by SoftBank, the Japanese telecom conglomerate. It has raised $93bn, some internally and more from the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi and companies such as Apple and Foxconn. The fund has wasted no time putting the money to work. More than $4bn went into the tech-flavoured real estate start-up WeWork, at a delirious valuation. Similar amounts went into publicly traded chipmaker Nvidia and Chinese ride-hailing app Didi Chuxing. The fund is angling for a large investment in the ride-hailer Uber, which is already sitting on billions in cash.

其中很大一部分投資來(lái)自愿景基金(Vision Fund)——日本電信集團(tuán)軟銀(Softbank)旗下的科技投資公司。該公司已募集930億美元資金，部分來(lái)自軟銀自己，但更多來(lái)自沙特阿拉伯、阿布扎比的主權(quán)財(cái)富基金，以及蘋(píng)果(Apple)、富士康(Foxconn)等公司。該基金爭(zhēng)分奪秒地將這些資金投入運(yùn)作。逾40億美元被投給了房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域的科技創(chuàng)業(yè)公司W(wǎng)eWork，給后者帶來(lái)了不可思議的高估值。數(shù)額相當(dāng)?shù)馁Y金流入了上市芯片制造商英偉達(dá)(Nvidia)以及中國(guó)叫車應(yīng)用滴滴出行(Didi Chuxing)。該基金正謀劃對(duì)叫車公司優(yōu)步(Uber)進(jìn)行一大筆投資，后者早已坐擁數(shù)十億美元現(xiàn)金。

The Vision fund is not alone. Slack, which makes office messaging software, has just raised $250m, valuing the company at more than $5bn, despite not having spent any of the cash raised in its previous two rounds. Internet scrapbook’s Pinterest’s $150m fundraising set its value at $12bn. While total US VC funding fell slightly in the second quarter of this year, according to CB Insights, the amount invested in “mega-rounds” of more than $100m grew by 60 per cent.

不只是愿景基金。開(kāi)發(fā)辦公通訊軟件的Slack剛剛募集了2.5億美元，使該公司的估值超過(guò)50億美元，盡管在此前兩輪融資中籌得的資金還一分沒(méi)花?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)圖片分享網(wǎng)站Pinterest的1.5億美元融資使其估值達(dá)到120億美元。根據(jù)CB Insights的數(shù)據(jù)，今年第二季度，美國(guó)風(fēng)投基金的總投資略有下降，但1億美元以上的“超級(jí)輪”募資所吸引的投資增長(zhǎng)了60%。

Investors lined up to give $600m to Social Capital, a “blank cheque” company. It promises to use the money to buy a tech start-up. Why bother, given that start-ups can go public themselves? The idea is that going public is a hassle, involving compliance, investor presentations and uncertainty, often followed by volatile trading. But Social Capital investors will allegedly take a longer term view. According to company filings, skipping tiresome disclosures and public scrutiny will make the process more “transparent”, a claim so bizarre that it defies comment.

投資者排著隊(duì)向Social Capital投了6億美元。這家“空白支票”公司承諾用這筆錢(qián)收購(gòu)一家科技初創(chuàng)公司。既然初創(chuàng)公司可以自己上市，為何還要多此一舉?其給出的理由是，上市是件麻煩事，涉及合規(guī)、投資者演示以及不確定性，上市后往往交易價(jià)格起伏不定。但Social Capital的投資者們據(jù)稱將抱著長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的眼光。根據(jù)公司文件，跳過(guò)令人討厭的信息披露和公眾監(jiān)督將使整個(gè)過(guò)程變得更加“透明”，如此奇葩的說(shuō)法簡(jiǎn)直讓人無(wú)語(yǔ)。

In short, money is being crammed into established start-ups though a private funnel, like grain force-fed to a goose. The question is whether the resulting pate will be any good.

簡(jiǎn)而言之，資金正通過(guò)非公開(kāi)渠道被塞進(jìn)成熟的創(chuàng)業(yè)企業(yè)，如同將谷物填塞給一只鵝。問(wèn)題是，這么催肥出來(lái)的東西是否有任何好處。

The high valuations and desperation to put large amounts to work is suggestive of a bubble. Private investors seem to have concluded that we live in a world of low growth and permanently low interest rates. If so, there is some logic to paying high prices (with borrowed money) for companies that will outgrow the economy. But over history, valuations paid, not interest rates, are the surer guide to investment returns.

如此高額的估值，以及不顧一切地投入大筆資金的行為正是泡沫之兆。私募投資者似乎已得出結(jié)論：我們生活在一個(gè)低增長(zhǎng)和永久低利率的世界。如果是這樣，為那些會(huì)跑贏整體經(jīng)濟(jì)的公司支付高價(jià)(用借來(lái)的錢(qián))的確有些道理。但縱觀歷史，估值水平——而不是利率——才是投資回報(bào)的可靠指引。

Suppose, however, that we are not in a bubble. This would be, in a sense, worse. The public equity markets were once a rough reflection of the economy. Years of buyouts, share buybacks, and the recent spurt of private investment have rendered that less true. There are half as many public companies in the US as there were 20 years ago. If the most dynamic companies are increasingly held by small coteries of insiders, rather than in the defined-contribution retirement plans most workers grow their savings, there will be a cost.

但是，假設(shè)我們并沒(méi)有處在泡沫之中，某種意義上這種情況會(huì)更糟。公開(kāi)股票市場(chǎng)曾經(jīng)能夠粗略地反映經(jīng)濟(jì)情況。多年來(lái)的收購(gòu)、股票回購(gòu)以及近期私募投資的激增，使得股市更不能如實(shí)反映經(jīng)濟(jì)了。美國(guó)現(xiàn)在的上市公司數(shù)量只有20年前的一半。如果最有活力的企業(yè)越來(lái)越多地被內(nèi)部人士的小圈子所擁有，而多數(shù)勞動(dòng)者賴以增加積蓄的養(yǎng)老金固定繳款計(jì)劃卻投資不了，將會(huì)有不好的后果。

The belief that American capitalism is justified by the broad benefits it confers on most Americans is already on tenuous ground. If we are in a tech bubble and it bursts, many of the losers will be people who can afford losses. If we are witnessing instead the slow excision of growing tech companies from public markets, the link between markets and democracy will be weakened.

美國(guó)資本主義的合理性在于其能讓廣大美國(guó)人享受到利益，這一信念已無(wú)牢固的基礎(chǔ)。如果我們處于一場(chǎng)科技泡沫中，且泡沫破裂，虧損者將多是那些能夠承受損失的人。但如果我們正在目睹成長(zhǎng)型科技公司逐漸退出公開(kāi)市場(chǎng)，市場(chǎng)與民主之間的聯(lián)系將會(huì)被削弱。