你听说团购网站Groupon的早期投资者正在对这家公司丧失信心的事了吗？没错，的确有一些。可能不到一半。但其中有个人名头很大，因此它一定意味着整个互联网行业都完了。

    这种说法听起来是不是有点莫名其妙？如果是，看来你还当不了《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）的编辑。周一这家报纸在头版刊登了下面这篇逻辑混乱的文章。

    Have you heard that early Groupon (GRPN) investors are bailing on the company? Well, some of them. Maybe less than half. But one of them is a big name, so it must mean the entire Internet sector is screwed.

    Does this strike you as a bit confusing? Well then, it seems you aren't an editor at The Wall Street Journal, which put this muddle above today's page one fold:

    如果有人想写篇文章谈谈Groupon如何辜负了外界的期望，我绝不反对。但这篇报道具有误导性，刊登在头版这样的位置更是放大了这种效应。

    这篇文章主要谈到了一些早期投资者正在卖出Groupon股票，这肯定说明他们“对原本有望推动新一轮互联网繁荣的公司丧失了信心”。其中一位投资者就是马克•安德森，他的公司安德森-霍罗维茨风险投资公司（Andreessen Horowitz）已将2011年1月在Groupon 首次公开募股前的一轮融资中获得的股份悉数卖出。

    我不是很肯定为什么安德森-霍罗维茨风险投资公司卖出Groupon股票一定是个负面信号，要知道该公司从这笔4,000万美元的投资中获得了1,400万美元的利润。这或许算不上风投行业的本垒打，但对于18-20个月的持有期，这样的投资回报并不赖。而且，我相信创造积极的投资回报是风险投资人最主要的责任（而不是科技公司拉拉队，虽然这类错误很容易得到谅解）。

    但更大的问题是，《华尔街日报》由此推而广之，断言“（投资者）对一批新的互联网公司都丧失了信心”。这是一个跨度很大的跳跃，要知道安德森-霍罗维茨和其他Facebook的早期投资者上周在Facebook锁定期结束后并没有卖出Facebook。Facebook不是“原本有望推动新一轮互联网繁荣的公司之一吗”？或者说，卖出Groupon股票比持有Facebook股票更能说明问题？又或者说，《华尔街日报》根本就没花时间去查一查？

    另外，文章没有提到的是，Groupon最早和最大的外部投资者恩颐投资（New Enterprise Associates）在该公司上市以来一直持有其所有股票。这应该是一篇标题为《投资者放弃Groupon》的文章中非常重要的平衡信息。特别是鉴于文章称，安德森-霍罗维茨是“帮助推动Groupon迅速崛起的投资者之一”，而事实上安德森-霍罗维茨对Groupon的投资比恩颐首笔投资晚了整整三年。

    《华尔街日报》的确提到下面这些信息：包括T. Rowe Price和摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）在内的一些IPO前投资者不仅没有抛售Groupon股票，反而增加了持股。拟标题的人是不是没有读到这么后面？

    最后，文章还披露，Groupon上市时曾遭到时任董事霍华德•舒尔茨、风险投资人约翰•杜尔和玛丽•米克尔【杜尔和米克尔所在的凯鹏华盈（Kleiner Perkins）迄今也没有卖出Groupon股票】等人的反对。《华尔街日报》是这么写的：

    据了解这些讨论的人士称，安德森等几位Groupon顾问竭力主张不要按计划推进IPO。4月份已辞去Groupon董事职务的星巴克（Starbucks Corp.）首席执行官霍华德•舒尔茨也表达过对于Groupon仓促上市的担忧。据熟悉这些讨论的人士称，Groupon投资者、风投公司凯鹏华盈的合伙人约翰•杜尔和玛丽•米克尔也表示过担忧。

    有两点要说明：多位消息人士告诉我，上述四人都表达过对Groupon上市时机的担忧，这一点是准确的。但他们也告诉我，经过认真讨论后，没有一个人采取行动要换掉Groupon首席执行官安德鲁•梅森（如果没被说服，在这样的情况下投资者可以这么做），而且这四人中至少有两位后来明确支持Groupon的上市时机选择。

    而且，在公司上市时有不同意见，与对公司失去信心根本不是一码事。一项战略决定就好比是森林中的一棵树而已，就算它是一棵大树依然如此。

    再次说明，我不是在告诉大家要买进Groupon的股票，或者说Groupon的多元化策略有望把它打造成下一个eBay。我只是想告诉你，不要轻信所有的负面报道标题。

    译者：早稻米

    You want to write a story about how Groupon isn't living up to expectations, you'll get no objection from me. But this particular effort is misleading, and made even worse by its prominent placement.

    The story's thesis is that some early investors are selling Groupon stock, which must mean they've "lost faith in companies that had been expected to drive a new Internet boom." Exhibit A is Marc Andreessen, whose firm has dumped all of the shares it acquired in a January 2011 pre-IPO financing round.

    I'm not exactly sure why Andreessen Horowitz selling the shares is a negative, given that it booked a $14 million profit off of its $40 million investment. Not a venture home-run, but not terrible for an 18-20 month hold. And I'm pretty sure that generating positive returns is a venture capitalist's primary job responsibility (not tech cheer-leading, although it's an easily forgiven error).

    More important, however, is the broader conclusion about lost faith in the new Internet crop. Pretty tough leap, considering that Andreessen Horowitz is among those early Facebook (FB) investors that didn't sell shares when the lockup expired last week. Is Facebook not one of the "companies that had been expected to drive a new Internet boom?" Or is selling Groupon somehow more important than holding Facebook? Or did WSJ just not bother to check?

    Also not mentioned is that New Enterprise Associates, Groupon's earliest and largest outside investor, has held onto all of its shares since Groupon went public. You'd think that would be some relevant balance for a story titled "Groupon investors give up." Particularly given that Andreessen was referred to as "among the investors who helped fuel Groupon's rapid ascent," despite investing a full three years after NEA first cut a check.

    And then there is what WSJ does mention: How certain pre-IPO investors, including T. Rowe Price and Morgan Stanley (MS), not only haven't sold Groupon stock, but actually have increased their holdings. Did the headline writer not read down that far?

    Finally, there is a revelation in this story that Groupon went public over the objections of people like then-board member Howard Schultz and venture capitalists John Doerr and Mary Meeker (whose firm, Kleiner Perkins, also hasn't dumped shares). Here is how WSJ put it:

    Mr. Andreessen was among several Groupon advisers who urged it not to go through with its IPO as planned, said people with knowledge of the discussions. Starbucks Corp. Chief Executive Howard Schultz, who resigned as a Groupon director in April, also voiced worries that Groupon was going public too soon. So did John Doerr and Mary Meeker, partners at venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a Groupon investor, said people familiar with those discussions.

    Two points: Multiple sources tell me that it is accurate that all four people listed raised concerns about the timing of Groupon's IPO. But they also tell me that, following intense discussions, none moved to replace CEO Andrew Mason -- which is what investors can do in such circumstances, if unpersuaded -- and that at least two of the four would go on to explicitly endorse the timing.

    Moreover, disagreeing with when a company wants to go public is not the same as losing faith in that company. One strategic decision is a tree within the forest, albeit a large one.

    Again, I'm not telling you to buy Groupon stock or that the company's diversification strategy will make it the next eBay. I'm simply telling you not to believe every negative headline you read.