“如果披露未上市的、获风投支持公司的财务数据，会毁了它们。”

    这是2002年一位风险投资人对我说的话，当时围绕公共养老金体系是否应披露其风险投资和私募股权投资的具体回报率数据有一场争论。事实上当时根本没人认为应进行组合层面的披露，但风险资本时常抬出“滑坡论”(slippery slope)，因为他们害怕披露不利的回报率数据(即用所投资公司的良好现状掩盖投资者尴尬)。

    快进到9年后的今天，似乎相应组合的数据有望披露。但披露将是有限的，而且是基于自愿。

    我的意思是：目前风险资本达成的共识是，创始人应在退出前获得部分股份流动性，而且这对公司是有益的(当你无须担心买车款时，更能集中精力工作)。当然，这并非适用于所有公司，但适用于那些一段时间以来已有营收的公司。

    不过，问题在于绝大部分此类公司发现很难利用被大肆宣扬的二级市场——在这个市场中占据主导地位的是面向消费者、个人投资者能“参与”的企业。在财务数据未知的情况下买入Facebook股票是一回事，但买入一家私人持股的导管生产商或人力资源管理软件公司，又是另一回事。

    当然，增加流动性不一定需要个人投资者参与。你也可以通过新一轮融资来增加流动性，融资可包括一些套现条款[多年前有Webroot，近期有39desgins、高朋（Groupon）等]。你也可以通过“传统”的二级市场来做(Saints Capital、 Millennium、W Capital、Industry Ventures等等)。不过这两种方式对现有投资者可能都有一定的稀释效应。

    真正的目的是接触到个人投资者，最好的办法是通过像SecondMarket这样的平台披露某些财务信息。而且，根据与硅谷风险投资人的交谈，很快就会有此类行动。

    “所有财务信息都保密显然具有竞争优势，但现在为了帮助公司创始人和雇员套现，披露其中一些信息也能带来竞争优势，”一个风险投资人日前告诉我。

    当然，这不同于在一个公共养老金网站公布相应财务数据，那样所有人都能看到。潜在投资者可表达初步意向，由公司在投资者中有选择地分享数据。但事实上，吸引此类意向的最好办法是首先披露少许防火墙后的数据。而且，由于个人投资者对面向消费者以外的公司兴趣相对缺乏，公司在决定与哪些投资者分享数据时可能不会有太多限制条件。

    必须重申，这不是完全的透明，但这也不是企业自杀行为。

    "If you disclose the underlying financials of still-private, VC-backed companies, you will destroy them."

    That's what a venture capitalist told me in 2002, amidst debate over whether or not public pension systems should disclose fund-specific performance data for their VC and PE investments. No one was actually advocating for portfolio-level disclosure at the time, but the "slippery slope" argument was regularly employed by VCs who were terrified of recessionary returns being publicized (i.e., portfolio company wellbeing used as cover for investor embarrassment).

    Fast forward nine years, and it appears that underlying portfolio disclosure is coming. It will be limited. And it will be voluntary.

    Here's what I mean: VC consensus now is that company founders not only deserve partial liquidity pre-exit, but also that it is beneficial for the company (easier to concentrate on work when you're not worrying about car payments). Not applicable to all companies, of course, but for revenue-generating companies that have been around for a while.

    The problem, however, is that the vast majority of these companies have a very difficult time tapping the hyped-up secondary markets – which are dominated by consumer-facing companies that retail buyers can "play" with. It's one thing to buy Facebook shares without knowing the financials, but it's quite another to buy a privately-held maker of catheters or HR management software.

    To be sure, retail investors are not required for incremental liquidity. You could get some via a new funding round that also includes some cash-out provisions (done years ago by Webroot, and more recently by 39desgins, Groupon, etc.), or via the "traditional" secondaries market (Saints Capital, Millennium, W Capital, Industry Ventures, etc.). Both of those options, however, are likely to include some sort of dilution for existing investors.

    The real goal is to access those retail investors, and the best way to do it is by disclosing certain pieces of financial information via a platform like SecondMarket. And, from speaking to VCs out here inSilicon Valley, that's exactly what's about to begin happening.

    "There are obviously competitive advantages of keeping all of your financial information private, but there now are competitive advantages of letting some of it loose in order to help out founders and company employees," one VC told me yesterday.

    To be sure, this isn't the same as publishing underlying financials on a public pension website where anyone can view it. Prospective investors would indicate basic interest, and companies can pick and choose with whom to share data. The reality, however, is that the best way to attract that interest in the first place is to let a few to-line numbers out behind the firewall. And, given the relative dearth of retail interest beyond consumer-facing companies, it's unlikely that companies will be too restrictive on who they hand keys out to.

    Again, this isn't total transparency. But it also isn't corporate suicide.