风投资本之拍案惊奇

最新文章

加载中，请稍候。。。

热读文章

加载中，请稍候。。。

当期杂志

《财富》中国排行榜

《财富》全球排行榜

商业

频道

专栏

最新栏目文章加载中。。。

领导力

频道

专栏

最新栏目文章加载中。。。

移动应用

杂志纸刊

网站

移动订阅

微信

新浪微博

腾讯微博

风投资本之拍案惊奇

作者: Dan Primack 时间: 2011年07月14日来源: 财富中文网

位置：

字体 [ 大中小 ]

发表评论

新的研究结果让风投行业的习惯性思维无所适从。

转贴到：微信新浪微博关注

腾讯微博人人网豆瓣

在风险投资界，科技风投公司好比是电影明星，生命科学风投公司则是跑龙套的。或者说，他们是冠军与参与奖的区别。最近的福布斯最佳创投人排行榜（Forbes Midas List）就说明了这一点，排名最前的生命科学投资人仅在榜单中位列第16名【Venrock风投公司（Venrock）的布莱恩•罗伯茨】

但新的研究表明，在过去的10年中，颠覆性的格局已悄然产生。

最近，风投资本家布鲁斯•布斯【投资机构Atlas Venture公司（Atlas Venture）】和比让•赛尔黑嘉德【高原资本合伙人（Highland Cipital）】逐笔统计分析了过去10年中来自于近1，300家风投公司的交易反馈。他们发现，在2000-2010年当中，在已完成交易方面，投资美国生命科学的风投资本的总平均内部收益率（IRR）达到了15%。即便将未完成交易统计在内，收益率也达到了7.4%。相比较而言，同期信息技术行业的已完成交易的收益率只有3%，软件行业为4.1%。

除此之外，生命科学每个子领域的交易至少是信息技术类子领域的两倍。这跟90年代相比完全就是一个大逆转，当时信息技术交易收益要大大优于生命科学的交易收益。即使不计算2000年这一网络泡沫破灭年份的交易量，结果也是一样。

“按照普通合伙人和有限合伙人的说法，与信息技术相比，生命科学只不过是风投资本的继子，而且相貌丑陋，”布斯说。“所以我们对于研究结果感到很惊讶。”

该研究的4个备注：

1. 研究数据是按交易统计的，不是按基金种类。因此不能就此说明生命科学基金比信息科技基金的收益更高。有些大规模的生命科学交易来自于具有多重商业性质的公司。

2. 数据截止时间是2010年底，因此也就不包括今年大型信息技术公司的上市，例如职业社交网站LinkedIn、在线音乐服务网站Pandora等公司

3.有些读者对于我在前一篇文章中采纳康桥咨询公司（Cambridge Associates）数据的做法颇有微词，认为这有失公允。不过康桥公司的数据是来自于基金财务报表（不是财务调查）而且大多来源于康桥公司的有限合伙人的客户（不是普通合伙人客户）

4. 最新一期的《自然生物技术》杂志（Nature Biotechnology）将刊登布斯和赛尔黑嘉德研究之全文，并于7月11日出版。

In the world of venture capital, tech is the movie star and life sciences the second banana. The champion and the also-ran. Just look at the most recent Forbes Midas List, in which the first life sciences investor doesn't appear until #16 (Bryan Roberts of Venrock).

But new research suggests that this hierarchy has quietly reversed itself over the past decade.

Venture capitalists Bruce Booth (Atlas Venture) and Bijan Salehizadeh (Highland Capital Partners) recently analyzed the past 10 years of returns from nearly 1,300 VC firms, on a deal-by-deal basis. What they found was that VC investments into U.S. life sciences companies between 2000 and 2010 yielded a gross pooled mean IRR of 15% for realized deals and 7.4% once unrealized deals were included. This compares to a 3% IRR for realized IT deals over the same time period, a 4.1% IRR for realized software deals.

Moreover, each sub-category of life sciences deals came in at least 2x better than did realized results of IT sub-categories. All of this is a complete reversal of the 1990s, when IT deal performance absolutely dominated life sciences deal performance. And it holds even if you remove deals done in 2000, which was just before the dotcom bubble burst.

"There is a widely-held perception among both GPs and LPs that life sciences is venture capital's ugly stepchild compared to tech," says Booth. "So we were surprised to find what we did."

Four notes on the study:

1. The data is based on deals, not on funds. As such, it does not necessarily mean that funds dedicated to life sciences outperform funds dedicated to IT. Some of the strongest life sciences deals may have come from generalist firms.

2. The data only goes through the end of 2010, so does not include this year's big tech IPOs like LinkedIn, Pandora, etc.

3. Some readers complained about selection bias in a prior piece I wrote utilizing Cambridge Associates data. Please remember that CA data is based on fund financial statements (not surveys), and often comes from CA's LP clients (i.e., not GP-directed).

4. Booth and Salehizadeh have published their entire paper in the new issue of Nature Biotechnology, out today.