简而言之，情况已今非昔比，因为相隔15年，市场一定会有变化。安德森•霍洛维茨公司认为，要点在于了解不同之处，及其会对投资回报带来哪些利弊。正如上面的幻灯片所显示的，该公司对市场仍然看多。

    但在笔者看来，这份报告对三个重要问题过于轻描淡写了，分别是：

    1.目前科技股的市盈率更接近20世纪90年代初的水平，而非20世纪90年代末水平，但这在很大程度上是因为现在上市的“独角兽”公司过少。所以我们不禁要问，这真的有可比性吗？公开市场投资者的确是亚马逊和微软等公司股价上涨的主要受益者，但2000年底到2001年有风投支持的大量科技公司崩盘时，他们也是主要受损者。另外，对于目前鲜有“独角兽”公司IPO的原因，一个常见解释是虽然现在的公司通常比1999年成功上市的那些公司存活得久一点，但在未实现盈利以及公司治理不完善等方面非常相似。那么，会不会安德森•霍洛维茨等风投公司就像2000年底的公开市场投资者那样，正在接近拐点？二者结果会殊途同归吗？这些公司不上市确实可以积累新增价值，但另一方面，风险也在增大。

    2. 按照同样的思路分析，这份报告称，科技公司IPO较少是市场健康的一个信号。上周我曾发表文章指出，深究起来这个问题远没有那么乐观。而且，IPO匮乏还意味着许多“独角兽”公司的估值尚未在公开市场得到验证。

    3. 安德森•霍洛维茨的报告还漏掉1999年和目前的一个不同之处，即创始人握有控制权，或者说，风投公司对投资对象的影响力远小于以往。当然，出现这种局面的部分原因和Facebook的成功有着直接关系。Facebook始终在创始人控制中，而且没有早早地把自己卖掉（这和大多数投资者以及顾问的意见相反，但安德森•霍洛维茨公司联合创始人马克·安德森是个例外），这俨然是商业天才的做派。我们还不清楚这样的变化最终会带来什么影响，但对VC来说，挑选创业公司变得更关键，价值大大超过了像以往那样通过经营创造增值的重要性。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie

    审校：夏林

    In short: This time is different because there are always differences between markets that are 15 years apart. What’s important, Andreessen Horowitz believes, is understanding these differences and how they should impact investment returns (positively or negatively). As the above slide shows, the firm remains bullish.

    But there are three big issues that, from my perspective the Andreessen Horowitz presentation glosses over a bit too quickly:

    1. While it is true that today’s tech P/E multiples are closer to the early 1990’s than the late 1990’s, a big part of that is because so few of the unicorns have gone public. So is it really an apples to apples comparison? Moreover, while it is true that public equity investors were the main beneficiaries of stock price run-ups for companies like Amazon and Microsoft , they also were the primary losers when a wider swath of VC-backed tech companies collapsed in late 2000 and 2001. When trying to understand the current lack of unicorn IPOs, one common explanation is that these companies, while typically older than 1999 IPO issuers, share traits like unprofitabilty and immature corporate governance. What if VC firms like Andreessen Horowitz are nearing the same type of inflection point that public equities investors hit in late 2000? Different but the same? The flip-side of hoarding value appreciation by keeping companies private is that you’re also increasing risk.

    2. In a related vein, Andreessen Horowitz’s presentation treats the relative lack of tech IPOs as a sign of market health. As I wrote last week, there is a much less charitable way to view it. Moreover, the lack of IPOs also means that the public markets have yet to validate many of these unicorn valuations.

    3. One difference between 1999 and today that wasn’t addressed in the presentation was that of founder control, or how VCs have much less influence over portfolio companies than they did in years past. Part of this, of course, is directly related to the success of Facebook — a founder-controlled company that opted not to sell out early (against the advice of most of its investors and advisors, save for the notable exception of Marc Andreessen) in an obvious stroke of business genius. It is unclear how this change will ultimately play out, but it certainly puts much more value on startup stock-picking than on operational value-add.