风投和天使之争

    我要说的最后一点并不是什么新的提法或趋势，而是一种持续存在的、危险的认识误区：拿风投的钱是饮鸩止渴。恩颐投资一直有进行种子投资，成功案例包括Data Domain (2007年IPO，2009年被EMC以24亿美元收购)、Tivo (2009年IPO)和The Climate Corporation 【孟山都(Monsanto)计划将以11亿美元收购】。但撇除异常值，我们近年的种子投资案例显示出同样重要的一点。光是科技投资业务一项，每个季度我们会考察300多家种子公司，迄今投资超过50家。根据2011年3月至2012年7月期间我们参与的35轮投资，超过50%的项目已经从NEA或其他公司完成了A轮融资。

    大多数情况下，如果一家风投不参与随后几轮的融资，往往是因为这家公司要么不再符合最初的投资逻辑，要么是因为它与投资组合中的其他公司形成了直接的竞争。在这些情形下，其他公司可能更适合提供A轮融资。如果一家公司拿了种子投资后不能进行后续融资，这家公司(以及任何持怀疑态度的天使)在向外找原因前，必须先向内找解释。

    随着围绕天使还是风投的融资争论继续，我们不能忘了任何事情总有两面性。不幸的是有些讨论是非此即彼。对于天使和风投而言，正确的结局是以某种方式合作，让创业者能最大程度地用好双方带来的网络和资源——无论是在公司形成的早期，还是后来资金需求升级的时候。真正成功的风投和天使(甚至可能还有联合融资)总是那些注重价值以及持续推动颠覆性创新的人们。（财富中文网）

    本文作者是风险投资公司恩颐投资的一般合伙人，专注于IT和能源科技投资。

    The final point I'd like to get across is not based on a new claim or trend, but rather the perpetuation of a dangerous myth: Taking (seed) money from a VC is a kiss of death. NEA has always done seed investments, among them breakout successes like Data Domain (IPO in 2007, acquired by EMC for $2.4B in 2009), Tivo (IPO in 1999) and The Climate Corporation (to be acquired by Monsanto for $1.1B). But setting aside the outliers, our most recent class of seed investments demonstrates an equally important point. On the tech side of our business alone, we look at over 300 seed companies each quarter, and to date we've invested in over 50 of them. Based on the 35 seed rounds we participated in from March 2011-July 2012, more than 50% have gone on to raise Series A rounds either from NEA or other firms.

    In most cases where a VC does not participate in a subsequent round, it is most often because the company has pivoted in a way that either no longer fits with the original investment thesis or is directly competitive with other companies in the portfolio. In these situations, others firms may be a better fit to fund the Series A. If a company takes a seed investment and cannot raise an additional round, that company (and any doubtful angels) must look inward for the explanation before looking outward.

    As the debate continues over angel vs. VC funding, we need to remember that these are two sides of the same coin. It's unfortunate that some of the discussion has taken on an adversarial tone. The right outcome here is for angels and VCs to partner in a way that enables entrepreneurs to get the most out of the network and resources each brings—both in the early stages of company formation, and later when capital needs intensify. The truly successful VCs and angels (and maybe even syndicates) will always be the ones who stay focused on the values and actions that continue to foster innovation and disruption.

    Kittu Kolluri is a general partner with venture capital firm NEA, where he focuses on IT and energy tech investments.