由美国著名科技博客 TechCrunch主办的第二届TechCrunch50创业者大会今日结束。Yammer从52个展示项目中脱颖而出，获取了今年的最佳创业项目大奖。

据介绍，Yammer是一个类似于Twitter的微博客系统。与Twitter不同的是，Yammer专为企业内部沟通所设计，在上线第一天就有超过2000家企业的一万名用户注册使用。Yammer是免费服务，使用公司邮件注册的用户将自动与同公司的其它用户成为好友，但如果该公司希望获取群组的控制权则需要付费。

以下为其它前五名获奖项目的简介。

第二名：Atmosphir

Atmosphir是一个游戏平台，任何人都可以通过它创建属于自己的3D游戏。用户只需使用鼠标拖拽即可完成设计操作，无需掌握复杂的编程技能。Atmosphir是跨平台的，可以在PC、Mac和Linux上运行。

第三名：FitBit

FitBit生产一种小型设备，用户可以把它放在衣服上。它会记录你整天的运动状况，并上传到网站上，用户可以据此来了解每天的运动状况。

第四名：Grockit

Grockit是一个在线的互动学习工具，它将用户聚集在一起并解答彼此提出的问题。Grockit项目又被称为“多用户在线学习游戏”，目前已经募集到总额一千万美元的投资。据悉，此项目的灵感来源于大受欢迎的《魔兽世界》。

第五名：GoodGuide

GoodGuide让消费者更了解自己所购买的商品。通过对产品健康、环保和口碑的评级，消费者可以在购买之前更深入地了解商品，从而避免不必要的损失。网站创始人表示，有大量专家和技术人员会努力保证网站的公正性。

Getting employees to adopt both an entrepeneur’s bias for action and a venture capitalist’s talent for hard-nosed analysis is a challenge. But no one said excellence was easy

By Jeffrey Bussgang

Jeffrey Bussgang is a general partner with Flybridge Capital Partners, a venture capital firm in Boston, and was previously co-founder and president of Upromise.

All corporations have the challenge of trying to infuse an entrepreneurial spirit into their workforce. As the theory goes, when employees act like entrepreneurs, they put themselves in the mind-set of business owners with a bias for action, which results in good decisions and good outcomes.

To get employees to act like entrepreneurs, then, companies have often taken a structural approach. For example, Google and Microsoft organize into small units of 50 to 100 employees to maintain a sense of entrepreneurial spirit and eliminate bureaucracy. The trade-off is that small groups can create silos across units, leading to duplication of efforts and squelching synergy. But if a company chooses to organize to achieve maxim efficiency and scale, it risks creating behemoth departments that crush the natural entrepreneurial spirit that lies within its employees.

After a career as both an entrepreneur and a venture capitalist, I have come to conclude that creating an entrepreneurial spirit within the corporation is only half the battle. I have seen too many situations where acting like an entrepreneur was not a business panacea: Unbridled, unfocused entrepreneurial energy can easily be squandered and misdirected. In my last six years as a VC, I developed an appreciation for the attitude and vantage point that VCs have when sifting through business proposals and allocating scarce capital to the best opportunities.

Through these two career experiences, I have come to realize that the true question corporations need to ask is: "How do I get my employees to think like VCs but act like entrepreneurs?" In other words: What’s the best way to impose the challenge of complex, competing priorities on employees who must, in effect, be adroit at living with split personalities? This new frame of mind requires the corporate manager to extract the best from both worlds—entrepreneurs with a bias for action, and VCs with a bias for analysis. Elements of both are required.

The VC industry is a small, arcane field that isn’t well known to many outside of the mere hundreds of professionals who practice it every day. So let me explain a bit more what I mean when I promote this way of thinking for the corporate manager.

In short, VCs are trained to:

• Survey and network with smart people to find the best ideas out there (what’s known in industry parlance as deal flow).

Corporate managers, in turn, should be encouraged to spend time networking with outside experts who can expose them to a broader range of ideas than what might emerge from within the walls of their corporation.

• Be notorious cynics who swiftly reject hundreds of these ideas, setting a high bar before something is deemed worthy of their attention.

Once they’ve attracted numerous wacky and credible ideas to transform their business, managers need to follow the VC model of being a pessimistic cynic, challenging every assumption and having a sensitive "BS" detector that allows them to dismiss the majority of suggestions as unworthy of further consideration.

It is tricky to encourage a lot of new ideas without pandering to the sources of the ideas. If the ideas are not worth pursuing, managers need to feel comfortable (and supported by their chain of command) to not waste time on them, even if the most senior executives or most important customers provide ideas.

• Assess risk and rewards and apply ruthless judgment to select the handful of big ideas that they want to put their time, energy, and resources into every day.

Look for situations where the team or company has a distinct advantage against competitors; where you can leverage your resources, expertise, and relationships to create value.

Once the big ideas are chosen, there needs to be a shift in emphasis. The key to successful implementation is to act like an entrepreneur. Specifically:

• Attract world-class talent.

Great entrepreneurs don’t settle for working with whoever is available. Instead, they take the attitude that their mission is to be inspiring enough to attract the best and brightest, and they don’t waste time with B teams.

• Attack the opportunities as if the structural barriers in front of you don’t exist.

There’s a pattern of young entrepreneurs achieving greatness in areas where their older, wiser colleagues were scared away because they "knew better." At a time when IBM (IBM) and Compaq Computer (HPQ) were dominating the emerging PC market, who would have thought to challenge them with a new direct-to-consumer business model but a young kid named Michael Dell selling computers out of his dorm room at the University of Texas? Corporations need to allow their managers to be naive enough to not "know better."

• Don’t be afraid to be wrong—just don’t stand still.

For managers to truly foster innovation within the corporation, they can take the best of both of these perspectives—the VC and the entrepreneur—and apply them in their own environment.

Jack Welch had a similar mind-set when it came to balancing competing priorities. "You can’t grow long-term if you can’t eat short-term," he states flatly. "Anybody can manage short. Anybody can manage long. Balancing those two things is what management is."

I might argue the same is true for instilling a similar entrepreneurial/analytical approach in the minds of corporate managers there are those that are able to sit back and analyze what idea is the best one, while others who are good at acting with the raw, unbridled enthusiasm of an entrepreneur. The best managers will do both. And the best corporations will help them figure out how.

作者：Mark Davis

Since entering the venture capital field, I have observed how other VCs approach the business. Tactics and practices vary greatly and some are better than others.

I have tried to identify venture capital best practices. There is more to the business than picking winners; the nuances of interacting with and supporting entrepreneurs are potentially more important. While I have found that there are dozens of small processes that are exemplary, the principles that make a VC effective and poised for long-term success can be boiled down to a top ten list. Although exceptions always exist, these ten guidelines appear to be the guiding light for how the best VCs interact with entrepreneurs. I believe that these rules are worthwhile for entrepreneurs to be aware of, as it is my hope that they will set the bar for their expectations.

Top Ten Ways In Which The Best VCs Interact With Entrepreneurs

1. Be respectful of entrepreneurs and their efforts – remember that they are changing the world.
2. Handle sensitive information carefully.
3. Be forthcoming if you are evaluating competitive opportunities.
4. Be honest about your intentions.
5. Respond as promptly as possible.
6. Help entrepreneurs when possible regardless of whether or not you intend to invest.
7. Ensure that entrepreneurs share in the upside.
8. Be an active board member.
9. Pursue the exits that are best for everyone around the table.
10. Support the entrepreneurial community.

More broadly, these guidelines address three potential VC short-comings that are commonly cited by entrepreneurs: arrogance, inconsiderate behavior and selfishness. The best VCs avoid these behaviors like the plague, and they do it for good reason; in the long run, it makes them more successful.

The all-stars of VC understand that the entrepreneurs are the stars of the startup show. This perspective keeps actions that could be perceived as arrogant in check. With this mindset, these VCs know that egos are unjustified and, very often, destructive. Simply being respectful can make life for entrepreneurs easier and can enable a type of board room collaboration that yields the most productive outcome.

As I mention in my post, The Venture Police: Reputation, VCs needs to be considerate in order to develop the kind of reputation that attracts the best entrepreneurs. Being considerate means a few things. First, it means stating intentions up front. For example, VCs who are looking at multiple opportunities in an industry need to inform entrepreneurs of that fact. Second, responding to entrepreneur emails in a timely fashion is also important. Responsiveness is part of being a team player – fundraising is a stressful process that does not need to be complicated for no reason. Furthermore, responding to emails is the same courtesy afforded to nearly everyone in business – entrepreneurs deserve the same respect. I have found that a quick “no” is always appreciated – like everybody else, entrepreneurs want to know where they stand. While promptly responding isn’t always easy for VCs when their email inboxes are being bombarded, efforts to be responsive appear to be appreciated.

Lastly, even when VCs don’t plan to invest, trying to selflessly help entrepreneurs is a noble pursuit – this goodwill gesture not only helps a VC’s reputation, it is the right thing to do. Helping an entrepreneur can increase the odds that a new service makes it to market, that new jobs are created and one person gets a little bit closer to realizing a dream.

The best VCs appear to understand that being perceived as arrogant, inconsiderate and selfish can damage their reputation and future deal flow. As a result, they go to great lengths to avoid these perceptions. Ultimately this unique alignment is one of my favorite aspects of the VC role – it’s in a VC’s best interest to be a good guy.

June 23, 2008 11:20 AM

Top, Bottom, Middle, or Who Cares?

Having been an entrepreneur and VC for over 20 years, I’ve now seen plenty of economic cycles - both at a macro level and specifically in the areas I invest in.  As a result, I smiled when I received three conflicting pieces of information today from two people I know and like and one person that I don’t know but know is respected.

Matt McCall at DFJ Portage calls the current VC cycle "dead" as of Q2 2008 in Rough Ride Ahead: Buckle Up & Get Your Money Now (if you can).  He says it with conviction, although he does acknowledge that he hopes he is Peter the Wolf.

Fred Wilson at Union Square Ventures asks (and answers) the question Am I Bored With “Web 2.0”? Fred is heading off to Europe for a month with his family "to see how the web is changing the world and I want to see how entrepreneurs who are operating with a different worldview are thinking about the power and potential of the web. I could do the same thing in Asia or some other part of the world, but Europe is particularly easy place to do this because of the range of cultures and countries within a couple hours plane ride from each other."

Merrill Lynch’s chief strategist Richard Bernstein in "Some thoughts on alternative investments (6/23/08)" says "The growth in alternative investments seems linked to the growth of the credit crisis" but then goes on to say "There may be two areas of alternative investments that seem relatively attractive in the current financial environment.  In both cases, these are areas that might benefit from the tightening of global credit.  The first is early-stage venture capital.  … If return-on-investment does indeed tend to be higher when capital is scarce, the significant tightening of traditional credit funding to smaller companies seems to make early-stage venture capital strategies more attractive."

While Bernstein’s definition of "early stage venture capital" is mostly likely different than mine (given my interpretation of his assertion), knowing how sound bites work, the three tag lines are "VC is dead", "I’m bored of Web 2.0 and need more meaning in my investments", and "early-stage VC is attractive again."

Like Fred, I also am about to embark on a month outside of my normal context.  Amy and I are about to head to our house in Homer, Alaska for the month of July.  I’m looking forward to going to a place where the Supreme Court rules Homer voter initiative invalid and thinking big (but not big box) thoughts.

As an early stage VC investor, I don’t pay much attention to the macro economy.  I’ve written about this in the past - some of our best investments have come during crappy economic periods (say 2001 - 2003).  We are funding very early stage companies with an expectation that it will take them 5+ years to mature into a successful business.  Lots can happen in 5+ years.

Guy Kawasaki, the guy behind Art of the Start, has some video clips with tips on raising venture capital for early stage startups.  He takes 15 minutes to deliver his "top 5" tips:

1. Make sure VC is right for you.  Most deals are suitable for VC for reasons that have to do with VC and not the company. 
2. Capture attention in 15 seconds. There’s a long story about Hot-or-Not to deliver this point.
3. Offer a "clean deal."  Don’t give the VC an easy reason to pass (in the first meeting).  Avoid lawsuits, nepotism, IP issues, etc. 
4. Pitch in PowerPoint.  Great quote: "not using PowerPoint is like joining a Haiku contest and then saying ‘I don’t want to be limited by 5-7-5.’"
5. Drill a lot of holes.  Go after a bunch of investors…at the end of the day all money is green

Bonus tip: ignore all of the above if your business is lightning in a bottle and growing faster than you can scale.

吸引社保基金为LP

目前，弘毅投资正在为其首只人民币基金募集资金，规模为50亿元人民币。这只基金因为社保基金是出资20亿元的LP（有限合伙人）而备受瞩目，这是社保基金第一次涉足私募股权领域，同时获得社保基金注资的还有鼎晖。

该人民币基金为一次募集、两次交割。其中，有35亿元已经在6月份交割，另外15亿元的额度正在募集过程中。根据国际惯例，弘毅也会出资一定的比例。

现在想进入的资金远远超过了这一数字。但弘毅仍在谨慎挑选中。之前募集的35亿元资金中，出资方主要是机构。对于第二次交割的15亿元是否允许个人进入，目前还在考虑中。

至于准入资格，投资者首先必须是境内符合资质的人民币投资者，其次要理解和接受弘毅的基金治理管理架构；机构则是类似社保的机构投资者，并且作为股东不会对将来被投企业上市造成阻碍的。

在中国，PE没有历史，只有机会。目前在国内真正懂得LP和GP的人很少，不少意向投资者提出“要投票权，要进董事会”等外行要求，而弘毅要保持这只基金的“单纯干净”,就不能不严之慎之。除了认同投资战略，希望这些LP能够提供金钱之外其他的附加值。目前，已经有不少投资项目正在洽谈中，首单可能落子江苏。

目前，弘毅的一、二、三期美元基金都已经投资完毕，但并未完全退出。对于回报率，尚未完全退出无法计算，但从现在目前已经退出的一些项目来看，相比国际的同期基金，弘毅的回报率排名在全球前25%之列。

专啃“国企”硬骨头

PE经常被形容为贪婪的洪水猛兽，外界的不了解只是因为PE做事低调但同时产生的影响力又非常大，也许我们有些神秘，但是很多复杂的谈判，是不能在荧光灯下做的，不过，我们确实也应该让外界了解这个行业是如何挣钱的。

如果一个基金做失败了，你将永远退出这个舞台，这个行业没有中间地带，要么做好，要么，死掉。

参与国企重组、改制会触及到很多根基的东西，必须要做深层次的转化；让一个企业从头到脚焕然一新，通常需要绝对的控制权、主导权；同时，弘毅在进入一家公司以后，没有炒过一位CEO，没有派出过一个管理人员。这就要求在投资以前，弘毅对被投企业和被投企业的管理层有非常充分的了解和高度的认同，这无疑是非常具有挑战性的事情。

重组过程中，首先要改变原有管理体制，建立新的决策、激励机制，让核心管理层持股；改制完成后帮助企业融资，登上资本市场舞台；这一系列的改变对国企来说是一场彻底的变革。不过赵令欢说，完成这一切的前提是“投对人”。

其实看到国企重组机会的并不只有弘毅投资，国际巨头凯雷、华平也早已发现并介入。我们的特长是熟悉本土市场，另外，我的投资理念是投资后的增值服务和价值创造，收购的结束只是价值增加过程的开始。

支持中联重科收购CIFA

2006年6月，弘毅投资参与中联重科重组，获得近17%的股权。

在对中联重科成功进行了改制后，我预见到未来的市场竞争将更加严峻，企业需要拓展国际渠道。于是不久前，中联重科联合弘毅作出重要决定：全资并购意大利知名混凝土机械厂家CIFA。

目前，该项收购仍在进行中。弘毅所采用的是典型的杠杆收购。部分用投资者的自有资金，部分靠目标公司现金流进行银行贷款，其中比例大致为5：5。这其中，中联出资60%，以弘毅为首的投资人出40%。

此次收购CIFA，弘毅可以独资收购CIFA40%的股份。但考虑到收购需要一个国际经验更丰富的伙伴，于是选择了高盛；需要一个懂得意大利本地业务并富有经验的，所以曼达林加入了。

收购完成后，中联重科将在混凝土机械行业拥有全球领先、中国第一的地位。收购将使中联重科从技术使用者变成技术拥有者，未来中联重科有可能100%拥有CIFA，实现这一点可能通过换股形式，即弘毅在退出CIFA的股份同时，增加对中联重科的持股比例，但目前来说，这还仅仅是个设想。

中国式KKR

虽然和国际巨头们还存在差距，国际巨头的经验或许丰富，但这些经验未必适合中国，因此有水土不服之说；而且由于做得过大，不能全心全意，不可能为中国市场重新制订一套体系。弘毅则不然，从治理结构到管理、企业文化、人员、政策都是按照中国需求为唯一坐标。

我们的投资经理都很土，他们也许不懂得华尔街模式那一套，但他们相当了解中国。在弘毅，没有投资手册，对每位投资经理的要求是：实事求是，不要和自己的项目谈恋爱；懂得团队协作；一丝不苟，不吝惜自己的汗水。

世界经济论坛在2008年一月发表的近200页的文章“私募股权的全球经济影响”，本报告的研究团队由哈佛商学院的Josh Lerner教授领导。这份报告核心围绕着四个研究论题：私募股权公司的“地域分析”，投资期，就业水平（以美国为例）还包括公司治理 (Corporate Governance)以英国为例。这份报告还附加了六个在欧洲、中国和印度的杠杆收购交易案例。

www.weforum.org/en/media/publications/PrivateEquityReports/index.htm

由私募股权理事会(Private Equity Council) 在2008年一月发表的“私募股权交易对美国的影响”做出了以下结论：比起同行业中的其他企业，特别是其他大型企业，大型私募股权交易带来了更多的就业机会。

www.privateequitycouncil.org

巴黎的HEC管理学院在2007年12月发表的“欧洲议会报告——私募股权和杠杆收购”中总结道：私募股权在和早期风险投资相关经济中扮演了决定性的角色。作者说，通过长期投资，私募股权公司在被收购企业中引发以成长型为主的变革，这对企业在短期和长期的竞争力起到了正面影响。

www.buyoutresearch.org

波士顿咨询公司在2008年2月发表的“长期坚持的好处——最好的私募股权公司如何在市场黯淡时仍然持续发展”文章中从顶级私募股权投资者汲取经验，他们突出的管理能力体现在强大的行业关系网，极度高端的专业知识以及强大的运营管理能力。

www.bcg.com/impact_expertise/publications/publication_list.jsp?pubID=2574

英国私募股权和风险投资协会在今年二月发表的“私募股权对2007英国经济的影响”中对私募股权对就业、英国经济和企业附加值的影响进行了探讨。

www.bvca.co.uk

安永在2008年7月发表了“全球2007年私募股权退出研究报告”，对私募股权投资人如何创造价值进行了细致分析。研究中确认了几个最成功的私募股权退出案例的最重要价值推动源头，其中包括注重积极收购，统一的激励机制，强大的管理队伍，积极进取的经营规划，和注重企业的进化及发展。研究总结，一半以上的顶级退出案例估价倍数增值得利于私募股权投资人履行的成功策略。

综合以上关于 PE的最新报告，以下几点是共同结论：

• 顶级私募投资基金长期稳定地得到比公募市场投资更高的回报率，而一般私募投资基金并不能得到比公募市场更好的回报。
• 吸收私募股权投资的企业就业成长呈J-曲线的走势，在并购之前和之后的几年有下滑趋势，但是在之后的几年有显著增长。
• 绝大部分私募股权投资人不是运用“买断即上市”的途径来投资，他们在投至少５年才能增加显著价值，之后再考虑退出，并不是追求短期上市的短线投资人。
• 借大量债 (Debt Leverge) 不是唯一的和最重要的导致 PE行业高回报的原因。

创业，有时候只需和平时想的相反即可：P

负面搜索引擎优化（SEO）公司ReputationDefender：获得$2.6M投资

http://venturebeat.com/2008/08/29/reputationdefender-raises-26m-to-protect-your-good-name/

投资者是Maples Investments, RP/JA Investments and European Founders Fund。

所谓负面搜索引擎优化，是指利用搜索引擎的排名规则，通过编辑在线内容等办法，降低竞争对手网站在搜索结果中的排名，或使之看上去好象在搜索结果中不存在。

ReputationDefender 通过运用其创办者 Michael Fertik 称为“谷歌绝缘”(Google Insulation) 的工具，雇佣了一批专家帮客户找出并消灭网络上每一条有损名誉的信息，或者尽可能地将不想被人看到的信息，尽量从google 的搜索结果中押后，从而将网站上有关个人或企业的不利评论隐藏掉。该公司同时制作有关其客户的有利内容，并使之出现在谷歌或雅虎搜索结果的最前面，这样，负面内容以及竞争对手的内容便被推后到不易被浏览到的页面上。