We're sunsetting PodQuest on 2025-07-28. Thank you for your support!
Export Podcast Subscriptions
cover of episode TechEquity's Catherine Bracy On What Venture Capital is Doing to our Economy

TechEquity's Catherine Bracy On What Venture Capital is Doing to our Economy

2025/3/11
logo of podcast KQED's Forum

KQED's Forum

AI Deep Dive AI Chapters Transcript
People
A
Alexis Madrigal
C
Catherine Bracey
I
Isaiah
M
Michael
帮助医生和高收入专业人士管理财务的金融教育者和播客主持人。
R
Ryan
讨论创建自由派版本的乔·罗根的播客主持人。
S
Srivan
Topics
Alexis Madrigal: 我认为风险投资是科技行业许多问题的根源,它导致了科技公司的贪婪和粗心。Catherine Bracey 的新书《世界吞噬者:风险投资如何吞噬经济》深入探讨了这个问题。 Catherine Bracey: 我创立的 TechEquity 致力于解决科技与经济公平问题,特别是住房和劳工问题。通过多年的工作,我发现科技本身没有价值,其价值取决于围绕它的商业模式,而这种模式由风险投资定义。风险投资最初是为了解决缺乏资金支持高风险初创企业的问题,但其关注点已经从追求突破性技术转变为追求幂律分布的财务回报。为了追求高回报,风险投资公司会推动所有投资公司走同一条路,即使这些公司不具备这样的潜力。这导致这些公司采取各种手段来追求快速增长,最终损害了消费者和社会。Good Eggs 公司的例子说明,风险投资模式并不适用于所有行业。风险投资的问题在于,它将一种方法应用于所有问题,而没有考虑这种方法是否合适。风险投资支持的公司往往追求快速扩张,而不考虑盈利能力或社会影响。“闪电式扩张”是一种风险投资公司常用的快速扩张策略,其代价是忽视负面影响。“闪电式扩张”策略导致了劳务剥削等问题。低利率环境下,风险投资公司可以不计成本地追求市场份额。Uber 的发展模式是“闪电式扩张”的典型案例。风险投资存在道德风险,早期投资者可以获利而无需承担负面后果。风险投资不应该投资快餐店、运动鞋店、床垫店等非突破性技术公司。风险投资已经成为一种单一文化,排挤了其他类型的资本。风险投资通过避免其他市场,以及其自身方法的创新不足,最终杀死了比创造的价值更多的价值。企业家为了获得风险投资,可能会改变自己的商业计划。风险投资挤压了其他类型的企业。大部分责任在于有限合伙人,而非风险投资公司本身。风险投资的资金分配模式导致企业家难以摆脱融资压力。风险投资的激励机制导致投资者关注的是公司估值的提升,而非公司的实际盈利能力。我认为风险投资应该专注于支持突破性技术,而非所有类型的企业。影响力投资与风险投资的目标不同,影响力投资更关注社会影响,而非财务回报。追求“幂律分布”回报的风险投资模式与追求稳健增长的模式是完全对立的。本书旨在展示风险投资忽视的机遇,而非简单地批判风险投资。本书旨在展示更多创新和创业的机会。当前的风险投资模式是新自由主义经济秩序的产物,这种秩序正在终结。未来的经济秩序将需要一种新的方法来资助技术突破。 Ryan: 我认为风险投资对创新至关重要,即使大多数公司失败了,也能带来经验教训。 Isaiah: 我认为大多数风险投资公司都希望改变世界,并非只追求回报。 Michael: 养老基金是最大的有限合伙人之一,它们的目标是获得最高的投资回报。风险投资公司需要为养老基金提供尽可能快的回报。 Srivan: 风险投资的问题是资本主义更大问题的一个症状,即资本主义的目标只是为了最大化投资者的回报。 supporting_evidences Alexis Madrigal: 'The venture capital business, which has deep roots in Silicon Valley, has become a massive engine of not just startup growth, but many of the socially destructive behaviors that tech critics have pointed out over the years.' Alexis Madrigal: 'In a new book, World Eaters, How Venture Capital is Cannibalizing the Economy, Catherine Bracey provides a compelling history of the industry's growth and transformation, highlighting the ways that venture-backed companies don't just wreak havoc themselves, but warp entrepreneurs' plans and crowd out other businesses that might work better in the long term.' Alexis Madrigal: 'So having read this book, you're making an argument that's super interesting to me that it's not just tech per se or entrepreneurs as a group who are responsible for some of the problems created by the tech industry, but this VC funding model.' Catherine Bracey: 'And really, to make a long story short, you know, along the last eight years of building tech equity and working on those issues, it became clear to me that something else was going on here. It wasn't just about the technology, that actually the technology itself was valueless. And the thing that made it either helpful to somebody's life or harmful to it was really the business model that was wrapped around it. And that business model is defined by the economic system itself. that creates the tech industry, which is VC. And it just doesn't get enough attention when it comes to how we think about the way that technology impacts our lives.' Catherine Bracey: 'Well, I think it actually might be helpful to talk about what happened before venture capital, because VC, which originated sort of in the middle of the 20th century, came about to solve a real problem, which was that there wasn't capital for sort of risky startups that were mostly building breakthrough technologies, trying to commercialize them, bring them to market. And a set of sort of civic and business leaders saw that need and decided, Catherine Bracey: 'And they settled on a model that is sort of the portfolio approach where VC funds spread money around across a few dozen companies in order to hedge their bets. Right. So this is high risk, high reward business. They know that because they're so risky, most of them will fail. A small number will succeed in those small numbers will exceed a lot. Right. More than making up for the most. And that's a concept known as the power law. Yeah. And that's really like the fundamental principle of VC.' Catherine Bracey: 'And that means or that means they are pushing the risk factor. Like if there's a bunch of dials on how you might grow a business, they kind of, as you said, it's a high risk, high reward business, but they want the highest risk. And therefore the highest reward too. Yeah. And over time, there was sort of a subtle mindset shift from... the investors pursuing these breakthrough technologies and realizing that as a result of that, they would achieve power law distributions to now it being about the power law distribution, starting from that point and trying to reverse engineer power.' Catherine Bracey: 'And so then when they're making these bets, they are not really looking at, is this a breakthrough technology? They're looking at, can this help me achieve the financial return that I want to achieve? And so then they start pushing every company they invest in, since they're not sure which of those companies will be the outsized winners at the end. to follow the same path that would make them as big as possible, even if they don't have a natural ability to become that big.' Catherine Bracey: 'to follow the same path that would make them as big as possible, even if they don't have a natural ability to become that big. And when those companies are, you know, that kind of pressure is put on those companies, they start cutting corners and skirting regulations and exploiting workers and pushing the burden and the risk onto customers and society. And there are, you know, myriad stories, you' Catherine Bracey: 'It's actually the first company I thought of when I started thinking about not just the big sort of VC flameouts like Theranos or WeWork or FTX, but really the companies that I felt like could have been really great businesses but for.' Catherine Bracey: 'What we were trying to do was take this methodology and apply it to just any problem without thinking about whether that was the right tool to solve that problem. And instead, we should have been either focusing on the problem that we were trying to solve and evaluating what the right tool was to address it, or if what we wanted to build was software, then finding a problem that had a software-sized solution. solution hole that could have addressed it. And instead, and that I think is really gets to the crux of what's wrong with VC is like, it's not the solution. Software is not the solution to everything. And it doesn't scale in every industry the way it does in the software industry.' Catherine Bracey: 'And scaling really is the thing that I feel like at least I most associate with venture-backed companies that they're – particularly in the era of the last, you know, say 10 or 15 years, just like get as big as you can as fast as you can regardless of – even whether you're making money, whether like the business is good for the city or the nation or the world.' Catherine Bracey: 'So there are many. The thing about VCs is they like to talk about their work in public a lot. So there are many different playbooks that different VCs have written about how you should approach trying to build a venture scale company. And one of the most famous is called Blitzscaling by Reid Hoffman. who is, of course, a very successful entrepreneur and investor. And I mean, you know, it's called blitzscaling. So a lot of what you need to know about it. Right there on the tin. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's quite something to name a growth strategy after a Nazi military technique. But, you know, here we are. Yeah. You know, it's basically the idea of VC, to get the scale that VC companies need in order to achieve that power law distribution, you really need to like attack whole markets. And it is, you know, sort of the goal is to create monopolies by taking over markets as quickly as possible and vanquishing your competition. I mean, it's very sort of domination coded. And blitzscaling really is... is a handbook in order to do that. Like, how do you become as big as possible as quickly as you can in order not to give any competition a foothold to challenge you so you can just like stake out your ground and like gain as much of the profit that's available here as possible. And it really highlights like hammer, not scalpel approach to doing this. And there's sort of like the negative externalities or the collateral damage is all feature, not bug. You know, those things are a sign that you're doing it the right way. It's really about like intentional thoughtlessness. And he says like you want... To hire good enough people and let fires burn and like treat customers poorly. And he calls workers growth limiters. So like, you know, get to as big as you can as quickly as you can with as few people on the payroll as possible.' Catherine Bracey: 'which honestly I think is at the root of a lot of the labor exploitation that happens in VC-backed companies. And that, you know, I don't necessarily want to pick on that one methodology. It just happens to be very evocative, but it's the way they all do it.' Catherine Bracey: 'which honestly I think is at the root of a lot of the labor exploitation that happens in VC-backed companies. And that, you know, I don't necessarily want to pick on that one methodology. It just happens to be very evocative, but it's the way they all do it. Yeah, and it was really easy to throw money at the problem in the zero interest rate range. realm of the pre-inflation period, right? Because you could just literally spend as much money as possible trying to take market share without ever having to turn a profit, right?' Catherine Bracey: 'Yeah. I mean, if you think about the way that Uber grew, it was blitzscaling. I mean, in the book, it's held up as sort of the prime example of how to do this right. And I think we all know the Uber story pretty well at this point. You know, they obviously saw the taxi business and Lyft and other sort of rideshare companies as the competition that needed to be vanquished. And they took' Catherine Bracey: 'what kind of business it could have been. But there's no question that the people who invested in Uber early made a lot of money, right? So they didn't have to be responsible for any of those bad actions. They didn't pay a price for it. There was no cost to them. So there's really a moral hazard here too in venture capital, which is that the short-termism allows the people who are in early to make a lot of money and not have to pay the price.' Ryan: 'I guess I'm calling in support of venture capital. So I moved to San Francisco from Florida and I pursued a very ambitious idea of putting a satellite in orbit to stream back to VR headsets around the world. And so I raised about $2.5 million in venture capital for that. And I never would have been able to do that. And anywhere else in the world. And so I think venture capital is a great thing. And even the nine of the 10 that fail, I mean, we learn so much in this sort of scientific experimentation process. And even Theranos, the example everyone likes to use is a bad VC. I mean, her goal was to do a blood scan and detect 10,000 diseases in every person, which if she would have succeeded, is a beautiful thing to have in the world. And there should be a hundred other companies pursuing that goal.' Catherine Bracey: 'Yeah. I mean, so a couple of things. First, you know, I don't know that. Well, I don't know if Theranos is a good, great example here or the bad example, but like she did commit fraud. Right. And I do think that, you know, regardless of what her intention was for the actual technology, right. She committed fraud. She broke the law and she defrauded investors.' Catherine Bracey: 'And so this is a place that it's a kind of world that attracts people who are grifters and charlatans and frauds. I mean, it just does. I don't think that's the majority of people.' Catherine Bracey: 'I don't want to leave people the impression that I think venture capital is a bad thing full stop. I think the way that venture capital has come to be practiced in part fueled by this extremely long period of zero interest rates is is the thing that is causing harm.' Catherine Bracey: 'And for a company like Ryan's that is doing something that is a breakthrough technology, then yes, that is what the original intention of VC was supposed to be. And I think VC should come back to that and be that. But it doesn't need to be funding fast casual restaurants like Kava. It doesn't need to be funding sneakers stores. It doesn't need to be funding mattress sellers. I mean, these are all the things that feel like it doesn't need to be funding grocery stores that are trying to fix the food ecosystem or housing companies.' Catherine Bracey: 'These are places where, you know, the problem is that VC has become a monoculture and crowded out every other kind of capital that could fund those other businesses. And that's, you know, the bigger harm here is not what VC has funded. It's what it's not funding or what it's what it's funding and then forcing to shift away from its true market potential and the cost to the economy, you' Catherine Bracey: 'for the rest of us. Like I have really come to believe that VC is killing more value than it creates by avoiding those, you know, other kinds of markets or in innovating itself on the methodology it uses to fund companies or in how it pulls entrepreneurs away from solving the problem that they really wanted to solve in the first place.' Catherine Bracey: 'Well, that's the... Yeah, that's what I think this person meant when they said that they asked us to lie to them in very specific ways. Like, you're going into... dozens of pitch meetings and every pitch meeting you go in and do your pitch and you're going to get a little bit of feedback, you know, from that no or, you know, that then shifts you subtly towards actually shaping this to be something that will get you VC funding. And then all of a sudden you're doing something completely different.' Catherine Bracey: 'I feel like this is highly underrated because if you're competing against companies that can pour in all this cash to scale and you're trying to be a normal business that has to turn a profit so that you can pay your employees and keep the lights on, it actually erodes the ability for all kinds of businesses to work.' Catherine Bracey: 'And because Chef had a story to tell about scale, they raised tens of millions of more dollars, right, than Food Gnome or Josephine could. And just by having a competitor that had tens of millions of more dollars than them, there was no way. I mean, like before Food Gnome and Josephine could even really get out of the gate, it was... They were already dead in the water because they couldn't compete with Chef.' Catherine Bracey: 'Yeah. I mean, if I'm apportioning the pie of blame here, I mean, the vast majority of it goes to limited partners who are actually the investors who put money into venture capital funds. So it's not even really... the VCs all the time that I blame the most, they're responding to a set of incentives that institutional investors create for them.' Catherine Bracey: 'it's doled out in these sort of rounds. You have this kind of seed round, A round, B round, C round. And people think, oh, well, okay, I'll get to the A or the B and I'll be profitable. I can pay back the investors and then I'm free of this, right? But actually oftentimes it's rarer than they think.' Catherine Bracey: 'Then they're in a place where they've got all these costs and they can't get to the next stage without another capital infusion. And, you know, the investor's interest is not in proving that this is actually a good business. Their interest is improving to the next round of investors that this thing is a more valuable company than it was when they invested in it so that the next round of investors can put a higher price tag on it. And then that the first round of investors can go back to their limited partners and say, see, Catherine Bracey: 'You know, I don't actually know that much about hedge funds. I can say... They hold a bunch of different kinds of investments, right? I mean, they're not just investing in startup companies. They may have timber. They may hold publicly traded stocks. They may hold all the... But venture capital funds, right, tend to focus just on these kind of early stage companies.' Michael: 'Their role is to get the highest return on our retirement funds, and a percentage of that portfolio is venture firms to have some level of risk to produce a higher return and a higher overall percentage.' Michael: 'And you take that backwards. And you look at what venture firms need to do for the pension funds, which is what they need to do for us, which is the flip side of how do you produce the fastest return possible is what if you don't?' Catherine Bracey: 'Yeah, I think I described it as like the salt in a meal. You're going to know if it's not in there, right? It's a very important component, but you don't pay a lot of attention to it, like sourcing it in the way that you might source your meat or your produce, right? So you just kind of throw it in there. It's salt and don't think much about it, but it's a really important component to the meal. But that means since, you know, these... big LPs are not thinking that much about venture capital. They haven't questioned the methodology in a very long time.' Catherine Bracey: 'And, you know, there are some of the big funds. I mean, the VC industry is power law distributed as well, whereas like the vast majority of the profits from VC comes from like you know, the top 1% of the firms.' Catherine Bracey: 'And maybe there's another reason to keep it in the fund. My argument is like, fine, keep sending your money there. It's not that much. But like, maybe you also want to add a a few other spices besides just salt to the mix and see if that changes the flavor.' Catherine Bracey: 'Like, I think that there are different approaches to funding innovation that can produce... results that are at least on par with average venture capital results, if not outperform the average venture capital fund, if they are given the oxygen to really go out and prove that there are new methodologies, new innovative approaches to funding innovative startups that don't need to be push everybody to achieve a power law return in order to succeed.' Isaiah: 'And I think that San Francisco is one of the last places you can show up and sleep on floors and end up becoming someone who can build something amazing. And venture capital is a pretty small blip in the world of finance. And I think to take that opportunity away would actually be to harm the innovators and the people that want to build the future at a massive scale. And that's not to say there's not bad people in venture capital. There is, but I do think it is one of the last places where truly the American dream can be found and built.' Catherine Bracey: 'I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that I think he sort of said something about like getting rid of venture capital. That is not at all what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that VC play the role that it should play and needs to play that we need it to play in the economy, which is to pursue the technological breakthroughs.' Catherine Bracey: 'when Genentech got its investment back, you know, I don't know, 30, 40 years ago now, that money made the world a better place. I mean, they produced mass scale insulin. And, you know, before they were sort of like harvesting it from pigs. That's a huge technological breakthrough that is hard science. We need investors who are willing to take this big invest. Celebrated by pigs everywhere. Yeah. We do not need venture capital to fund mattress companies or, you know, good eggs.' Catherine Bracey: 'And it's not actually impact investing to like use the baseball metaphor that is very popular to describe VC. I mean, if what if what the power law return is seeking out are grand slams and that's what they say, like this is a grand slam business. What I'm suggesting is that we need like you can also win a baseball game by hitting doubles and triples. Right. Or single home runs. You know, you don't always need a grand slam. Right. And, you know, the odds are better with doubles and triples as well.' Catherine Bracey: 'That's just worth noting that is completely antithetical to the current VC world. Right. I mean, they think about it essentially in the opposite way. It is definitionally like if you are trying to do that, hit doubles and triples, you are not a venture capitalist.' Catherine Bracey: 'Well, funny you should mention, Patrick. Yeah. You do try and bring people who are trying to do it a different way, right? And that's what I start with. I mean, I start by saying, like, I started out with the idea that this was going to be a book about everything that was wrong with VC and, you know, and the... the bad outcomes from these companies that it had invested in and what it turned into was a book about what we were missing by VC not investing in all of these other companies. Right.' Catherine Bracey: 'And so many of them I talked to had ideas that were really great ideas that don't exist in the world now. And we will never know the scale of that loss. And I try in the book to pull those stories out as much as possible. But ultimately, this is a story about how we can have more innovation and entrepreneurship in the world. Not less.' Catherine Bracey: 'Right. Because there's all these big like Hollywood studios kind of doing this stuff over here that sure, they're going to spend $100 million. They might make $120 million or something. But what if you spend $2 million and you make 10? That's still a pretty good business.' Catherine Bracey: 'And if it's just VC pursuing the power law returns and they're raising, you know, $5 billion funds where they need their outcomes to be, you know, double, you know, double the amount of money they need to be able to do that. digit billion dollar outcomes in order to achieve their returns, then you're going to miss all of that really cool stuff that's further down the line.' Srivan: 'The problem with VC funding is just a symptom of a larger problem, which is capitalism, where we are in AI, we frequently talk about the alignment problem. I think capitalism also has an alignment problem where the only goal is to maximize return for investors.' Catherine Bracey: 'And before the 2024 election, it was fair enough. Like, yeah, you're right. I don't mean this is a more concentrated version of capitalism. But yes, you see this kind of behavior across capitalism after the election, though, and in the wake of like Silicon Valley moving to the right and seeing a lot of venture capitalists sort of run to Trump. My sense is actually what we're seeing is like the death of like the free market economic era. And it's sort of in order to sort of bring in, I don't know, more populist era and what those VCs are doing. sort of signaling with their, I think, sort of desperate move to MAGA is that they know that's ending. And their approach to investing was so closely aligned with the sort of, I guess, neoliberal economic order, if you will, to be wonky about it, but like this free market era of VC is like the perfect representation. It's the mascot of that era of capitalism.' Catherine Bracey: 'And I hope that like what comes next, I don't know when it's coming or what the world is going to look like when it gets here, but it's like, it's a different kind of capitalism that, appreciates different types of value. And whatever that economic order is when we get there, we're going to need a methodology for funding technological breakthroughs. That's still going to be true.'

Deep Dive

Chapters
Catherine Bracy's book, "World Eaters," argues that venture capital's focus on rapid growth and short-term gains is harming the economy. The current VC model prioritizes scale over sustainable business practices, leading to negative consequences for workers, customers, and society.
  • Venture capital's focus on short-term results and rapid growth at any cost is harmful.
  • The VC model prioritizes scale, leading to negative consequences.
  • VCs push companies to grow as quickly as possible, regardless of profitability or ethical considerations.

Shownotes Transcript

风险资本旨在为蓬勃发展的公司注入资金以促进增长,但它却变成了一个过于痴迷于追求短期成果和不惜一切代价快速增长的行业。Catherine Bracy在其新书《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》中提出了这一论点。Bracy研究了风险资本模式如何导致无数公司倒闭,以及如何扭曲从食品配送到住房等行业。Bracy作为总部位于奥克兰的TechEquity的创始人兼首席执行官,一直倡导使科技行业更加公平、多元化和可持续发展。她加入我们的节目,讨论她为什么认为风险资本正在损害经济以及如何解决这个问题。嘉宾:Catherine Bracy,TechEquity执行董事兼创始人;《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》一书的作者。</context> <raw_text>0 在当前的环境下,太多的公司只是在等待渡过难关。在IDEO,我们与大胆的领导者合作,创造更勇敢的未来,将组织从基本增长提升到真正的创新。在IDEO.com了解更多信息。网址是I-D-E-O dot com。Xfinity Mobile旨在为您节省资金。因此,您可以以低廉的价格获得高速服务。

比以高价获得低速服务要好。嫉妒吗?Xfinity互联网用户,购买一条无限流量线路即可免费获得一年无限流量线路。带来好东西。来自KQED。

来自旧金山的KQED,我是Alexis Madrigal。在过去十年中,科技行业受到了海湾地区及其他地区许多人的抨击。科技被指责为发展过快,破坏了太多东西。在一本新书中,作者Catherine Bracey认为,问题的根源在于初创企业和软件的上游,在于科技企业的融资模式。

也就是说,风险资本应对科技公司的贪婪和粗心负责。这本书名为《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》。Bracey将在新闻之后加入我们。欢迎来到论坛。我是Alexis Madrigal。

获得数亿美元融资的风投支持的初创企业是我们世界如此重要的一部分,以至于你可能会认为它一直都是这样。但事实并非如此。谷歌上市前只筹集了约2600万美元。Uber筹集了132亿美元,是谷歌的500倍。

风险资本业务在硅谷拥有深厚的根基,它已经成为一个巨大的引擎,不仅推动初创企业发展,而且还推动了多年来科技评论家指出的许多具有社会破坏性的行为。

在新书《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》中,Catherine Bracey对该行业的增长和转型提供了令人信服的历史,强调了风投支持的公司不仅会造成自身破坏,还会扭曲企业家的计划,并挤压其他可能长期更有效的企业。

换句话说,这是一本对公司创始人相当同情,对其尖锐批评硅谷金融文化所吹捧的结构的书。Catherine,非常感谢你今天早上加入我们。感谢邀请我。

所以,读完这本书后,你提出了一个对我来说非常有趣的主张,即并非仅仅是科技本身或企业家群体应对科技行业造成的一些问题负责,而是这种风投融资模式。那么,风险资本及其运作方式有什么问题呢?你是如何认定这是最重要的问题的呢?

是的。我经营着一个名为Tech Equity的组织,我们致力于科技与经济公平交叉领域的问题,特别是住房和劳动力,这些领域对普通人的生活影响最大,而科技的影响也最大。

总而言之,在过去八年建设Tech Equity和处理这些问题的过程中,我清楚地认识到,这里还发生了其他事情。这不仅仅是关于技术的问题,实际上技术本身是没有价值的。让它对某人的生活有益或有害的是围绕它的商业模式。而这种商业模式是由经济体系本身定义的。

它创造了科技产业,那就是风投。在思考技术如何影响我们的生活时,它并没有得到足够的关注。让我们简要介绍一下风投的运作方式。假设你是一位企业家。你从朋友和家人那里凑了一些钱,你有一些小项目正在进行。你有一个想法的种子。谁知道它会是什么?你出去,想要获得资金以便发展,然后你去找风险资本。会发生什么?

我认为谈谈风险资本出现之前发生的事情可能会有所帮助,因为风险资本起源于20世纪中期,是为了解决一个实际问题而产生的,那就是缺乏资金用于高风险的初创企业,这些企业大多是开发突破性技术,试图将其商业化并推向市场。一群公民和商业领袖看到了这种需求,并决定,

开始尝试一些模式,如果他们投资这些有风险的突破性技术,这些模式将从财务上受益。

他们选择了一种投资组合方法的模式,即风投基金将资金分散到几十家公司,以对冲风险。对。所以这是一项高风险、高回报的业务。他们知道,因为风险很高,所以大多数公司都会失败。一小部分公司会成功,而这些成功公司将获得超额回报。对。超过弥补大多数损失。这就是所谓的幂律。是的。

这确实是风投的基本原则。因此,当一位企业家出去筹集资金时,他去找一位风险投资家,这位风险投资家考虑的是,这家公司是否能够帮助我在我的基金中实现幂律分布,而不是大多数值都集中在中间的正态分布?是的。

这意味着他们正在提高风险因素。就像如果你有一堆关于如何发展业务的旋钮,他们就像你说的那样,这是一项高风险、高回报的业务,但他们想要最高的风险。因此,回报也最高。是的。随着时间的推移,思维方式发生了微妙的变化……

投资者追求这些突破性技术,并意识到,因此,他们将实现幂律分布,现在是从这一点开始,试图反向设计幂律。

他们投资的所有公司都符合这种财务模型。然后他们对他们实际投资的公司漠不关心。因此,当他们进行这些投资时,他们并没有真正考虑这是否是一项突破性技术?他们考虑的是,这能否帮助我实现我想要实现的财务回报?因此,他们开始推动他们投资的每家公司,因为他们不确定哪些公司最终将成为超额赢家。

遵循同样的路径,使它们尽可能地壮大,即使它们没有自然的能力变得如此庞大。当这些公司受到这种压力时,它们就开始偷工减料,规避法规,剥削工人,并将负担和风险转嫁给客户和社会。有很多故事,你

在过去几年中,关于风投支持的公司这样做时会发生什么,有很多新闻报道。是的。我们正在与TechEquity的执行董事兼创始人Catherine Bracey交谈。她有一本新书《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》。如果您是一位企业家,您有接受风险资本的经验,或者,谁知道呢,甚至拒绝了风险资本,我们很乐意听到您的意见。也许您自己就是一位风投,您想为该行业辩护,或者您觉得……

一些批评是正确的。您可以给我们打电话。号码是866-733-6786。号码是866-733-6786。您可以将您的评论和问题发送电子邮件至[email protected],或者当然也可以通过Blue Sky Instagram或KQED Forum发送。

你能不能举个例子?也许你想做Good Eggs。也许你没有一家公司看起来像是有一个可以运作的业务,但也许它不会以风投支持的初创公司的方式运作。是的,也许我会……我的意思是,Good Eggs,既然你提到了它,它是一家海湾地区的公司。是的。

事实上,当我开始思考不仅仅是像Theranos、WeWork或FTX这样的大型风投失败案例,而是那些我认为如果不是因为……

风险资本和Good Eggs,这是一种农场到餐桌的杂货店业务,就是其中一个例子。因此,这位之前创办过软件公司并将其出售给谷歌的创始人非常成功,并且拥有对风投有吸引力的资历。

决定他想利用软件和软件创造的效率来帮助,你知道,扩大健康本地食品生态系统。他认为,如果这样做成功的话,他们可以实现10%的食品系统来自本地种植或本地生产商。

这显然将带来巨大的好处,不仅仅是经济利益,而且对社会、环境、公共健康等方面都有巨大的好处。

因此,他做了我认为2010年前后大多数企业家所做的事情,他们只知道该怎么做,那就是去向风险投资家推销,嘿,我们可以把这个业务变成一家软件公司,这个东西以前是实体店。现在软件正在吞噬世界。这是Marc Andreessen在2011年的一句名言,书名也参考了这句话,即软件正在进入所有这些公司。

传统上属于实体世界的企业。

并创造以前无法创造的效率和所有这些价值。而且,你知道,长话短说,我认为他很快发现,在软件中有效的风投方法在其他领域并不那么有效。这就是这种吞噬世界的思维方式开始崩溃的地方。如果你考虑一下一些最糟糕的例子……

你知道,世界上的风投,WeWork、Theranos、Juul、Uber。我的意思是,这些公司试图将这种方法应用到一个非常现实的世界中。因此,你知道,他告诉我的是,是的,我们认为我们可以运行这个剧本,

对于一家杂货店业务来说,但是利润率不一样。而且人也不一样。如果我们需要改变我们的业务,软件公司总是这样做,对那些在仓库工作每小时赚15美元的人来说,成本要高得多,或者对那些无法

立即改变他们生产的产品的农民来说也是如此。这会产生连锁反应。而且,你知道,他说了一些让我印象深刻的话,那就是,

我们试图做的是采用这种方法来解决任何问题,而没有考虑这是否是解决该问题的正确工具。相反,我们应该专注于我们试图解决的问题,并评估解决该问题的正确工具是什么,或者如果我们想要构建的是软件,那么找到一个具有软件规模解决方案的问题。

可以解决它的解决方案。相反,我认为这真正抓住了风投问题的核心,就像,它不是解决方案。软件不是万能的解决方案。它在各个行业的扩展方式与在软件行业中的扩展方式不同。是的。

而扩展真的是我觉得至少我最常与风投支持的公司联系在一起的事情,他们——尤其是在过去,你知道,比如说过去10年或15年中,就像尽可能快地变得尽可能大一样,无论——即使你是否赚钱,无论业务对城市、国家或世界是否有利。是的。

我们将更多地讨论这个想法的来源,关于规模的重要性以及它与风险资本的关系。

我们正在与Catherine Bracey交谈。她是位于奥克兰的Tech Equity的执行董事兼创始人。她出版了一本新书,名为《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》。如果您在科技领域有作为企业家的经验,或者您在

风险资本方面,你知道,这种风险资本生态系统如何影响您的生活或您的业务?您可以给我们打电话。号码是866-733-6788。

号码是866-733-6786。您可以将您关于风险资本世界的评论或问题发送电子邮件至[email protected]。您可以在社交媒体、Blue Sky、Instagram等平台上找到我们。我们是KQED Forum,或者您可以访问Discord。我是Alexis Madrigal。休息后我们将继续讨论。

在当前的环境下,太多的公司只是在等待渡过难关。在IDEO,我们与大胆的领导者合作,创造更勇敢的未来,将组织从基本增长提升到真正的创新。在IDEO.com了解更多信息。网址是I-D-E-O dot com。

Xfinity Mobile旨在为您节省资金。因此,您可以以低廉的价格获得高速服务。比以高价获得低速服务要好。嫉妒吗?Xfinity互联网用户,购买一条无限流量线路即可免费获得一年无限流量线路。带来好东西。欢迎回到论坛。我是Alexis Madrigal。我们正在与TechEquity的执行董事兼创始人Catherine Bracey交谈,讨论她的新书《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》。

我们还将听到您的一些经验。让我们谈谈规模,我认为是Reid Hoffman,如果您可能上周听过他的话,他称之为闪电式扩展,以及这与公司以前尝试发展业务的方式有何不同。

是的。有很多。关于风投的一点是,他们喜欢在公共场合谈论他们的工作。因此,不同的风投写了很多不同的策略手册,关于你应该如何着手建立一家风投规模的公司。最著名的一种是由Reid Hoffman撰写的《闪电式扩展》。

他当然是一位非常成功的企业家和投资者。我的意思是,你知道,它被称为闪电式扩展。所以你只需要知道很多关于它的信息。就在那里。是的。是的。是的。将一种增长战略以纳粹军事技术命名,这确实是一件非常重要的事情。但是,你知道,我们在这里。是的。

你知道,这基本上是风投的想法,为了获得风投公司为了实现这种幂律分布而需要的规模,你真的需要攻击整个市场。而且,你知道,目标是通过尽可能快地接管市场并击败竞争对手来创造垄断。我的意思是,它非常具有支配性代码。闪电式扩展实际上是……

是一种做到这一点的指南。例如,你如何才能尽可能快地变得尽可能大,以至于不给任何竞争对手立足之地来挑战你,这样你就可以占据你的地盘,并尽可能多地获得这里可用的利润。它确实突出了……

锤子,而不是手术刀的方法来做到这一点。而且有一些负面外部性或附带损害都是特点,而不是缺陷。你知道,这些事情表明你做得对。这实际上是关于有意的漫不经心。他说你想要……

雇佣足够好的人,让火燃烧,对客户态度恶劣。他称工人为增长限制器。所以,你知道,尽可能快地尽可能多地雇佣尽可能少的人。是的。

老实说,我认为这是风投支持的公司中发生的大量劳动力剥削的根源。而且,你知道,我不一定想挑剔这种方法。它碰巧非常生动,但它们都是这样做的。是的,在零利率区间很容易用钱解决问题。

通货膨胀前的时期,对吧?因为你可以真的花尽可能多的钱来争夺市场份额,而无需盈利,对吧?我觉得Uber真的成为了这种增长战略的领军人物。是的。

是的。我的意思是,如果你考虑Uber的增长方式,那就是闪电式扩展。我的意思是,在书中,它被认为是正确执行此操作的最佳示例。我认为我们现在都非常了解Uber的故事了。你知道,他们显然将出租车业务以及Lyft和其他拼车公司视为需要被击败的竞争对手。他们采取了

在道德上和法律上都存在问题的做法来实现这种市场份额。但这都是战略的一部分。这再次被视为发展业务的积极方式,而不是消极方式。我们都必须应对它。我的意思是,我不知道从长远来看它是否真的……

会对他们有利。他们现在似乎做得很好,但部分原因是他们意识到这种请求原谅,而不是请求许可的做法正在损害他们。例如,我不确定如果他们采取了不同的方法,Lyft会获得很多业务,因为Uber不喜欢,或者人们不喜欢Uber的运营方式。所以,你知道,这里有一些问题。

它可能是什么样的业务。但毫无疑问,早期投资Uber的人赚了很多钱,对吧?所以他们不必对那些不良行为负责。他们没有为此付出代价。他们没有损失。所以风投中也存在严重的道德风险,那就是短期主义允许早期投资者赚很多钱,而无需为此付出代价。让我们邀请Ryan,他有一些与风投相关的经验。欢迎。

嘿,伙计们。你们好吗?嘿,很好。感谢您的来电。是的,我很乐意。

哦,继续。你的故事是什么?是的,我应该开始了吗?是的,是的。开始吧。我想我打电话是为了支持风险资本。所以我从佛罗里达搬到了旧金山,我追求了一个非常雄心勃勃的想法,那就是将一颗卫星送入轨道,向世界各地的VR耳机回传数据。所以我为此筹集了大约250万美元的风险资本。我永远无法做到这一点。而且

在世界其他任何地方。所以我认为风险资本是一件好事。即使是失败的十家公司中的九家,我的意思是,我们在这种科学实验过程中学到了很多东西。即使是Theranos,每个人都喜欢用它来举例说明糟糕的风投。我的意思是,她的目标是进行血液扫描,检测每个人的10000种疾病,如果她成功了,

这是一件美好的事情。应该有另外一百家公司追求这个目标。但是,你知道,这有点像,我的意思是,Ryan,对我来说,这有点像,你知道,把铅变成金子将是一个惊人的想法,但这是不可能的,对吧?这就是Theranos最终发生的事情。我的意思是,对吧?因为很多事情都变成了,你知道,正如Catherine所说,这种叙事驱动的想法,对吧?所以,我的意思是,对于你这样一位从风投那里获得资金的人来说,我的问题是,对吧?像……

你是否觉得你可以以最佳方式管理公司,以真正追求最终目标?或者你是否觉得你必须尝试以一种不健康的方式发展业务?或者实际情况与想法有何不同?

有不同类型的风投。当你谈到这种超大规模的软件付费订阅版本时,这有点不同。对我们来说,我们正在将卫星发射到太空,并将其回传到VR。这些都是资本密集型的事情。普通人买不起火箭发射器或卫星。

没有投资者。而且是一家非常大的基金来支持我们。是的,我的意思是,这简直令人难以置信。是的。

哦,继续,Catherine。是的。我的意思是,所以有几件事。首先,你知道,我不知道。好吧,我不知道Theranos在这里是一个好例子还是坏例子,但是她确实犯了欺诈罪。对。而且我认为,你知道,无论她对这项技术的意图是什么,对吧。

她犯了欺诈罪。她违法了,她欺骗了投资者。另一个,你知道,这说明了一点,就像一个企业家告诉我的那样。

当我采访他们时,投资者要求我们以非常具体的方式向他们撒谎。这与风投的“假装直到成功”文化有关,因为没有人知道哪家公司在……你知道,这些都是早期阶段的初创企业。没有人知道他们要去哪里。对。因此,如果你能编造一个

关于潜在增长的足够引人注目的故事,那么你就可以筹集到很多资金。所以这是一个吸引骗子、江湖骗子和骗子的世界。我的意思是,它确实如此。我不认为这是大多数人。但正如Ryan所说,我的意思是,我知道我们可能会谈到这一点。我不想让人们留下这样的印象,即我认为风险资本

完全是一件坏事。我认为风险资本的运作方式,部分原因是由于这段极其漫长的零利率时期,是

是造成损害的原因。对于像Ryan这样的公司来说,它正在做一些突破性技术,那么是的,这就是风投最初的意图。我认为风投应该回到这一点,并且应该做到这一点。但它不需要资助像Kava这样的快餐店。它不需要资助运动鞋店。它不需要资助床垫销售商。

我的意思是,所有这些事情都感觉它不需要资助试图修复食品生态系统的杂货店或住房公司。

这些地方,你知道,问题是风投已经成为一种单一文化,挤压了所有其他可能为这些其他企业提供资金的资本。这就是,你知道,这里更大的危害不是风投资助了什么。而是它没有资助什么,或者它资助了什么,然后迫使其偏离其真正的市场潜力,以及对经济的成本,你

对我们其他人来说。我真的很相信,风投通过避免那些,你知道,其他类型的市场,或者通过创新它用来为公司提供资金的方法,或者通过它如何将企业家从他们真正想要解决的问题中转移出来,从而消灭了比创造更多的价值。是的。我觉得认识了很多初创企业家后,他们往往想做一件事

但随后他们告诉风投他们可以做其他事情,以便他们可以获得投资来尝试做他们真正想做的事情。好吧,这就是……是的,我认为这个人指的是他们要求我们以非常具体的方式向他们撒谎。就像你一样……

参加数十次推介会,每次推介会你都会进行推介,你会得到一些反馈,你知道,从那个不,你知道,然后会微妙地改变你,实际上将它塑造成一些能够让你获得风投资金的东西。然后突然之间,你做的事情完全不同了。你知道,你书中解决的一个非常重要的问题。Blue Sky上的听众写道,想知道Bracey女士是否会评论风投是否影响了海湾地区可能投资本地企业但没有投资的传统投资者。

我觉得这是被严重低估的,因为如果你与那些可以投入大量现金来扩展规模的公司竞争,而你试图成为一家必须盈利的正常企业,以便你可以支付员工工资并维持运营,那么它实际上会削弱各种企业运作的能力。对,对,对,对。我与……书中有一个故事比较了两家海湾地区的公司

家庭烹饪初创公司,一家名为Josephine,另一家名为Food Gnome,与一家风投支持的、更传统的风投支持的公司相比,这家公司也在做同样的事情,名为Chef。

而且,你知道,Food Gnome和Josephine模式更侧重于在经济中处于边缘地位的家庭厨师,通常不会说英语作为第一语言,是来自其他国家的移民,并且试图在经济中立足,以便,例如,建立追随者,以便他们可以拥有一家实体店。是的。

他们想创造支持这些厨师建立自己业务的公司。而Chef想成为更像Uber的家庭送餐服务,这在各种方式上,就像一个更具有剥削性的模式。

由于Chef有一个关于规模的故事,他们筹集了数千万美元的资金,对吧,比Food Gnome或Josephine多。仅仅因为有一个竞争对手比他们多筹集了数千万美元,就没有办法了。我的意思是,在Food Gnome和Josephine真正起步之前,就已经……

他们已经无力回天了,因为他们无法与Chef竞争。因此,如果我们有其他模式可以表明,嘿,有与这种长期、缓慢增长方法一致的可用资本,它仍然会让投资者赚钱。我认为从长远来看,它可能能够与风投竞争。是的。

风险资本旨在为蓬勃发展的公司注入资金以促进增长,但它却变成了一个过于痴迷于追求短期成果和不惜一切代价快速增长的行业。Catherine Bracy在其新书《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》中提出了这一论点。Bracy研究了风险资本模式如何导致无数公司倒闭,以及如何扭曲从食品配送到住房等行业。Bracy作为总部位于奥克兰的TechEquity的创始人兼首席执行官,一直倡导使科技行业更加公平、多元化和可持续发展。她加入我们的节目,讨论她为什么认为风险资本正在损害经济以及如何解决这个问题。嘉宾:Catherine Bracy,TechEquity执行董事兼创始人;《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》一书的作者。</context> <raw_text>0 但它永远无法真正起飞。然后人们告诉我,看,它不起作用。因为如果它有效,那么你就会看到这些公司蓬勃发展。但是,你知道,用这种方式很难证明否定性。我认为我们需要,你知道,尝试更多。我们稍后会在节目中讨论你的一些想法,关于其他形式的资金组合来资助新企业。一些听众关于他们经验的评论是,

在这个世界上。Chris写道:“大约在2009年,我的合作伙伴和我申请加入Y Combinator。我们的公司Citi Data Services正处于起步阶段。我们的软件公司是为城市和县建造的,用于全面管理拨款和贷款。

他们,也就是Y Combinator,拒绝了我们。我们继续为加利福尼亚州的50多个城市和县提供优秀的系统。我开始相信,我们过于亲力亲为,过于个性化,无法适应Y Combinator的规模,而他们的一些同事,即Salesforce、Oracle等,也走同样的路线。我们仍然更好。Chris写道,Francesca写道,

我们有一家能源效率初创公司,它获得了许多早期的关注。当他们告诉我们所有关于我们将负责公司,他们将像乐于助人的教练一样的事情时,我们勉强同意风险投资。这是我们一生中最糟糕的经历。就像你的嘉宾所说的那样,风险投资董事会成员采用了软件思维,并促使我们雇佣预算的10倍的员工来加速增长,就好像在一个房间里放九个孕妇一个月就能生出一个婴儿一样。当我们钱用完时,他们拒绝批准筹集新的资金,直到我们将公司

交给他们,一场彻底的灾难。我们已经告诫我们所有的同事,除非他们非常适合风险投资的商业模式,否则不要接受风险投资。Catherine,你对企业家承担多少责任……

他们可能在内心深处知道他们将无法按照风险投资公司想要的方式进行扩展,但他们也想要钱来尝试发展。因此,他们接受了它,最终陷入这种浮士德式的交易。是的。我的意思是,如果我在这里分配责任的份额,那么绝大部分责任在于有限合伙人,他们实际上是将资金投入风险投资基金的投资者。所以它甚至不是真的……

我一直责备最多的不是风险投资公司,他们是在回应机构投资者为他们创造的一套激励机制。我很乐意更多地谈谈这种结构是如何运作的。

你知道,创始人在这里拥有一些权力。但这更像是一个集体行动问题。就像一个创始人无法对整个风险投资生态系统说,不,我不会,我不会为你这样做。

他们可以在某个时刻摆脱风险投资的循环。很少有人这样做。就像,你知道,我听过很多企业家的故事,他们听起来像改过自新的赌徒,你知道,他们就像,我认为如果我赢了下一局,你知道,我们可以盈利。我们将能够不必再筹集一轮资金。不,赌场总是赢。这是因为基本上资金是……

它以这些轮次的形式发放。你会有这种种子轮、A轮、B轮、C轮。人们认为,好吧,好吧,我会达到A轮或B轮,我会盈利。我可以偿还投资者,然后我就自由了,对吧?但实际上,这比他们想象的要少见。好吧,最后一条评论,他们拿了钱,然后投资者推动他们做一些他们可能不会做的事情。而且

然后他们处于一个有所有这些成本,并且如果没有另一笔资金注入就无法进入下一阶段的地方。而且,你知道,投资者的兴趣不在于证明这实际上是一项好生意。他们的兴趣是向下一轮投资者证明,这件事比他们投资时更有价值,以便下一轮投资者可以为其标上更高的价格。然后第一轮投资者可以回到他们的有限合伙人那里说,看,

我的公司比10周前或10个月前更有价值。给我更多钱来筹集资金,你知道,去投资更多公司。这就是那里的激励结构。投资者正在向其他投资者出售。他们没有向市场出售。对。超级快。Alan写信说,对于我们这些局外人来说,风险投资基金与对冲基金有何不同?

你知道,我实际上并不太了解对冲基金。我可以说……他们持有许多不同类型的投资,对吧?我的意思是,他们不仅仅投资于初创公司。他们可能有木材。他们可能持有公开交易的股票。他们可能持有所有……但风险投资基金,对,倾向于只关注这些早期阶段的公司。是的。而且,你知道,它们最类似于私募股权。所以……

私募股权的结构与风险资本大致相同,但风险资本专注于这些早期阶段、风险较高的公司,这些公司未经证实,没有业绩记录,通常从事科技领域或技术支持的工作。是的。

我们正在与TechEquity的执行董事兼创始人Catherine Bracey交谈。她有一本新书。它被称为《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》。它考察了风险资本对更广泛经济的影响。我们将收到更多您的来电。您有很多很棒的来电和评论。您可能想尝试kqed.org上的论坛。您知道,关于您与风险资本互动的故事,为风险资本辩护,

或批评该行业。您也可以在Instagram和Blue Sky上找到我们,我们是KQED Forum,或者前往Discord。我是Alexis Madrigal。休息后我们将回来继续讨论。欢迎回到论坛。我是Alexis Madrigal。我们正在与Catherine Bracey交谈。她有一本新书。它被称为《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》。她是TechEquity的执行董事兼创始人。让我们邀请Petaluma的Michael加入。欢迎。

谢谢。作为背景介绍,我实际上在全球范围内都非常有名,因为我教投资者如何避免尽职调查中的错误。你开始触及我在这里要谈论的内容,所以我将尝试将其编织在一起,这最终是问题的所在。正如你刚才指出的那样,

养老基金是最大的有限合伙人之一。他们的作用是获得我们退休基金的最高回报,而该投资组合的一部分是风险投资公司,以承担一定程度的风险以产生更高的回报和更高的整体百分比。现在,你把它倒过来。

然后你看看风险投资公司需要为养老基金做什么,也就是他们需要为我们做什么,这与如何产生尽可能快的回报的反面是一样的,如果你不这样做会怎样?

因此,从种子轮、A轮、B轮一直到潜在的IPO,如果风险投资公司没有表现出色,那么他们之后需要的资金就会变得更加昂贵。条款实际上不仅估值较低,而且潜力——

繁重的条款,蜜蜂可以对种子施加,种子可以对蜜蜂施加,等等。这很糟糕。它降低了最高风险承担者的回报,他们承担着最大的风险,而这些风险承担者再次为我们承担风险,我们这通电话中的三个人以及所有收听的人。

从某种意义上说,养老基金和其他地方都投资于这些地方。我接受了。我接受了,Michael和Catherine,我想就此向你提问。我在书中对此进行了大量思考。只是大笔资金作为这些风险基金投资者的作用,我认为你在书中说的是,这些LP投资组合中不到10%实际上是在风险基金中,对吧?但他们在那里,正如Michael所说,是为了……

基本上提供上涨空间。是的,我认为我将其描述为一顿饭中的盐。你会知道它是否不在那里,对吧?这是一个非常重要的组成部分,但你不会像采购肉类或农产品那样关注它,对吧?所以你只是把它扔进去。它是盐,不要多想,但它是这顿饭中非常重要的组成部分。但这意味着,由于,你知道,这些……

大型LP并没有过多考虑风险资本。他们很长时间以来都没有质疑这种方法。而且,你知道,有一些大型基金。我的意思是,风险投资行业也是幂律分布的,而风险投资的大部分利润来自

你知道,排名前1%的公司。这些公司只能筹集这么多资金。因此,其余的LP正在追逐彩票,基本上。他们的资金正在追逐那些表现不佳且无法表现良好的基金,因为每年并没有那么多公司能够像Stripe或Uber那样大,或者……

当天的玉米大堆。但随后他们强迫所有这些,风险投资公司的长尾试图成为那样,即使无法实现那种回报也是如此。在他们的投资组合中,我的意思是,我认为如果你问大多数人,

那些无法进入红杉资本表现最好的轮次或Andreessen Horowitz表现最好的基金的人,你知道,他们可能会告诉你,与他们的其他资产相比,风险投资的表现并不那么好。也许还有另一个理由将其保留在基金中。我的论点是,好吧,继续把你的钱送去那里。它并没有那么多。但也许你还想添加一个

除了盐之外,还有一些其他的香料,看看是否能改变味道。我认为,有一些不同的方法来资助创新,可以产生……

至少与平均风险资本结果相当的结果,如果不是超过平均风险资本基金的结果,如果给他们氧气去真正证明存在新的方法、新的创新方法来资助不需要推动每个人都为了成功而获得幂律回报的创新型初创公司。在我们讨论你的一些预期解决方案之前,让我们再听一个风险投资的故事。旧金山的以赛亚,欢迎。

你好。是的,我认为听完这段对话,我想补充一点,我已经筹集了很多风险投资资金,而且我做得很快。而且我和大多数合作过的人相处得都很好。归根结底,他们大多只是普通人。虽然他们确实想要回报,但他们也确实想要改变世界。

我认为旧金山是你可以露宿街头最终成为能够创造奇迹的人的最后几个地方之一。风险资本在金融世界中只是很小的一部分。我认为剥夺这个机会实际上会损害创新者和那些想要大规模建设未来的人。这并不是说风险投资中没有坏人。有,但是

我认为它仍然是真正可以找到和建立美国梦的最后几个地方之一。以赛亚,你有没有一个非常适合这个模式的想法?就像你感觉它不像是一个旨在扩展的软件业务?

好吧,我认为实际上,有趣的是,当我们进入Y Combinator时,我问他们,你知道,你们是因为我们的想法而投资的吗?它在健康科技领域。他们说,不,我们投资的是人。他们从未一次强迫我们追求某个想法或做任何事情,除了我们认为我们可以解决的问题。真诚地说,这真的是我唯一听到的信息。这很有趣。以赛亚,我很高兴它对你有用。当它有效时,这很棒。

好吧,我可以这么说,我不想让任何人留下这样的印象,我认为他有点说要摆脱风险资本。这根本不是我的意思。我的意思是,风险资本应该发挥它应该发挥的作用,我们需要它在经济中发挥的作用,那就是追求技术突破。像什么时候……

当Genentech在,我不知道,30、40年前收回投资时,这笔钱让世界变得更美好。我的意思是,他们生产了大规模的胰岛素。而且,你知道,在他们开始从猪身上提取胰岛素之前。这是一个巨大的技术突破,是硬科学。我们需要愿意承担这项重大投资的投资者。到处都被猪庆祝。是的。我们不需要风险资本来资助

床垫公司或好鸡蛋。我在书中谈到的许多故事,企业家认为筹集风险资本本身就是成功的标志,这是追求创业的唯一途径,并且他们周围有一个投资者和其他人的生态系统来强化这种信念。

这将开始带我们进入你在这里提出的关于听众权利的一些解决方案。我在圣克拉拉大学米勒全球影响中心工作。我们与全球各地的社会企业家合作,帮助他们改进商业模式,以便以更大的影响力负责任地扩展规模。试图找到愿意支持这些全球性公司的投资者总是很困难。

他们可以做些什么来获得优势并成为社会创业和投资生态系统中更强大的力量?或者我们如何找到可以引导到我们合作的企业家的影响力投资者?是的,我的意思是,这是一个我不断陷入的陷阱,人们认为我所描述的是影响力投资。

实际上,使用棒球比喻来描述风险资本并不是影响力投资。我的意思是,如果幂律回报正在寻找的是全垒打,这就是他们所说的,这是一种全垒打业务。我建议的是,你需要,你也可以通过击中二垒打和三垒打来赢得棒球比赛。对。或者单打全垒打。你知道,你并不总是需要全垒打。对。

而且,你知道,二垒打和三垒打的几率也更好。值得注意的是,这与目前的风险投资世界完全背道而驰。对。我的意思是,他们基本上以相反的方式考虑它。如果你是试图这样做,击中二垒打和三垒打,那么你就是一个风险投资家。

我认为影响力投资是完全不同的游戏。它更像是慈善桶。对于那些像我一样有真正业务的企业家来说,这是一个挑战。它不像我一样,我不是社会影响力投资者。我没有以使命宣言为首。

只是我的市场机会比独角兽公司要小。对。但它仍然是一项好生意,可以为某人赚很多钱。然后,不必规避法规或剥削工人或偷工减料或做出那种采取锤子方法而不是手术刀方法的选择,并且被认为,你知道,被认为是不加思考的鲁莽。对。

他们避免了所有这些对社会的危害,我认为这就是为什么我们看到许多其他风险投资支持的公司正在做我们不喜欢的事情的原因。它只是市场规模较小,我认为,更一致、更自然一致的结果创造了价值,除了为投资者创造的财务价值之外的其他类型的价值。是的。

你知道,Patrick写道,这些讲述系统问题之类的书籍,应该推广随着风险投资公司转向新的领域而出现的新的机会。目前的风险投资公司做错了。她应该通过展示如何正确地去做来领导,在此过程中赚很多钱。你做到了。好吧,你提到得很有趣,Patrick。是的。你确实试图帮助那些试图以不同方式做事的人,对吧?这就是我从哪里开始的。我的意思是,我一开始的想法是,这将是一本关于风险投资所有错误之处以及……

这些公司投资的坏结果以及它变成了什么。对。那么我们错过了什么机会呢?我认为,我希望它最终成为一个关于创业可以而且应该是什么样的非常乐观的故事。我把它献给建设者们,因为,你知道,我自己也开始了一件事。它不是风险投资支持的事情,但它是一个初创公司。我,我知道拥有一个想法是什么感觉,

并追求它。而且,你知道,人们看着你就像你有三个脑袋,或者,你知道,像对待疯子一样对待你,告诉你,一千次中有999次。而且,嗯,当然后来被一个投资者扼杀时,那是多么悲惨啊,他认为,与其卖给政府,你仍然应该卖给房地产或其他什么。嗯,

因为在纸面上,这可能看起来像一个更大的市场。因为这看起来像更大的市场,是的。或者更快的增长途径。所以我开始真正同情并与企业家产生共鸣,那些试图建立这些公司的人。我与许多人交谈过

有真正伟大的想法,现在世界上并不存在。我们永远不会知道这种损失的规模。我试图在书中尽可能多地讲述这些故事。但最终,这是一个关于我们如何能够在世界上拥有更多创新和创业的故事。

不是更少。这不是要压制风险投资。而是要创造更多机会以符合其实际市场机会的方式为公司提供资金。我喜欢你的一个消息来源在书中使用的A24(电影发行商)的例子。

对。因为所有这些大型好莱坞制片厂都在这里做这些事情,当然,他们会花费1亿美元。他们可能会赚到1.2亿美元或其他什么。但是如果你花费200万美元,你赚了10倍呢?这仍然是一项相当不错的生意。即使像……

一家大型好莱坞公司,你正在争论,哪里是这个风险投资界的A24?是的,是的。书中我重点介绍了一位投资者。他的名字叫布莱斯·罗伯茨。他经营着一个名为Indie VC的基金。他就是那个,我从他那里偷来了这个比喻。如果你想了解更多信息,他有一篇关于它的博客文章。但他基本上说的是,大型好莱坞制片厂的商业模式不允许他们

资助像《万物皆有裂痕》这样的电影,看看它会走向何方,或者资助不同类型的故事。他们必须做漫威8或其他什么,比如对电影的翻拍……没有新的好主意。我认为在很多方面,科技也是如此。我认为现在开始出现一种批评,那就是至少在消费互联网方面,没有人发明出真正很酷的东西,用于电影。

因此,我们需要更多更具创新性的方法来识别这些不同类型的突破。如果只是风险投资公司追求幂律回报,他们正在筹集50亿美元的资金,他们需要他们的结果是,你知道,是他们需要的资金的两倍,才能做到这一点。

十亿美元的结果才能实现他们的回报,那么你就会错过所有那些更远的东西。让我们邀请伯克利的Srivan加入。欢迎。是的,你好。你能听到我吗?是的,当然可以。请说。是的,我的问题/评论是,

风险投资资金的问题只是更大问题的一个症状,那就是资本主义,在人工智能领域,我们经常谈论对齐问题。我认为资本主义也存在对齐问题,其唯一目标是为投资者最大化回报。

我认为我们需要不同的资金设置。也许政府需要介入并资助那些为了更大的共同利益而存在的事物,那些对用户、对员工有益的事物,而不是仅仅最大化回报。是的。

是的,我认为这是对的。我经常收到这个问题。你描述的难道不是资本主义吗?在2024年大选之前,这是公平的。就像,是的,你是对的。我不是说这是一个更集中的资本主义版本。但是是的,在大选之后,你会看到这种行为遍布资本主义,并且在硅谷向右转移以及看到许多风险投资家开始之后

转向特朗普。我的感觉是,我们实际上看到的是自由市场经济时代的终结。为了某种程度上引入,我不知道,更民粹主义的时代以及那些风险投资家正在做什么。

用他们的,我认为,有点绝望的转向MAGA来表示,他们知道这即将结束。他们对投资的方法与某种,我想,新自由主义经济秩序(如果要对此进行学术讨论的话)非常紧密地结合在一起,但像这个自由市场时代的

风险投资是完美的代表。它是那个资本主义时代的吉祥物。我认为,我希望接下来会发生什么,我不知道它什么时候到来,也不知道它到来时世界会是什么样子,但它就像,它是一种不同的资本主义,

欣赏不同类型的价值。无论我们到达那里时的经济秩序是什么,我们仍然需要一种资助技术突破的方法。这仍然是正确的。我认为现在利率较高或其他什么的时候,有一些自由来创新这些新事物可能是什么样子。我希望人们会参与我在书中提出的关于我们如何做到这一点的想法。是的,这也很吸引人。我的意思是,我认为

资本主义的历史学家,我认为,是一个非常有趣的群体,因为他们总是喜欢指出,当然,有广义的资本主义,但其下的结构也发生了变化。我认为这本书最擅长指出的一点就是这一点。就像,是的,这是资本主义,但细节也很重要,对于获得资助的确切事物、我们的城市面貌、存在的企业类型以及

所有这些事情。这里还有最后几条听众评论。Noel写道,这本书终于出版了。我听说过秃鹫资本主义,但似乎我们的文化接受了它,因为我们被引导相信公司资本主义是最好的制度。它不是。David还写道,对财富的追求排除了所有其他考虑因素,总是使赚钱的人受益,并且可能永远不会使其他人受益。

我们不会讨论的是,是的,其他类型的公司治理结构可能会使它们免受风险资本的一些压力。

我们一直在与Catherine Bracey交谈。她是TechEquity的执行董事兼创始人。新书是《世界吞噬者:风险资本如何吞噬经济》。Catherine,非常感谢你今天早上加入我们。很高兴认识你。感谢你的邀请。

此外,非常感谢听众们打来电话分享他们对风险资本和创业的经验。听这些来电和评论总是很有趣。我将休假一周,谈谈我即将出版的新书。你很快就会听到的。但是,你知道,我们的客座主持人会照顾你们的。我是Alexis Magical。敬请收听Mina Kim主持的另一小时的论坛。谢谢。

论坛制作资金由John S.和James L. Knight基金会、慷慨基金会和公共广播公司提供。

Xfinity Mobile旨在为您节省资金。因此,您可以以低廉的价格获得高速。

比以高价获得低速要好。嫉妒吗?Xfinity互联网用户,购买一条无限流量线路即可免费获得一年无限流量线路。带来好东西。