此内容来自：意见
风险投资的普遍存在，头部划伤，风险爆炸问题
Three VC experts run the numbers and conclude: Everyone’s doing it wrong.
Venture capital demands from investors a significant risk appetite — or at least that is the perception.
学术研究自20世纪80年代以来，进入VC资金以证明证据支持概念：平均而言，十大投资组合公司中的七家甚至不会回归投资于这些初创公司;大多数人需要被注销。这需要剩下的三个（超出我们想象中的十大产品组合）。预计两人将返回足以涵盖所有损失;第三个提供20％至30％的内部回报率（IRR）投资者预期。
当前常常实践的风险投资被正确被认为是一个冒险的资产类别。由于下面的图表显示，风险基金行业回报显示出非常广泛的分散，所有资金的底部四分位数亏损。这种分散显着高于私募股权基金，与公共股权造影时，近距离基金平均均为近距离资金，平均均为5％或更好。鉴于风险投资的不可预测性，一个奇迹确实为什么VC投资组合拨款继续在机构投资者，特别是家庭办公室之间发展。亚博赞助欧冠
Individual VC deals are indeed risky. It is also a fact that a few outlier mega-winners have an outsize impact on total industry returns. Much ink has been spilled on the selection of fund managers (the general partners, or GPs). Investors able to predict which fund managers will consistently pick those winners, if such is possible, will show exceptional returns.
但上述几点都不是证明资产类本身是有风险的。真正的资产类风险是构建投资组合后仍然存在的风险，以通过多样化公司和部门的风险来降低投资风险。VC Fund Returns出现风险，因为个人VC基金管理人员（GPS）不会使其基金投资组合的风险多样化。看看顶级和底部vc基金之间的广泛色散，具有底部四分位数的资金，给出负回报。这种分散是非多元化投资组合的经典标志。
How big is diversified enough? Classical portfolio theory says that in public equities, reasonable diversification effects can be expected when one combines 20 to 30 stocks, while more detailed最近的研究将此数字设置为40到70.大多数VC资金具有相似的大小：为什么这不是一个足够的数字？
研究人员有三分之二的风险投入失败发现。具有如此高的死亡率，VC基金的实际结束组合规模仅仅是其投资公司的三分之一。因此，抵达20至70家公司的曝光，基金需要一个60至210个启动投资的起始投资组合。很少有资金达到这个尺寸。
此外，风险投资的专家知道它不是平均日本，而不是许多三振出局，而且很少的家庭运行。平均值的大量部分来自很少的异常值优惠。证据比比皆是。回报的分配this study来自相关企业表明，0.4％的交易返回投资资本或更多的50倍。分析表明，这笔少数成功的交易负责行业返回的总现金的大约五分之一。为了可靠地访问250个交易中产生的超额回报，需要超过500个投资的基金规模。任何没有任何Mega-Winners的投资组合的风险更少。
To verify, we ran a Monte Carlo simulation of returns in two VC funds: one with 15 investments picked randomly from a set of标准预期收益，一个有500个投资（参见下面的图表）。对于每项交易，我们根据风险投入的真实观察概率分布随机选择了结果。模拟VC投资组合的15个投资表现得非常类似于第一个图表中描绘的现实vc资金返回。顶部和底部四分位数之间存在大的分散，中位数返回约为10％。底部四分位数损失了金钱，顶部四分位数有自己的大型内部分散。
The second bar in the chart below shows the impact on returns when the VC portfolio expands to the recommended portfolio size of 500 investments. The outcome: The dispersion for the VC portfolio returns tightens to a range of 10 to 17 percent. This range of returns from bottom to top quartile is similar in size to that of public equity funds. With suitably high diversification, VC indeed becomes an investment-grade asset.
Monte Carlo仿真还表明，拥有500家投资组合公司的资金有13.5％的中位数返回，而15次投资基金的10％则为10％。事实上，最坏的情况（第五百分位数）超大型VC基金的回报与来自UNDIMEREDIFED VC资金的中位数回报相同。
最近的一个违反直觉结果进一步验证Kauffman研究员研究那which says that at the seed stage, “indexing beats 90 to 95 percent of investors picking deals.” In VC as a whole, it seems from Figure 2 that indexing beats 50 to 75 percent of investors picking deals, since indexing gives second-quartile results.
因此，投资者进入风险投资课程的黄金法则必须是：建立500个初创公司的投资组合，100家公司是绝对的最低限度。
那么为什么资金不愿意提供这样的多样化？没有奖励进行多样化作为风险GP。今天的投资者涌向顶部四分位数的经理人，他们必须以风险的方式行事。这样的GPS经常坚持他们的投资组合必须保持小于“不稀释他们的赢家”。换句话说，他们依靠挑选获奖者，但无意中承认无法这样做。通过定义，通过多样化降低风险的经理，以最佳实现第二四分位数回报。通过对更大的后续资金的性能和管理费用，只有顶级四分位数是奖励。鉴于每个基金的十加年度生活，以及资本泛滥赢得赢家的方式，对于GP来说，在经济上有理解，在幸运的情况下，不一致的基金而不是多样化 - 知道多样化会导致更少如果有任何奖励。这尤其如此，因为大多数GPS表现出对他们的能力过度信任的迹象，并且相信他们将超越，相信它会通过技巧，而不是运气。
Diversifying is also hard to execute operationally. Managing a portfolio of 100, let alone 500, investments takes significantly more effort than managing a portfolio of 20 investments. Manpower resource constraints in particular come to mind, as VC funds usually have a surprisingly small number of senior partners and dealmakers. (Most VC funds are structured as partnerships, with each partner expected to manage five to at most ten deals. Scaling a partnership above ten or so partners rapidly becomes complex.)
很少有投资者需求多样化的基金,所以GPsdon’t offer them. A slow and steady “venture is a numbers game” pitch is much less emotionally compelling than “I am a rock star who can consistently beat the odds.” And GPs need an emotionally appealing pitch to get funded. In the world of venture, where deal-by-deal performance data is not widely, reliably, and publicly shared, and where fund-level results take a decade or more to be fully known, rational pitches should be expected to underperform emotional ones.
So what is an institution’s investment chief to do?公式简单：旨在组装500家公司的投资组合。此产品组合还应适当多样化，同样与投资组合中的任何其他资产类别相似。按国家，划分，阶段和时间和葡萄收获期通过国家分散。而且当然，确保多样化通过种族和企业家的性别。
许多家族理财室甚至机构investors have explored a direct investing strategy as a way to gain venture exposure. This can be fun and exciting — who wouldn’t want a ringside seat to the young and aspiring startup world? — just as a casino can be fun: You might even win! But direct investing is hard to execute and is manpower-intensive. Building the minimum portfolio of 500 companies via direct investing requires a professional team with a set of expertise different from an investor’s fund-allocation team’s. Even more challenging is achieving suitably diversified deal flow sources. Nevertheless, it is theoretically possible for a disciplined institution that is willing to allocate substantial resources (see, for instance, the加拿大养老金计划）。
Building a well-diversified portfolio of startups with exposure to at least 500 venture investments is easier than one might expect: Investors who have deployed consistently into venture funds for the past decade without trying to time the market have been able to do so. By investing in three or four funds every year for a decade, you will maintain an ongoing portfolio of around 30 to 40 funds, likely aggregating to more than 500 companies.
Achieving geographic and sector diversification is significantly harder when investing in venture funds. Most limited partners (LPs) reinvest (re-up) with the same manager every two to four years. So an exposure to 30 to 40 individual funds may de facto result in exposure to ten managers. As a result, the exposure to 30 to 40 funds will be a de facto exposure to merely 15 VC firms, resulting in a mix of approximately five industry sectors across three geographies. This is a cherry-picking strategy, not a diversification strategy.
LPS至少应涵盖其专业基金策略与一个或多个广泛或指数基金之间的差距，其中一些存在，例如500次初创公司，昂堡访问基金，Y组合资金或忠诚的启动索引Fund (one of the authors’). More will be created if and as investors demand them. Alternatively, investors can target to manage 30-plus GP relationships to get full diversification, meaning investing in ten to 12 funds per year, or one per month. This may go beyond the resources of a large part of the allocator population.
资金基金投资怎么样？在这种情况下，投资者必须确保资金基金管理人员通过您正在寻找的地理，行业，阶段和时间（以及性别和种族）获得多样化。许多资金往往投资相同的管理者和战略，重点关注同一地理位置，行业和阶段。例如，作者采访的一项基金受访者超过80％的风险投资分配给美国市场。这将在任何其他资产类别中提高眉毛，但在私人市场中可以接受。
基于行业研究，资金基金经常缺乏性别和种族的多样化。这使得资本洪水转化为过剩的部门和企业家，并忽略了资金的其他人，因此，通过供需规定，应提供高回报。
When paying a fund-of-funds for diversification — and exposure to unique, underfunded strategies and entrepreneurs — investors must demand that it delivers it. They should also demand proper reporting. The best reporting would be a company-level breakdown of where your funds have gone: by industry, country, stage, and year of the investment, and by gender and race of the CEO. This breakdown should then be compared with demographic benchmarks (e.g., country GDPs and population splits) to illuminate which strategies and types of entrepreneurs the fund of funds has left a portfolio globally overweight and underweight in.
鉴于在VC投资适当的投资投资需要多少努力，LP可能是令人厌恶的，为什么冒险投资？一个强大的原因是上市公司数量的萎缩;另一种是最高科技公司选择不列入的东西，直到他们的进化很晚。这意味着要访问科技部门的大量财富，您需要在私人市场。另一个答案是多元化的：为了获得最佳回报，您应该接触到各个阶段的所有阶段，包括多级风险投资。
令人信服的财务原因是随机选择的500官VC组合的相对表现和分散，如图2所示，与公共股权基金的回归相比。多元化的VC提供了始终如一的持续返回的证据，以获得非常可比风险。
Is venture capital a risky asset class? No.大多数VC基金选择以风险的方式行事而不是多样化，但这并没有使资产阶级风险。为了使风险投资的风险资本，CIO只是需要承认VC数学与公共市场数学不同。低概率的重要性，过度回报生成的投资意味着适当的多样化需要至少500个启动的组合。
It will take work to assemble such a portfolio. It is hard to do by investing directly. Current funds and funds-of-funds are rarely designed with diversification in mind. Instead, they concentrate funding in a small subset of ultra-popular entrepreneurs, sectors, and geographies, which risks driving down returns on capital, leaving higher-return strategies underfunded.
宣称和多元化基金的投资者明智地接受证据，不仅会达到更好和更少的挥发性的回报，而且还将最终推动GPS终于设计多元化的资金。
Kamal Hassan是忠诚VC和INSEAD校友的创始合作伙伴。Monisha Varadan是Zephyr Ventures和Inseal Alumna的创始合作伙伴。Claudia Zeisberger是一家在全球私募股权倡议的INSEAD和学术主任的企业家和家族企业高级联盟教授。