发帖
雷达卡
Americans are great believers in the value of entrepreneurs and smallbusiness. That faith underlies the JOBS (JumpstartOur Business Startups) Act, a new law that will make it easier for smallcompanies to raise money and bypass the regulatory “friction” that firmsencounter when they go public. The law assumes that people who can'tfind jobs may be able to find investors instead, and that small companies willbe able to get the financing they need to grow bigger and hire more people.Angel investors, friends, and family will boldly go where banks may fear to tread.
The JOBS Act is an extreme example of Americans’ belief in people’sessential goodness, and everyone’s right to self-fulfillment. Everyentrepreneur should be entitled to raise funding from willing investors. It isa uniquely American approach, and capitalistic in the best sense of the word,for it encourages (and democratizes) investment, rather than fuelingconsumption.
Small (under $1 billion) companies can raise moneydirectly from small investors in a formalization of the “crowdfunding”approach, whereby a project’s principals post their plans on a Web site and askfor money, essentially opening up the initial public offering (IPO) market. The theory underlying thelaw is that a new set of accredited third-party marketplaces, rather than theoverburdened Securities and Exchange Commission (which missed Bernie Madoff’smonster Ponzi scheme), will ensure that entrepreneurs tell the truth, and thatinvestors know what they are buying. (Of course, that begs the questionof how thoroughly vetted and reliable thosethird-party marketplaces and their vetting systemswill be.)
While this initiative was born in the United States, many countries are wondering how to jumpstart their own entrepreneurial sectors, andmay be tempted to follow America’slead. So why do I hope that they resist that temptation?
Unfortunately, the JOBS Act is as likely to besuccessful as the USgovernment’s earlier attempts to ensure that American families could buy theirown homes. Low down payments, deferred interest, and other enticements made it attractive for people to buytheir own homes (or to speculate with second homes) whether they could affordto or not.
Mortgage brokers were happy to get in on the act. Some were driven by anhonest mission to expand property ownership; others were driven by greed. Someknew that the people to whom they were selling houses could not afford it;others simply did not want to know. Some played by the rules; others forgeddocuments. The banks that originated mortgage loans sold their portfolios toinvestors who didn't really understand what they were buying.
In the same way, the JOBS Act will ease lifefor some deserving people – and most likely attract many more who are lessdeserving. The new system will attract scamartists and promoters who will encourage unsuitable companies to seekinvestment and oversell the companies to individuals who can't afford to losethe money that they invest.
I wish I had more faith in the system, but the problem is not a lack ofgood people, good investors, or good entrepreneurs. Theproblem is that, without regulation, bad people take advantage of the goodones. While regulation and restrictions may hamper small business, notall regulation and restrictions are useless.
Yes, there are some wonderful, honest companies that deserve investmentand can’t get it, but they are not that common. I see a lot of start-ups. Manyare appealing and have good ideas, yet most of them fail. Now the quality ofeven the honest start-ups is likely to decline as more of them are established,and they will spend more of other people’s money before failing.
For example, with more start-ups, it will be even harder for each of themto find management talent and the right employees. Indeed, many people whom anentrepreneur might have hired will probably become CEOs of competing start-ups.Meanwhile, all of them will be competing for a finite number of customers, andthose companies that make progress will then have to compete for scarcerscale-up capital.
Many investors in these startups are likely to lose their money. Evenunder the current system, many angel investors lose money. The best route tosuccess in angel investing is to invest in, say, ten or more separatecompanies, so that you have the chance of at least one big winner. But, again,a broader investor pool is likely to reduce the average number of investmentsper investor, with inadequate diversification leading to many more losers thanwinners.
The faith that drives the JOBS Act is the same magical thinking thatdrives many Internet phenomena: people are good and everyone means well. Butthe Internet’s easy accessibility and lowentry barriers have led to spam and malware and bad behavior; each new service startsout “clean,” but then ends up requiring its own regulations.
Just ask eBay, Google, or Facebook how much they spend on security, frauddetection, and the like. They don’t want to tell you, which says a lot. As on the Internet, so in real life: sometimes frictionhas a purpose.
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
京公网安备 11010802022788号
