作者：Sarah Lacy 来源：TechCrunch
5月16日消息，TechCrunch资深记者萨拉·兰西(SarahLacy）的全球企业家著作之旅进入了中国站，这位女记者在中国见了许多企业家，也见了很多风投。在她的最新文章中，她称内部人士猜测红杉中国连续遭遇几宗失败交易，沈南鹏位置不稳，面临遭高层合伙人麦克·摩里茨（Mike Mortiz）解雇的危险。
在萨拉的文章中，她引述多个中国和硅谷的内部消息，称红杉高层合伙人麦克·摩里茨（Mike Mortiz）本周正在中国处理所谓的“中国问题”。
同时基于亚洲互动传媒失败和凯雷官司的危险，萨拉引述接近红杉资本人士的猜测，“摩里茨将不得不解雇沈南鹏。摩里茨没有其他选择。”
萨拉称，红杉资本没有对她的报道观点发表评论或者澄清，红杉资本一直以来执行不对内部事务进行评论的公司政策。
下面TechCrunch资深记者萨拉·兰西(Sarah Lacy）关于中国红杉的文章译文大致内容：
星巴克是一家在中国取得成功的美国特许经营店。星巴克选择在中国主要的旅游饭店和市区开设店面。从海外回国的中国人、居住在中国的外国人和到中国出差的商务人士都喜欢像在美国一样，到星巴克这样熟悉的地方坐坐或者举行会议。对于那些想同这群人士沾上联系的人来说，星巴克就成为了美国在中国一个具有崇拜意义的品牌。这就好比是你的父母亲喜欢喝茶，但拿铁咖啡则是充满西方异国情调的饮料。
没有人认为星巴克会在中国取得成功，但星巴克却做到了。然而，红杉资本并不是星巴克。在中国进行风险投资有多种方式。其中一种是成为一家本地公司的有限合伙人。另一种则是把一名现有的合伙人调走，建立一个办公室。最为常见的方式则是雇佣一名有名气、并且已经在中国从事业务的有联系的投资人。英特尔投资（Intel Capital）比绝大多数风险投资企业都更早进入中国市场，在这方面富有经验，并开创了现在名为“特许经营的模式”。雇佣中国合伙人的模式的代表为著名风投基金凯鹏华盈（Kleiner Perkins）和红杉中国，他们以硅谷的品牌从事业务，并且与硅谷的基金分享共同的有限合伙人，但是中国的基金是独立的。来自硅谷的这些风投公司在付出品牌和融资便利之后，可以以此为代价获得中国风投公司的投资收益分成的很大一部分。
外国风投在中国采取的这种模式似乎是这几年以来最好的方式。这些公司希望有专家加入，但不希望因此导致决策速度放慢或者受到干扰。但这些硅谷著名风险投资品牌在中国并不是特别成功。2008年，凯鹏华盈的中国合伙人出现离职潮，四名合伙人中的两名都因为有关纠纷而宣布辞职。我在考察中国创业企业的一周时间里，基本上没有听到有人提及过凯鹏华盈的品牌。现在，则似乎轮到红杉资本步凯鹏华盈的后尘了。
红杉资本的合伙人麦克·摩里茨（Mike Mortiz）曾经多次到过中国，他也喜欢告诉媒体记者他之所以多次到中国是因为那儿充满了机会。我在最近的一次聚会上问他，与在美国、欧洲或者以色列投资相比，在中国进行风投的特别挑战是什么。他说，所有的风险投资都是很困难的，没有一个地方比另外的地方条件更好。
真的是这样的吗？来自中国和硅谷的好几个消息来源都确认摩里茨在本周去了中国，去解决红杉资本的所谓“中国问题”。今年2月份的时候，红杉资本中国基金的一名创始合伙人张帆（Zhang Fan）由于“个人原因”辞职。我到北京和上海考察风投情况的时候同近20个消息来源的人士进行过讨论，他们都表示所谓的“原因”其实并不是个人原因。人们喜欢指出，张帆的最大失败是对亚洲互动传媒的投资，后来这个公司被东京证券交易所勒令退市。无论这些所谓的“个人原因”是真是假，张帆在这方面没有提升红杉资本的品牌。
张帆的辞职让红杉资本中国基金的另一名创始合伙人沈南鹏掌握了该基金的大权。沈南鹏广受市场尊敬，他创立了号称中国的Expedia的携程网和中国如家快捷酒店管理公司。我同中国的好几位风投人士和企业家进行过讨论，他们表示虽然沈南鹏容易发怒，但他对业务的判断能力在中国无人能比。对于一些企业家来说，他甚至是英雄一样的人物。红杉中国其实还有另外2家上市的公司，人和商业和文思软件，还有中国很火的社区51.com，另外，匹克也在IPO进程中。但不幸的是，沈南鹏也处于困境之中。美国的凯雷投资集团公司正对沈南鹏提起诉讼，凯雷认为，由于沈南鹏作梗导致其签约入股一家中国医疗研究公司最终失败，因此要求沈南鹏赔偿凯雷逾2亿美元的损失。据一名接近红杉资本的人士表示：“摩里茨将不得不解雇沈南鹏。摩里茨没有其他选择。”
如果情况确实如此，沈南鹏被解职的迹象现在将不会很明显。风险投资家一般习惯于慢慢和悄悄地解雇合伙人。通常情况下，这些即将被解雇的合伙人仍然会有办公室和助理，但他们会被逐步地排除在决策过程之外。
尽管红杉资本一度似乎是比较适应中国的硅谷风投公司，但这些广为流传的市场猜测会对红杉资本带来沉重打击。尽管红杉资本还在中国雇佣了其他两名常务董事（managing directors）和好几名副总裁，但是对于许多的中国企业家来说，沈南鹏代表着红杉资本中国基金，就好像摩里茨在美国代表着红杉资本一样。很少有中国投资者拥有沈南鹏那样可靠的运营经验，特别是在互联网领域富有研究和经验。
同行相妒是人性的一部分，所以，其他硅谷的投资人高兴地散布着风投巨头红杉资本遭遇挫折的消息是毫不令人奇怪的。这些竞争对手的最大梦魇就是摩里茨解决了这些难题，红杉资本重新回到其擅长的正常轨道。
（红杉资本没有对本文有关观点发表评论或者澄清，红杉资本一直以来执行不对内部事务进行评论的公司政策。）
原文如下：
Is Sequoia China in Trouble?
BEIJING, CHINA– Starbucks is a franchise in China that worked. The company opened locations at the bottom of all the major tourist hotels and downtown areas where returning Chinese, expats and business people traveling to China would pop in for some familiarity and to hold meetings, much like they do in the U.S. For people hoping to mix with that crowd, Starbucks became something of an aspirational brand in China. Tea was what your parents drank; a latte was something exotic and western.
No one thought Starbucks would work in China, but it did. Sequoia Capital, however, is not Starbucks.
There are a few ways to set up venture activity in China. One is to become a limited partner for a local firm. Another is to relocate an existing partner to build an office. The most common is to hire well-known, connected investors already in China, and Intel Capital, which has been investing in China longer than almost anyone, is one of a few farm systems for that. Typically this is known as the "franchise model." The hired China partners operate under the Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia brand name and typically share the same limited partners, but the funds themselves are separate. In exchange for that name and fund raising advantage, the Valley firms take a healthy chunk of the carry.
It seemed like the best of all strategies a few years ago. These firms want experts but don't necessarily want to slow down or meddle in their deal making. But the cachet of the top Valley brands only goes so far over here. In 2008 Kleiner Perkins' China partnership exploded, with two of its four partners quitting in a dispute that was far more contentious than a lot of Valley media reported at the time. In a week of touring China's start-up scene, I've barely heard the KPCB brand mentioned at all. Now, it seems it's Sequoia's turn in the spotlight.
It's no secret Mike Mortiz has been traveling back-and-forth to China a great deal, and he's fond of telling reporters that's because of all the opportunity. I asked him at Kenshoo's recent US launch party about the unique challenges of investing in China versus the US, Europe or Israel. He said he wasn't trying to stonewall on the answer, but that all venture investing was just hard, no one place more than another.
Really? Several sources in China and Silicon Valley have confirmed Moritz has been in China this week addressing Sequoia's so-called "China Problem." In February, one of Sequoia China's founding partners, Zhang Fan, resigned due to "personal reasons." People are fond of pointing out that Zhang's biggest hit was Asia Media Company, which later had to de-list from the Tokyo Stock Exchange under a scandal. Whether it's true or not, the situation certainly didn't do Sequoia's brand any favors here.
That left the other founding managing director at the helm, the highly respected Neil Shen, who founded Ctrip.com, the so-called "Expedia of China," and Home Inns & Hotels Management. I've talked to several VCs and entrepreneurs in China who say Shen is a prickly guy but his deal judgment is unparalleled in the country. Indeed sequoia has had two other IPOs (Renhe and Vance Info) and a stake in the hot social networking name 51.com. Another investment, Peak Performance, has filed for its IPO. Shen is even a bit of a hero to some entrepreneurs. But unfortunately, Shen too is in hot water. U.S. firm Carlyle Group is suing Shen for more than $200 million in damages for allegedly blocking a Carlyle deal in a Chinese medical research firm.
Even the widespread speculation could be a big blow for Sequoia, which at one point seemed to be one of the better-adapted Valley names here. It still employs two other managing directors and several more vice presidents and associates in China, but for many Chinese entrepreneurs Shen represents the brand as much as Moritz does in the U.S. There are few China investors with solid operating experience, particularly in the Internet.
And it can't be good news for Sequoia's limited partners who haven't taken too kindly to Sequoia's pressure to make them invest in not only China, but in other unproven Sequoia funds aimed at India and later stage U.S. companies, according to very wide-spread reports and my own reporting.
Player hating is part of human nature, so it's no surprise that other Valley investors have whispered with glee that the once-dominant Sequoia seems distracted by all this. The competition's biggest fear: Moritz solves the problems and Sequoia starts to focus on what it does well again.
(Sequoia did not respond to a detailed request for comment or clairification of this story and has a long-standing policy of not commenting on the firm's internal matters.)
Update: I've updated this story based on conversations with additional sources.
