????你聽說團購網站Groupon的早期投資者正在對這家公司喪失信心的事了嗎？沒錯，的確有一些?？赡懿坏揭话?。但其中有個人名頭很大，因此它一定意味著整個互聯網行業都完了。

????這種說法聽起來是不是有點莫名其妙？如果是，看來你還當不了《華爾街日報》（The Wall Street Journal）的編輯。周一這家報紙在頭版刊登了下面這篇邏輯混亂的文章。

????Have you heard that early Groupon (GRPN) investors are bailing on the company? Well, some of them. Maybe less than half. But one of them is a big name, so it must mean the entire Internet sector is screwed.

????Does this strike you as a bit confusing? Well then, it seems you aren't an editor at The Wall Street Journal, which put this muddle above today's page one fold:

????如果有人想寫篇文章談談Groupon如何辜負了外界的期望，我絕不反對。但這篇報道具有誤導性，刊登在頭版這樣的位置更是放大了這種效應。

????這篇文章主要談到了一些早期投資者正在賣出Groupon股票，這肯定說明他們“對原本有望推動新一輪互聯網繁榮的公司喪失了信心”。其中一位投資者就是馬克?安德森，他的公司安德森-霍羅維茨風險投資公司（Andreessen Horowitz）已將2011年1月在Groupon 首次公開募股前的一輪融資中獲得的股份悉數賣出。

????我不是很肯定為什么安德森-霍羅維茨風險投資公司賣出Groupon股票一定是個負面信號，要知道該公司從這筆4,000萬美元的投資中獲得了1,400萬美元的利潤。這或許算不上風投行業的本壘打，但對于18-20個月的持有期，這樣的投資回報并不賴。而且，我相信創造積極的投資回報是風險投資人最主要的責任（而不是科技公司拉拉隊，雖然這類錯誤很容易得到諒解）。

????但更大的問題是，《華爾街日報》由此推而廣之，斷言“（投資者）對一批新的互聯網公司都喪失了信心”。這是一個跨度很大的跳躍，要知道安德森-霍羅維茨和其他Facebook的早期投資者上周在Facebook鎖定期結束后并沒有賣出Facebook。Facebook不是“原本有望推動新一輪互聯網繁榮的公司之一嗎”？或者說，賣出Groupon股票比持有Facebook股票更能說明問題？又或者說，《華爾街日報》根本就沒花時間去查一查？

????另外，文章沒有提到的是，Groupon最早和最大的外部投資者恩頤投資（New Enterprise Associates）在該公司上市以來一直持有其所有股票。這應該是一篇標題為《投資者放棄Groupon》的文章中非常重要的平衡信息。特別是鑒于文章稱，安德森-霍羅維茨是“幫助推動Groupon迅速崛起的投資者之一”，而事實上安德森-霍羅維茨對Groupon的投資比恩頤首筆投資晚了整整三年。

????《華爾街日報》的確提到下面這些信息：包括T. Rowe Price和摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）在內的一些IPO前投資者不僅沒有拋售Groupon股票，反而增加了持股。擬標題的人是不是沒有讀到這么后面？

????最后，文章還披露，Groupon上市時曾遭到時任董事霍華德?舒爾茨、風險投資人約翰?杜爾和瑪麗?米克爾【杜爾和米克爾所在的凱鵬華盈（Kleiner Perkins）迄今也沒有賣出Groupon股票】等人的反對?！度A爾街日報》是這么寫的：

????據了解這些討論的人士稱，安德森等幾位Groupon顧問竭力主張不要按計劃推進IPO。4月份已辭去Groupon董事職務的星巴克（Starbucks Corp.）首席執行官霍華德?舒爾茨也表達過對于Groupon倉促上市的擔憂。據熟悉這些討論的人士稱，Groupon投資者、風投公司凱鵬華盈的合伙人約翰?杜爾和瑪麗?米克爾也表示過擔憂。

????有兩點要說明：多位消息人士告訴我，上述四人都表達過對Groupon上市時機的擔憂，這一點是準確的。但他們也告訴我，經過認真討論后，沒有一個人采取行動要換掉Groupon首席執行官安德魯?梅森（如果沒被說服，在這樣的情況下投資者可以這么做），而且這四人中至少有兩位后來明確支持Groupon的上市時機選擇。

????而且，在公司上市時有不同意見，與對公司失去信心根本不是一碼事。一項戰略決定就好比是森林中的一棵樹而已，就算它是一棵大樹依然如此。

????再次說明，我不是在告訴大家要買進Groupon的股票，或者說Groupon的多元化策略有望把它打造成下一個eBay。我只是想告訴你，不要輕信所有的負面報道標題。

????譯者：早稻米

????You want to write a story about how Groupon isn't living up to expectations, you'll get no objection from me. But this particular effort is misleading, and made even worse by its prominent placement.

????The story's thesis is that some early investors are selling Groupon stock, which must mean they've "lost faith in companies that had been expected to drive a new Internet boom." Exhibit A is Marc Andreessen, whose firm has dumped all of the shares it acquired in a January 2011 pre-IPO financing round.

????I'm not exactly sure why Andreessen Horowitz selling the shares is a negative, given that it booked a $14 million profit off of its $40 million investment. Not a venture home-run, but not terrible for an 18-20 month hold. And I'm pretty sure that generating positive returns is a venture capitalist's primary job responsibility (not tech cheer-leading, although it's an easily forgiven error).

????More important, however, is the broader conclusion about lost faith in the new Internet crop. Pretty tough leap, considering that Andreessen Horowitz is among those early Facebook (FB) investors that didn't sell shares when the lockup expired last week. Is Facebook not one of the "companies that had been expected to drive a new Internet boom?" Or is selling Groupon somehow more important than holding Facebook? Or did WSJ just not bother to check?

????Also not mentioned is that New Enterprise Associates, Groupon's earliest and largest outside investor, has held onto all of its shares since Groupon went public. You'd think that would be some relevant balance for a story titled "Groupon investors give up." Particularly given that Andreessen was referred to as "among the investors who helped fuel Groupon's rapid ascent," despite investing a full three years after NEA first cut a check.

????And then there is what WSJ does mention: How certain pre-IPO investors, including T. Rowe Price and Morgan Stanley (MS), not only haven't sold Groupon stock, but actually have increased their holdings. Did the headline writer not read down that far?

????Finally, there is a revelation in this story that Groupon went public over the objections of people like then-board member Howard Schultz and venture capitalists John Doerr and Mary Meeker (whose firm, Kleiner Perkins, also hasn't dumped shares). Here is how WSJ put it:

????Mr. Andreessen was among several Groupon advisers who urged it not to go through with its IPO as planned, said people with knowledge of the discussions. Starbucks Corp. Chief Executive Howard Schultz, who resigned as a Groupon director in April, also voiced worries that Groupon was going public too soon. So did John Doerr and Mary Meeker, partners at venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a Groupon investor, said people familiar with those discussions.

????Two points: Multiple sources tell me that it is accurate that all four people listed raised concerns about the timing of Groupon's IPO. But they also tell me that, following intense discussions, none moved to replace CEO Andrew Mason -- which is what investors can do in such circumstances, if unpersuaded -- and that at least two of the four would go on to explicitly endorse the timing.

????Moreover, disagreeing with when a company wants to go public is not the same as losing faith in that company. One strategic decision is a tree within the forest, albeit a large one.

????Again, I'm not telling you to buy Groupon stock or that the company's diversification strategy will make it the next eBay. I'm simply telling you not to believe every negative headline you read.