(圖說：有人的衣服會同一款樣式買好幾件，我則是有些玩具會同一款式（或品牌）買好幾份，然後搭配不喜歡跟別人一樣的深層龜毛，例如這個使用超過十年的小眾筆記本 Field Notes。是說當年被它的木紋封面吸引，但現在已經停產這款，好險因為這個壞習慣而囤了一些備用。經過深思熟慮的設計決策而使用相同一款式的優點很多，也許也包含在十年之後轉化成我們客戶的超額報酬吧（許願）。照片攝於 2016 年波士頓友人家裡地毯。圖片來源：Ernest。)
✳️ AUM 收費的設計決策
依照 AUM（資產管理規模）百分比收費。幾乎所有財富管理機構都用這個模式，大部分客戶也覺得理所當然。但 a16z Perennial CIO Michel Del Buono 在 Sorcery Podcast 裡說，這不只是一個定價決定，而且是一個影響所有其他事情的設計決策。我們來練習拆解看看：
⌬ 表面看到的
表面上，依照 AUM 抽百分比收費看起來合理。專業經理人管理客戶資產，客戶按比例付費，管理得越多、經理人獲得越多，看似雙方利益一致。每年 0.4% 到 0.6%，雖然聽起來比例頗低。但你將拿到的是一個看起來高端的服務：專屬聯絡人、稅務報告整合、信託管理、甚至幫你找管家和遛狗的人。回 email 很快，態度很好，有問題隨時幫你處理。多數人對「財富管理」的認知就到這裡。而且因為我們不一定有機會知道別的可能性長什麼樣，而覺得這就是業界標準，大家看似都是這樣做。
⌬ 表面看不到的
Del Buono 描述了一個很直接的邏輯。「如果做簡單的事和做困難的事報酬相同，人類的人性會選簡單的。」AUM 百分比制就類似這樣：不管你幫客戶買股票加債券還是建構一籃子包含創投、私募、房地產、信用的多資產配置，收到的費用一樣。結果呢？投資組合傾向簡單化。
更深一層。要做複雜的另類投資，你需要專業投資人。Del Buono 的定義：職涯中收入曾經取決於投資績效的人。這種人薪資結構跟傳統理財顧問不同，他們有績效獎金、有成長期望，很難待在一個不以投資為核心的組織裡。所以大多數理財機構裡的專業投資人數量是零或個位數。沒有內部投資團隊，就只能外包給第三方基金，變成基金的基金（Fund of Funds），費用一年可能吃掉 3 到 4 個百分點。
收費結構 → 決定了誰願意來 → 決定了組織能力 → 決定了產品品質 → 決定了客戶的長期報酬。
（我們在發展商業與資訊整合顧問業務上，嘗試混搭定價時也遇過同樣的事。固定收費的項目，團隊傾向做到剛好。改成部分以成果計費之後，同樣的執行者願意主動多深挖一層，更貼近客戶問題背後的問題。不是人變了，是設計決策的結構變了。）
他用了一個修車比喻，讓這整件事變得具體：「你把車送去修，技師說修車費是你資產淨值的 0.1%。」修車按工時收費天經地義，服務型的工作也應該按服務內容收費（Fee for Service），而不是跟你的資產規模掛鉤。但因為使用 AUM 計價比按服務收費更有利潤，所以整個產業就這樣被帶走了。
（但是我們之前跟客戶提說，您願意付營業額 1% 的金流服務費，是否考慮新事業體的營業額 1% 付給我們作為資訊服務費？只能說，截至目前為止，我們的客戶還沒有被我們帶走 XDD）
⌬ 表面不想讓我們看到的
AUM 收費模式的底層脈絡，其實是一個組織設計決策。它決定了我們將雇用誰，能打造什麼樣的團隊，能提供什麼品質的投資，最終決定了客戶十年後的財富差距可能是好幾個百分點。Del Buono 建立 a16z Perennial 的方式是反過來的：從專業投資人開始建團隊，能自行承銷的投資就不外包，把嵌入式費用直接降低。他估計這可以省下好幾個百分點，直接轉化成客戶的稅後超額報酬（Tax Alpha）。
（這讓我想到 Jeff Bezos 在 2002 年發的那份 API Mandate 內部備忘錄：所有團隊必須透過 API 溝通，不能有例外。當你把底層的結構設計對了，上層的一切自然會對齊。收費結構就是財富管理產業的 API 層，如果這一層是歪的，不管上面疊多少服務都不容易進行調整。）
（我們十年前規劃 PAFERS 這個健身產業的專業設計服務 design house 的時候設計了「產品與技術整合」這個跨領域部門，並動態調整外包的比例，也是直接轉化成客戶與我們雙贏的報酬。）
把 AUM 收費拆開之後重新整合起來瞧瞧，它不再只是一個數字，而可以視為一個系統：收費方式形塑組織行為，組織行為決定人才結構，人才結構決定投資品質。這套脈絡不只存在於財富管理，任何專業服務都一樣。如果你正在評估一個顧問、一個合作夥伴、或任何一個收費模式，可以從一個問題問起：這個收費方式，會讓組織成員將精力集中放在哪裡？答案可能比任何簡報都更能告訴你真相。
家族辦公室聽起來距離我們似乎還有一段距離，但坊間傳說每按一個「讚」或「愛心」，就能距離下一階資產管理更進一步。我是都寧可信其有的按一下啦，你要不要也按按看？十年後也許會有超額報酬？！
✳️ 延伸閱讀
✳️ 知識圖譜
(更多關於知識圖譜…)
✳️ 逐字稿與筆記
Perennial 簡介與財富管理
- Is it true this is the multi-family office of Mark and Ben?
這真的是 Mark 和 Ben 的多家族辦公室嗎？ - It’s a multi-family office for the principals here and a number of founders, the many in fact backed by the company.
這是為這裡的負責人和許多創辦人設立的多家族辦公室，其中許多實際上是由公司所投資的。 - SpaceX is rumored and reported to have nearly a two trillion dollar IPO incoming.
據傳聞和報導，SpaceX 即將進行一場近兩兆美元的 IPO。 - How do you prepare early employees and founders for these large liquidity events?
你如何幫助早期員工和創辦人為這些大型流動性事件做準備？ - » It’ll be an interesting test of the markets if they can sort of, I mean, that would be the largest IPO ever for the markets to digest that.
這對市場來說會是一個有趣的考驗，要消化這筆交易，我的意思是，這將是有史以來最大的 IPO。 - It’d be really interesting to watch.
這真的很值得觀察。 - Most of the independent firms have spun out of the banks.
大多數獨立公司都是從銀行分拆出來的。 - Banks themselves don’t train people to be professional investors.
銀行本身並不培訓人們成為專業投資人。 - These people are trained to be service providers.
這些人被培訓成服務提供者。 - They’re trained to be responsive, helpful, but actual investment acumen when you’re at a large bank sits in a separate group.
他們被訓練得反應迅速、樂於助人，但在大型銀行裡，真正的投資專業能力是在另一個獨立的部門。 - You’re rewarded as a wealth manager by how much you grow your book of business.
作為財富管理人，你的獎勵取決於你能拓展多少業務量。 - You’re never trained to be an investment person per se.
你從來沒有被培訓成為一個真正的投資專業人士。 - So I’ll see someone with their very first liquidity, they take it and instead of doing something a little bit safe in case there’s a rainy day, they turn around and they’ll put it in a bunch of very early stage startups.
所以我會看到有些人拿到第一筆流動資金後，不是做一些比較安全的配置以備不時之需，而是轉頭就把錢投入一堆非常早期的新創公司。 - You just sort of sit there and you’re like, “Listen, if you’re going to do venture, at least try to do it in a systematic way. Do not take 80% of what you just got and hand it to your three friends.”
你只能坐在那裡說：「聽著，如果你要做風險投資，至少用系統性的方式來做。不要把你剛拿到的 80% 都交給你的三個朋友。」 - Almost always this ends in tears.
這幾乎總是以淚水收場。 - » Michel, welcome to Sorcery. Thank you. I think this is one of your first podcasts in a very long time. First modern podcast.
» Michel，歡迎來到 Sorcery。謝謝。我想這是你很長一段時間以來第一次上 podcast。第一次上現代的 podcast。 - » First modern podcast. And so you’re the CIO of a16z Perennial.
» 第一次上現代的 podcast。所以你是 a16z Perennial 的投資長。 - Is it true this is the family office or multi-family office of Mark and Ben?
這真的是 Mark 和 Ben 的家族辦公室或多家族辦公室嗎？ - It’s the multi-family office for the founders, not necessarily being backed by the company but many in fact backed by the company.
這是為創辦人設立的多家族辦公室，不一定都是由公司所投資的，但其中許多確實是公司所投資的。 - So what’s the structure of Perennial?
那 Perennial 的架構是什麼？ - Okay, so I think the reason why we built Perennial or why we’re building Perennial, it’s about four years in now, was a reflection on what’s happening in the wealth management industry.
好的，我認為我們建立 Perennial 的原因，或者說我們正在建立 Perennial 的原因，到現在大約四年了，是對財富管理產業現況的反思。 - I think for starters, the principals here, Mark and Ben included, had been served by more traditional wealth management firms and they looked to the LPs of a16z and saw, you know, the big sovereign wealth funds, the big pensions have very high-end professional investment teams come and then they look at the wealth management side, how they were being served personally and, you know, frankly I think most folks would agree they felt sort of underwhelmed with the quality of the investment advice and the investment acumen.
首先，這裡的負責人，包括 Mark 和 Ben，過去一直由比較傳統的財富管理公司服務。他們看看 a16z 的 LP，看到那些大型主權財富基金、大型退休基金都有非常高端的專業投資團隊，然後再看看財富管理這邊，他們個人所接受的服務，坦白說，我想大多數人都會同意，他們對投資建議和投資專業的品質感到不太滿意。 - Not the whole service provision, everything, but specifically on the investment front. I mean that was one issue.
不是整體服務的問題，而是特別在投資方面。這是一個問題。 - Another issue or another point obviously is to build a community around a16z. a16z is all about its community and so this is another way to help founders in a different dimension of their personal life.
另一個問題或另一個重點，顯然是圍繞 a16z 建立社群。a16z 的核心就是社群，所以這是在創辦人個人生活的不同面向上幫助他們的另一種方式。 - So if you can take that burden off their hands, ostensibly they can focus even more on the business.
所以如果你能減輕他們的負擔，表面上他們就能更專注於事業。 - And so it becomes much more of a lengthier relationship with the founders because obviously you start when you invest with them in their startup, but even post liquidity, instead of having sort of an artificial end point of your relationship with them, you can continue helping them think about life after liquidity event.
因此這就變成與創辦人更長期的關係，因為顯然你從投資他們的新創公司就開始了，但即使在流動性事件之後，你不必人為地結束與他們的關係，而是可以繼續幫助他們思考流動性事件之後的生活。 - In terms of philanthropy, asset management, legacy, all those kinds of things.
包括慈善、資產管理、傳承等各種面向。 - I want to get more into the Perennial strategy and structure, but I think before that it would be great to just dive even deeper into the state of wealth management today.
我想更深入了解 Perennial 的策略和架構，但我覺得在那之前，先更深入探討當今財富管理的現況會很有幫助。
傳統財富管理的問題
- What have been the biggest problems drilling down further into the issues that you’ve seen, how wealth is managed, maybe the different types of wealth over time, but structurally like what are the biggest problems there?
進一步深入探討你所看到的問題，財富是如何被管理的，也許是不同類型的財富隨時間的變化，但在結構上，最大的問題是什麼？ - It’s really interesting. So there are basically two approaches you can use to have your wealth managed if you’re a wealthy individual.
這真的很有趣。基本上，如果你是一個富有的個人，你可以用兩種方式來管理你的財富。 - One is you can go to the traditional RIA or wealth management channel. And I’ll talk about that in a second.
一是你可以去傳統的 RIA 或財富管理通路。我等一下會談到這個。 - The other one is you can go to traditional asset managers. Think, you know, the large asset management firms you know of, hedge funds, PE shops, things like that.
另一個是你可以去找傳統的資產管理公司。想想那些你知道的大型資產管理公司，避險基金、私募股權公司之類的。 - And both those approaches I think have their own sort of problems when you’re dealing with an individual that has an institutional amount of wealth or will and are taxable.
我認為這兩種方式在面對擁有機構級財富規模且需要繳稅的個人時，都有各自的問題。 - These two, the confluence of these two effects means that the sort of the two standard approaches I just described aren’t really great.
這兩個因素的交匯意味著我剛才描述的兩種標準方式其實都不太理想。
RIA 與獨立公司的問題
- So wealth management, traditional wealth management, most of these firms, the independent firms have spun out of the banks and the banks themselves don’t train people to be professional investors.
傳統財富管理，大多數這些公司，也就是獨立公司，都是從銀行分拆出來的，而銀行本身並不培訓人們成為專業投資人。 - These people are trained to be service providers. They’re trained to be responsive. They’re trained to be helpful, but actual investment acumen when you’re at a large bank sits in a separate group.
這些人被培訓成服務提供者。他們被訓練得反應迅速。他們被訓練得樂於助人，但在大型銀行裡，真正的投資專業能力是在另一個獨立的部門。 - And you’re rewarded as a wealth manager by how much you grow your book of business. So you’re never trained to be an investment person per se.
作為財富管理人，你的獎勵取決於你能拓展多少業務量。所以你從來沒有被培訓成為一個真正的投資專業人士。 - And then when you spin out, therefore, you create your own large independent firm, it’s again not a focus.
然後當你分拆出來，建立自己的大型獨立公司時，投資同樣不是重點。 - And so if you are, the way I would characterize a lot of that product or that offering, I would call it mostly retail product but with a veneer of very high-end service when it comes to investing side.
所以我對大量這類產品或服務的描述是，我會稱之為基本上是零售產品，但在投資方面披著一層非常高端服務的外衣。 - Of course there’s all the ancillary services around, you know, household staffing and finding dog walkers and nannies and things like that.
當然還有所有的附帶服務，像是家庭人事安排、找遛狗的人和保母之類的。 - But by and large the investment side of the function I think is just not of the quality that someone with an institutional balance sheet should expect or deserves.
但整體而言，投資方面的功能，我認為不是一個擁有機構級資產負債表的人應該期待或值得擁有的品質。 - So there’s that side. By the way, there are also fee structure misalignments.
這是一方面。順帶一提，收費結構也有不一致的問題。 - So, and this is a tangent, but I think it’s an important one, which is most of these firms rely on a relationship fee, which is a flat fee that you pay no matter what you do.
這是一個題外話，但我認為很重要，就是大多數這些公司依賴關係費用，這是一種不管你做什麼都要支付的固定費用。 - And let me ask you the question. If you’re paid the same to do something easy or something difficult, I think human nature is such that you’ll do the easy thing.
讓我問你一個問題。如果做簡單的事和做困難的事報酬一樣，我想人性就是你會做簡單的事。 - And so you look at a lot of these firms that have the flat fee structure and you look at the portfolios that come to us. We see a lot of them coming in and I would characterize those portfolios as very simple, not very sophisticated.
所以你看看很多這些採用固定費用結構的公司，再看看送到我們這裡的投資組合。我們看到很多進來的，我會描述這些投資組合為非常簡單，不太精細。 - Very focused on just standard market betas, stocks and bonds and things like that. Not a lot of focus on alternatives.
非常集中在標準市場 beta，股票和債券之類的。對另類投資沒有太多著墨。 - And the reason being is for you to build an alternative offering, you’re going to have to go hire professional investors. And professional investors are paid well. They have growth ambitions.
原因是要建立另類投資產品，你必須去聘請專業投資人。而專業投資人薪酬很高。他們有成長的企圖心。 - It’s very difficult for them to fit into an organization that’s not focused around investment, too.
讓他們融入一個不以投資為核心的組織也是非常困難的。 - So I think there’s a lot of challenges even if you wanted to grow an asset management or investment function inside an RIA. I think it’d be very difficult.
所以我認為即使你想在 RIA 內部發展資產管理或投資功能，也面臨很多挑戰。我認為這非常困難。 - So the flat fee arrangement, you know, means that people do not invest in building out these alternative teams. It’s a lot of work. It’s a lot of effort and it’s a lot of expense.
所以固定費用的安排意味著人們不會投資在建立這些另類投資團隊上。這需要大量的工作、大量的精力和大量的費用。 - And if you make the same 40, 50, 60 bips doing that or just buying stocks and bonds, you’re going to buy stocks and bonds.
如果你做那些事或只是買股票和債券都賺同樣的 0.4%、0.5%、0.6%，你就會去買股票和債券。 - So by and large, that industry I think is not teed up for, you know, a sophisticated portfolio that is deserving of someone that’s got 50, 100, 200 million, let alone a billion dollars. So that’s one route.
所以整體來說，我認為這個產業並沒有準備好提供一個精細的投資組合，來配得上擁有 5,000 萬、1 億、2 億美元的人，更不用說 10 億美元了。這是一條路線。
機構資產管理公司的局限
- And then the other route is the traditional institutional asset management route. And those guys, their biggest clients are nonprofits.
另一條路線是傳統的機構資產管理路線。而這些公司，他們最大的客戶是非營利組織。 - So they’re pensions, endowments, foundations, sovereign wealth funds. All these people don’t pay tax.
包括退休基金、捐贈基金、基金會、主權財富基金。這些機構都不用繳稅。 - So they are not at all focused on the taxable element and if you’re an individual, you’re paying, especially in this state, you’re paying 50 plus percent tax.
所以他們完全不關注稅務因素，而如果你是個人，你要繳的稅，特別是在這個州，超過 50%。 - So the easiest alpha, to use an investment term to get, is a tax alpha. And they are not, these institutional asset managers, because most of their clients are not taxable, they’re not even attempting to optimize after-tax return.
所以最容易獲得的 alpha，用投資術語來說，就是稅務 alpha。而這些機構資產管理公司，因為他們大部分的客戶不需要繳稅，他們甚至沒有嘗試去優化稅後報酬。 - In fact, you could even argue that from a fiduciary perspective, they’re not allowed to optimize after-tax return because the vast majority of their clients care about pre-tax return. So they’re structurally not able to serve you.
事實上，你甚至可以說從受託人的角度來看，他們不被允許優化稅後報酬，因為他們絕大多數的客戶關心的是稅前報酬。所以他們在結構上就無法服務你。 - So there’s this weird no man’s land where you have taxable individuals that have and deserve sort of an institutional quality portfolio build and an asset allocation and yet neither of the two standard channels really deliver that.
所以就出現了這個奇怪的真空地帶，你有需要繳稅的個人，他們擁有且值得機構級品質的投資組合建構和資產配置，但兩個標準通路都無法真正提供這些。
世代財富與演變中的管理需求
- And I would add in sort of subscale endowments and foundations also in the mix because they, while they can probably access the institutional, they may be too small and they may be cut out of certain elements. So having sort of a different approach could also be useful for them.
我還要加上規模較小的捐贈基金和基金會，因為雖然他們可能可以接觸到機構級服務，但他們可能規模太小，被排除在某些項目之外。所以有一種不同的方式對他們也會有用。 - Dave, who connected us, and thank you to Dave for the connection, he wanted to hear what you’ve seen throughout the different generations of wealth.
介紹我們認識的 Dave，感謝 Dave 的引薦，他想聽聽你在不同世代的財富中看到了什麼。 - I mean, we’ve come a long way. It was a lot of industrial, a lot of like big bank, big kind of industry types of wealth built over long periods of time to now what we’re seeing and what is the bread and butter of a16z, very fast wealth, billionaires, billion dollar exits very quickly.
我是說，我們已經走了很長一段路。過去是很多工業性質的、大銀行、大產業類型的財富，經過長時間累積，到現在我們看到的、也是 a16z 的核心業務，非常快速的財富，億萬富翁，非常快速的十億美元退出。 - And part of that is of course these different cycles of innovation in AI and the proliferation around there, but what have you seen throughout your career through these different types and how has management changed alongside that?
當然部分原因是 AI 的不同創新週期及其擴散，但在你的職業生涯中，你在這些不同類型中看到了什麼？管理方式又是如何隨之改變的？ - » No, it’s super interesting and I think I can tell when I meet a family what region they’re from because these waves affected different areas.
» 不，這非常有趣，我覺得當我見到一個家族時，我能判斷他們來自哪個地區，因為這些浪潮影響了不同的地區。 - So the industrial wave was the Midwest. If I meet a Chicago family, and these are gross generalizations, but nonetheless, if I meet a Chicago family, very often they’ve sold their business maybe one or two generations ago and the family business has become managing the family’s assets.
工業浪潮是在中西部。如果我見到一個芝加哥家族，這些是粗略的概括，但如果我見到一個芝加哥家族，他們通常已經在一兩代之前賣掉了事業，家族的事業已經變成管理家族資產。 - So they’re very well versed in all the terminology. They understand the asset classes. And they ask pretty sophisticated questions around that and they’re very focused on the performance and so on and so forth.
所以他們非常熟悉所有術語。他們了解各種資產類別。他們會問相當專業的問題，而且非常關注績效表現等等。 - So I would put that as like one of those earlier waves you’re talking about.
所以我會把這歸類為你所說的那些較早的浪潮之一。 - And then you come to the West Coast and your point, it’s more recent wealth. Person who generated the wealth is the person you’re interacting with.
然後你來到西岸，正如你所說，這是比較新的財富。創造財富的人就是你正在互動的人。 - And so that person is going to have a lot of business savvy, intellectual insight into how things work. So they’re going to be very curious about this industry and about how to do things, but they won’t necessarily per se have an interest in having studied it the way a multi-generational family that had an industrial exit two generations ago would have done because it’s not their full-time job. It’s not their passion.
所以這個人會有很強的商業敏銳度，對事物運作有深刻的洞察力。所以他們會對這個產業和如何做事非常好奇，但他們不一定會像兩代前經歷工業退出的多世代家族那樣有興趣深入研究，因為這不是他們的全職工作，也不是他們的熱情所在。 - So they’re often facing the choice of either creating a single family office, which I think is very difficult and I can get into that, or joining a multi-family office.
所以他們通常面臨選擇，要麼建立單一家族辦公室，我認為這非常困難，稍後可以深入談，要麼加入多家族辦公室。 - And then when they join the multi-family office, they’re facing a number of questions that I think are not obvious to answer, which is, what am I paying for? What am I getting? What do I want?
然後當他們加入多家族辦公室時，他們面臨一些我認為不容易回答的問題，就是：我在付什麼費用？我得到了什麼？我想要什麼？ - And because they’re not necessarily knowledgeable about the industry, they focus on, they fall back on things they understand. How quickly does someone answer my email? How helpful are they when I’m in a pinch?
因為他們對這個產業不一定了解，所以他們會退回到他們理解的事情上。有人多快回覆我的電子郵件？在我急需幫助時，他們有多大幫助？ - Which are important things, but not the only thing.
這些是重要的事情，但不是唯一的事情。 - Assessing the investment performance is very important because just a couple hundred basis points of extra performance over the lifetime of someone could mean hundreds of millions of dollars more that they could then go and create a charity to do something with or something like that.
評估投資績效非常重要，因為在某人的一生中，僅僅多出幾個百分點的績效就可能意味著多出數億美元，他們可以用來建立慈善機構做些什麼事情。 - So that part I think is lost sometimes in the translation.
所以我認為這部分有時候在傳達中被遺忘了。
服務導向財富管理的批判
- » I want to get to the family offices point, but I do remember when we were first talking, there is a big difference between these other wealth managers that do allure you with all the customer service that kind of takes part and takes you away from the actual performance of the portfolio. So what have you seen there?
» 我想談到家族辦公室的部分，但我記得我們第一次交談時，這些其他財富管理公司和真正的投資組合績效之間有很大差異，它們用各種客戶服務來吸引你，反而讓你忽略了實際的投資組合表現。你在那方面看到了什麼？
收費結構與投資焦點
- Yeah, so this goes back to sort of that flat fee relationship fee kind of arrangement which, and that flat fee is an AUM-based fee.
是的，這又回到了那種固定費用、關係費用的安排，而那個固定費用是基於 AUM 的費用。 - So if I’m selling you a bunch of services, why am I charging you an AUM fee?
所以如果我賣給你一堆服務，為什麼我要向你收取 AUM 費用？ - And you know, I sort of like to make funny analogies. One analogy is let’s say you brought your car to get your car fixed and the mechanic comes out and says, “Well, to repair your car, it’s 10 basis points of your balance sheet.”
你知道，我喜歡做一些有趣的類比。一個類比是假設你把車送去修理，技師出來說：「修理你的車，費用是你資產負債表的 0.1%。」 - I mean, I think we’d all react like what are you talking about? There’s an hourly wage. You work three hours, multiply it by three, that’s what you should pay me.
我想我們都會反應說你在說什麼？有時薪的。你工作三小時，乘以三，這才是你應該付我的。 - So these services in my opinion should be fee for service.
所以在我看來，這些服務應該是按服務收費。 - But because that’s of course less profitable than having an AUM-based fee on someone’s entire balance sheet, you charge that fee. You go through the motions of the investment management, but you view that as a cost center.
但因為這當然不如對某人整個資產負債表收取 AUM 費用來得有利可圖，所以你就收那個費用。你走過投資管理的流程，但你把它視為成本中心。 - And so that’s why the portfolios often end up being sort of simpler and less sophisticated because you’re not incentivized to invest in building out the alternatives teams I mentioned.
所以這就是為什麼投資組合往往最終變得比較簡單、不太精細，因為你沒有動力投資建立我提到的那些另類投資團隊。 - These are people who are hard to find. You have to manage them in a different way than you would a more junior resource.
這些人很難找到。你必須用與管理較資淺人員不同的方式來管理他們。 - And constructing these portfolios, the proof points take time. You’re building a VC portfolio. You’re not going to find out in two years whether it’s done well. You’re going to find out in 10 years.
而且建構這些投資組合，驗證需要時間。你在建立一個 VC 投資組合。你不會在兩年內知道它表現如何。你要在 10 年後才會知道。 - I don’t know that a lot of these firms have the patience for that.
我不確定很多這些公司有這樣的耐心。 - So for me, what was very important, and by the way, if you don’t build a professional investment team, then you by default have to invest in other people’s investment firms. So it becomes a pure fund of funds approach. And so there’s a dual layer of fees, so it’s very expensive to do.
所以對我來說，非常重要的是，順帶一提，如果你不建立專業投資團隊，那你就預設必須投資在別人的投資公司裡。所以它就變成純粹的基金中的基金（fund of funds）方式。因此就有雙層費用，所以這麼做非常昂貴。 - So there are fallout implications from not building an investment team in-house. It forces you to become a fund of funds if you are going to do alternatives. And so that’s a high fee kind of setup.
所以不在內部建立投資團隊會有連鎖效應。如果你要做另類投資，它就會迫使你變成基金中的基金。所以這是一種高費用的架構。
專業投資人的重要性
- So very important for me from the get-go here to sort of hire people that were professional investors by trade first.
所以對我來說，從一開始就非常重要的是優先聘請那些本業就是專業投資人的人。 - And professional investors have a very specific definition in my mind. It’s someone who at some point in their career was paid purely based on the performance of their investments.
而專業投資人在我心中有一個非常明確的定義。就是在職業生涯中的某個時間點，純粹根據投資績效來獲得報酬的人。 - Your investments are up 20% this year. Here’s your money. Thank you very much.
你今年的投資上漲了 20%。這是你的報酬。非常感謝。 - If you have those kinds of people on your team, you now can underwrite your investments yourself, or you can go hire a third-party manager, but you’re not forced to just go down the third-party route.
如果你的團隊裡有這樣的人，你現在可以自己承做投資，或者你也可以去聘請第三方經理人，但你不會被迫只能走第三方的路線。 - And so you can save a lot of embedded fees for the things you decide to do yourself. And I’m not suggesting you should do everything yourself, because it’s too hard. There are too many things.
所以你可以為你決定自己做的事情節省很多內嵌費用。我不是建議你什麼都自己做，因為那太難了。事情太多了。 - But there are certainly some things you can do yourself and therefore really reduce the fee load.
但確實有些事情你可以自己做，從而真正減少費用負擔。 - So you increase the alpha to the client because you’re not passing through these fees.
所以你為客戶增加了 alpha，因為你不需要轉嫁這些費用。 - Like a standard sort of endowment style approach, 50, 60, 70% alternatives on look-through basis, your fees will be three or four percent a year. So that’s a huge headwind.
像是標準的捐贈基金風格方式，在穿透基礎上 50%、60%、70% 的另類投資，你的費用會是每年 3% 到 4%。所以這是一個巨大的逆風。 - If you can get rid of some of that by having a professional team in-house and not always just hiring third-party managers, that can, you know, maybe you cut that in half. It’s a couple hundred basis points of alpha right there.
如果你能透過擁有內部專業團隊而不是總是聘請第三方經理人來消除其中一些費用，也許你可以把費用減半。那就是幾個百分點的 alpha。 - So the structuring is very important in my opinion, how to do this right.
所以在我看來，架構設計非常重要，如何正確地做到這一點。
單一家族辦公室的挑戰
- And then on the family offices point, family offices are taking off. They’re becoming a new hype wave. They’re all over the place, but you’re saying single family offices are very difficult. Why is that? And why should people avoid doing that as a first step?
然後關於家族辦公室的部分，家族辦公室正在蓬勃發展。它們正在成為一波新的熱潮。到處都是，但你說單一家族辦公室非常困難。為什麼？為什麼人們應該避免把它作為第一步？ - The allure is cool. I have my own family office. But you know, what are you trying to accomplish?
這個吸引力很酷。我有自己的家族辦公室。但你知道，你想達成什麼？ - So if what you’re trying to accomplish is have someone help you a little bit with your sort of financial reporting and all that, you can call that a family office. I guess the definition of a family office is very broad, so it could include all sorts of things.
所以如果你想達成的只是找人稍微幫你處理財務報告之類的事情，你可以稱之為家族辦公室。我想家族辦公室的定義非常廣泛，所以它可以包含各種各樣的事情。 - But if you’re trying to build a multi-asset class portfolio, global multi-asset class portfolio, you’re going to need to hire a bunch of these sort of professional investors I mentioned. I don’t know, you need five, six, seven of them.
但如果你想建立一個多資產類別的投資組合，全球多資產類別投資組合，你就需要聘請一群我提到的那種專業投資人。也許需要五、六、七個。 - Different asset classes. You’ve got fixed income obviously, stocks, which are more straightforward, I’d say, but then you’ve got venture capital, private equity, real estate, real assets, credit. And all these things are specialties that require people.
不同的資產類別。你有固定收益，股票，我會說這些比較直接，但你還有創投、私募股權、房地產、實質資產、信用。所有這些都是需要專業人員的專門領域。 - So how are you going to do that and pay these people if your balance sheet isn’t very big? And I mean, billions. Otherwise the compensation you’re paying to this team is eating up whatever benefit you might be getting.
那如果你的資產負債表不是很大，你要怎麼做到這些並支付這些人的薪酬？我指的是數十億。否則你支付給這個團隊的薪酬會吃掉你可能獲得的任何收益。 - The other challenge I found is that family offices have real trouble retaining the talent. Because you hire someone, they’re ambitious, they have a career path.
我發現的另一個挑戰是家族辦公室在留住人才方面確實有困難。因為你聘請了某個人，他們有抱負，有職業發展路徑。 - The principal of the family is signing up really to be a manager of an asset management company. That’s really what they’re signing up for. I don’t think many of them actually realize what they’re signing up for, and I don’t think they want to do that.
家族的負責人實際上是在報名當一家資產管理公司的管理者。這才是他們真正在做的事。我不認為他們很多人真正意識到自己在做什麼，我也不認為他們想要這樣做。 - So they don’t want to manage me, you know, meet me daily or twice a week, let alone a broader team.
所以他們不想管理我，每天或每週見我兩次，更不用說一個更大的團隊了。 - And so it’s very difficult to attract the high-end professionals, because they’re just going to be sort of in a vacuum, often not meeting the principal. So it’s a very difficult thing to execute.
所以要吸引高端專業人才非常困難，因為他們會處於一種真空狀態，經常見不到負責人。所以這是一件非常難以執行的事情。 - Some people do execute, of course, but they have very large balance sheets. They have a long-term horizon, and they’re committed to building a proper bench on their team.
當然有些人確實做到了，但他們有非常大的資產負債表。他們有長期的眼光，而且致力於在團隊中建立合適的板凳深度。 - So I think that’s one issue. The other issue is a lot of single family offices, you hear that the motivation is they build it to keep the family together.
所以我認為這是一個問題。另一個問題是很多單一家族辦公室，你會聽到建立的動機是為了讓家族團結在一起。 - And then you witness the statistics at least show that when the patriarch or matriarch passes away, very often the family office falls apart.
然後你會看到統計數據至少顯示，當家族的長者過世時，家族辦公室經常會分崩離析。 - Either the investments are completely turned around and the things are liquidated in a hurry, that results in large losses by the way, where the beneficiaries, sometimes we buy those things.
不是投資被徹底翻轉，資產被匆忙清算（順帶一提，這會導致巨大損失），受益人有時候我們會買下那些東西。 - Or the kids or the heirs take their money and go their own way.
就是孩子們或繼承人拿走他們的錢各走各的路。 - So the very sort of conceptual underpinning of why to create a single family office seems to fall apart a lot, too.
所以建立單一家族辦公室的核心概念基礎似乎也經常崩解。 - So there’s multiple challenges with trying to do a single family office, I think. Again, it depends how you, what you want to execute with the single family office.
所以我認為嘗試做單一家族辦公室有多重挑戰。當然，這取決於你想用單一家族辦公室來執行什麼。
Sponsor: Brex
- Sorcery is brought to you by Brex, the financial stack trusted by more than 30,000 companies, including one in three venture-backed startups in the US.
Sorcery 由 Brex 贊助，Brex 是超過 30,000 家公司信賴的金融堆疊，包括美國三分之一的風險投資支持的新創公司。 - Nearly 40% of startups fail because they run out of cash.
近 40% 的新創公司因為耗盡現金而失敗。 - » Brex is literally built to help founders avoid that. Unlike traditional banks that let your money sit idle, chipping away at it with fees, Brex is designed to help you spend smarter and move faster.
» Brex 就是為了幫助創辦人避免這種情況而建立的。不同於讓你的錢閒置、用費用慢慢侵蝕的傳統銀行，Brex 的設計是幫助你更聰明地花費、更快速地行動。 - Their all-in-one solution combines checking, treasury, and FDIC protection into one powerful account.
他們的一站式解決方案將支票帳戶、財務管理和 FDIC 保護整合到一個強大的帳戶中。 - You can send and receive money globally at lightning speeds, get 20 times the standard FDIC coverage through their partner banks, and even high yield from day one.
你可以以閃電般的速度在全球匯款和收款，透過他們的合作銀行獲得 20 倍的標準 FDIC 保障，甚至從第一天起就享有高收益。 - With same day and even same hour liquidity, access your funds anytime.
透過當日甚至當小時的流動性，隨時存取你的資金。 - Companies like Scale AI, DoorDash, ServiceTitan, Hims, Anthropic, Flexport, Robinhood, and Plaid trust and use Brex.
Scale AI、DoorDash、ServiceTitan、Hims、Anthropic、Flexport、Robinhood 和 Plaid 等公司都信賴並使用 Brex。 - Start today at brex.com/sorcery. That’s b r e x.com/sorcery.
今天就到 brex.com/sorcery 開始。網址是 b r e x.com/sorcery。
Sponsor: Turing
- Turing is training the next generation of AI with tasks that require real expertise and real-world judgment.
Turing 正在用需要真正專業知識和真實世界判斷力的任務來訓練下一代 AI。 - That’s why companies like Nvidia, Anthropic, Salesforce, and Gemini partner with Turing.
這就是為什麼 Nvidia、Anthropic、Salesforce 和 Gemini 等公司與 Turing 合作。 - Turing builds realistic reinforcement learning and data systems based on real operational traces. The kind of infrastructure Frontier Labs need to train superintelligence.
Turing 基於真實的營運軌跡建立逼真的強化學習和數據系統。這是 Frontier Labs 訓練超級智慧所需要的基礎設施。 - Visit turing.com/sourcery.
請造訪 turing.com/sourcery。
Perennial 的財富管理方法
- At what level of wealth should people start thinking about going the wealth management direction? Wealth management as opposed to single family office.
在什麼財富水準時，人們應該開始考慮走財富管理的方向？財富管理相對於單一家族辦公室。 - Well, I mean for wealth management, of course there are firms that cater, you know, from small amounts all the way to larger amounts.
嗯，我是說財富管理，當然有各種公司提供服務，從小額到大額都有。 - But for a type of wealth management firm that I’m talking about, the type we’re building here at Perennial that has a lot of investment expertise, 25, 50 million dollars would kind of be the minimum, really.
但對於我所說的那種財富管理公司，就是我們在 Perennial 正在建立的這種擁有大量投資專業能力的公司，2,500 萬到 5,000 萬美元大概是最低門檻。 - But I would say it’s really more for the centimillionaires and billionaires who have, again, an institutional, multi-generational time horizon. So they’re more like an endowment than they are like an individual.
但我會說這真的更適合那些擁有機構級、多世代時間視野的億萬富翁。所以他們更像是捐贈基金而不是個人。 - How many families are you working with right now?
你們目前與多少個家族合作？ - Well, we’re purposely keeping it small. Because another thing is we really want to be customized and focused on the individual needs of the families.
我們刻意保持小規模。因為另一件事是我們真的想要客製化，專注於每個家族的個別需求。 - What you’ll find, again, in the industry is a lot of folks go by playbooks. So they’ll categorize you as a certain type of family in terms of your risk profile or your liquidity or your balance sheet. And then there’s a standard program that’s put into place. I’d say that’s very common.
你會再次發現，在這個產業中，很多人按照固定的劇本行事。所以他們會根據你的風險概況、流動性或資產負債表把你歸類為某種類型的家族。然後就會套用一個標準方案。我會說這非常常見。 - We don’t want to do that. We feel like the people we work with are people who have multi-generational wealth anyway. So they should have a custom built asset allocation, custom built investment program.
我們不想那樣做。我們覺得與我們合作的人本來就是擁有多世代財富的人。所以他們應該有客製化的資產配置、客製化的投資方案。 - A lot of work around their concentrated stocks, often they come with a lot of concentrated stock. And so we built a team around that.
圍繞他們的集中持股有很多工作要做，他們通常帶著大量的集中持股。所以我們建立了一個專門的團隊來處理這個問題。 - And so we only have a couple dozen families that we work with in that sort of overarching quarterback of everything.
所以我們在那種全面統籌的角色中只服務大約二十幾個家族。
Perennial 與矽谷其他公司的比較
- Is that the main difference between a16z Perennial and let’s say an Iconic? How does it fit within the broader theme of these Silicon Valley oriented firms?
這是 a16z Perennial 和比如說 Iconic 之間的主要差異嗎？它在這些矽谷導向公司的更大主題中如何定位？ - I think the Silicon Valley oriented firms, for the most part, again, are trying to be a full stack offering of all the services. And so, you know, with a certain amount of revenue, there’s only so much you can build in-house.
我認為矽谷導向的公司，大多數情況下，還是在嘗試成為提供所有服務的全端（full stack）平台。所以在一定的收入規模下，你能在內部建立的東西是有限的。 - So a lot of these firms do not have professional investors. So I often ask people as a quiz, how many professional investors do you think are in RIA XYZ?
所以很多這些公司沒有專業投資人。所以我經常問人們一個小測驗，你覺得 RIA XYZ 裡有多少專業投資人？ - And people will answer, I mean percent. People answer me 20%, 50%, 30%. But the number often is zero or one or two people.
人們會回答，我是說百分比。人們回答我 20%、50%、30%。但實際數字通常是零個、一個或兩個人。 - And so that’s the big difference between us and then many of these other firms.
所以這就是我們和這些其他公司之間的最大差異。
為大型流動性事件做準備
- With so many large wealth creation events coming up, SpaceX is rumored and reported to have nearly a two trillion dollar IPO incoming.
隨著這麼多大型財富創造事件即將到來，據傳聞和報導，SpaceX 即將進行一場近兩兆美元的 IPO。 - One, what do you make of that? And two, how do you prepare early employees and founders for these large liquidity events?
第一，你怎麼看？第二，你如何幫助早期員工和創辦人為這些大型流動性事件做準備？ - Well, look, I think it’ll be an interesting test of the markets if they can sort of digest, I mean, that would be the largest IPO ever. And so for the markets to digest that would be really interesting to watch.
嗯，我覺得如果市場能夠消化這筆交易，那將是一個有趣的考驗，我的意思是，這將是有史以來最大的 IPO。所以市場要消化這個真的很值得觀察。 - And I think there’s a lot of other very large startups waiting in the wings who will be watching this super carefully. Because if it works for SpaceX, maybe it works for me.
而且我認為有很多其他非常大的新創公司在旁邊等著，他們會非常仔細地觀察這件事。因為如果這對 SpaceX 有效，也許對我也有效。 - In terms of preparing, I think, you know, again, if you’re an individual with taxes, structuring your estate, structuring your trusts is very important pre-IPO. And then post-IPO, it’s all about how do I diversify gradually?
在準備方面，我認為，如果你是一個需要繳稅的個人，在 IPO 前規劃你的遺產和信託結構非常重要。然後在 IPO 後，關鍵就是如何逐步多元化？ - And I would not purport or claim to know more about SpaceX than someone that’s worked there 20 years. So I would work with that person and ask them, you know, what do you think the prospects of SpaceX are?
我不會聲稱比在那裡工作 20 年的人更了解 SpaceX。所以我會與那個人合作，問他們，你認為 SpaceX 的前景如何？ - I would not go in suggest they dump SpaceX 100% immediately and go buy stocks and bonds.
我不會建議他們立刻 100% 拋售 SpaceX 然後去買股票和債券。 - Sure, part of their strategy should be to diversify, but part of it should be to hold on to that stock long-term and think about how to maybe even monetize the volatility.
當然，他們策略的一部分應該是多元化，但一部分也應該是長期持有那支股票，並思考如何甚至利用波動性來獲利。 - So we’ve built some options programs and things like that for people here to monetize these stocks that are volatile by nature. And so you can monetize that volatility without necessarily exiting the stock.
所以我們為這裡的人建立了一些選擇權方案之類的工具，來利用這些本質上波動性大的股票獲利。所以你可以在不必退出股票的情況下利用波動性獲利。 - So there’s lots of interesting strategies you can do with someone that has a concentrated stock position.
所以對於持有集中持股部位的人，有很多有趣的策略可以運用。
填補財富管理缺口
- It’s just so interesting, because I think I’ve talked to several people in LA pertaining to this IPO.
這真的很有趣，因為我和洛杉磯的幾個人聊過關於這次 IPO 的事。 - I’ve talked to Shawn Maguire of Sequoia, who they’ve invested billions into SpaceX and Elon companies.
我和 Sequoia 的 Shawn Maguire 聊過，他們已經投資了數十億美元在 SpaceX 和 Elon 的公司。 - And then I’ve also talked to engineers and I’ve talked to people that have been at SpaceX.
然後我也和工程師聊過，也和在 SpaceX 工作過的人聊過。 - One of the themes that I’ve seen throughout this is that there are not enough wealth managers.
我在整個過程中看到的一個主題是，財富管理師不夠多。 - And there’s not enough wealth managers with this family office type of expertise, either.
而且擁有家族辦公室類型專業知識的財富管理師也不夠多。 - And so, there’s a little bit of like an incoming drought for a lot of demand.
所以，面對大量的需求，有點像是即將來臨的乾旱。 - And I know SpaceX is not only LA, but it’s also Texas. And there are definitely differences there.
我知道 SpaceX 不只在洛杉磯，也在德州。而且那裡肯定有差異。 - But in terms of that, what do you make of like where should they go? Because a lot of these engineers and other professionals there are not in this world, they’re ill-equipped to assess the options.
但就這方面而言，你覺得他們應該去哪裡？因為很多工程師和其他專業人士不在這個領域，他們缺乏評估選項的能力。 - And so, often they end up in places they shouldn’t, in my opinion.
所以，在我看來，他們往往最後去了不該去的地方。 - The challenge for them is to even if this is not your passion, please invest time enough to understand the space.
對他們來說的挑戰是，即使這不是你的熱情所在，也請投入足夠的時間來了解這個領域。 - One of the things I always suggest to people is look at the pedigrees, the education, the employment history of the people you’re hiring.
我總是建議人們的一件事是，看看你要聘請的人的背景、教育經歷和工作歷史。 - If they’ve never really been professional investors, then don’t look to that firm for professional investment advice. Look to that firm for services.
如果他們從來不是專業投資者，那就不要指望那家公司提供專業投資建議。把那家公司當作服務提供者就好。 - So, I think just educating yourself enough about the industry is a really important first step to even try to attempt to, you know, as often people say, they get a referral.
所以，我認為讓自己對這個行業有足夠的了解，是嘗試做出選擇的非常重要的第一步。人們常說的情況是，他們會得到一個推薦。 - “Oh, my buddy uses so-and-so and they’re a nice person. Okay, well, I’ll go with that.”
「噢，我朋友用某某人，他們人很好。好吧，那我就選他們了。」 - And I always like to make medical analogies here because it sort of highlights how ridiculous that decision-making process is.
我總是喜歡在這裡做醫療類比，因為這某種程度上凸顯了那種決策過程有多荒謬。 - Let’s say you have a horrible cancer and need a big surgery. Are you simply going to ask your neighbor, “Hey, do you know a good brain surgeon?” And they’re like, “Oh, yeah, so-and-so down the road is a great brain-” No, right?
假設你得了嚴重的癌症，需要一個大手術。你會只是問你的鄰居：「嘿，你認識好的腦外科醫生嗎？」然後他們說：「噢，對啊，路那頭的某某人是很棒的腦外科——」不會吧，對吧？ - You’re going to go read the hospital reports and find out which surgeons have done the surgery the most and, you know, do the same thing here.
你會去看醫院的報告，找出哪些外科醫生做過最多這種手術，你知道的，在這裡也應該做同樣的事。 - Your wealth is the product of your life’s work. This is not some, it’s a very important thing.
你的財富是你一生工作的成果。這不是什麼小事，這是非常重要的事情。 - So, invest the time, please, to sort of understand what you’re buying before buying because I’m at the receiving end of that a lot.
所以，拜託，在購買之前先投入時間了解你在買什麼，因為我經常在接收端看到這些情況。 - I see people they go somewhere and then they come to us. And they say, “I don’t like this.” And you ask, “Well, why did you pick that?” And the answer almost always is, “Well, my neighbor or my friend or a colleague.”
我看到人們先去了某個地方，然後來找我們。他們說：「我不喜歡這個。」你問：「那你當初為什麼選那家？」答案幾乎總是：「嗯，我的鄰居或朋友或同事推薦的。」 - So, if you have any influence on this, tell people do just a little homework.
所以，如果你在這方面有任何影響力，告訴人們至少做一點功課。 - How easy is it or how hard is it to switch over to different firms?
轉換到不同的公司有多容易或多難？ - Super hard.
超級難。 - And this is part of the game. So, you’re with a firm, they know all your account numbers, all your wiring instructions, they know all your different trusts, your trustees, your accountants.
這就是遊戲規則的一部分。你跟一家公司合作，他們知道你所有的帳戶號碼、所有的匯款指示，他們知道你所有不同的信託、你的受託人、你的會計師。 - So, when you are doing something, they’ll report back to the accountant. You need to send money, they’ll do the wiring instructions for you.
所以，當你在做什麼事情時，他們會向會計師回報。你需要匯款，他們會幫你處理匯款指示。 - The industry is set up to sort of trap you.
這個行業的設置某種程度上就是要把你困住。 - Even the large custodian firms, it’s hard for people to realize this, but if you’re as an individual in these custodian firms, the brand names, you can sort of do a lot of stuff yourself, self-initiate, self-service.
即使是大型託管公司，人們很難意識到這一點，但如果你作為個人在這些託管公司，那些知名品牌，你可以自己做很多事情，自主發起、自助服務。 - When you move under the RIA platform, those features are disabled to sort of keep you more locked into that ecosystem.
當你轉到 RIA 平台下，那些功能就被停用了，某種程度上是為了讓你更加鎖定在那個生態系統中。 - So, it’s very hard. It’s daunting.
所以，這非常難。令人卻步。 - And this is why there’s such a race to be the first firm that someone that recently had liquidity goes to. This is where the fight is.
這就是為什麼會有這樣的競賽，要成為最近獲得流動性的人第一個接觸的公司。這就是戰場所在。 - “I heard you had a liquidity event. Me, me, me, pick me.” Because once you’ve picked the person, the odds of them moving again are extremely low.
「我聽說你有一個流動性事件。選我、選我、選我。」因為一旦你選了某人，他們再次轉換的機率極低。 - And so, that’s where all the competition happens.
所以，那就是所有競爭發生的地方。
入門與服務策略
- When they essentially onboard, I’m just so curious about this. Like, what products do you show them? And where are their barriers? For instance, do you go into art? Like, for these typical portfolios, how do you set them up initially? You said it’s kind of like a gradual process, but what are all the offerings and how do you balance it?
當他們基本上開始加入時，我真的很好奇。你會展示什麼產品給他們？他們的障礙在哪裡？比如說，你們會涉及藝術品嗎？對於這些典型的投資組合，你們最初是如何設定的？你說這是一個漸進的過程，但所有的服務項目有哪些，你們如何平衡？ - » It is a gradual process. So, I think we’re a very open book and we’ll tell people frankly that they don’t need to necessarily put all of their assets with us.
這確實是一個漸進的過程。我認為我們非常坦誠，會坦白告訴人們，他們不一定需要把所有資產都放在我們這裡。 - Which again is not what most people in the industry will say. Most people in the industry will say, “Hey, you should put everything with me because otherwise I won’t have an insight on what you’re doing elsewhere and therefore I won’t be able to manage your things optimally.”
這同樣不是業界大多數人會說的話。業界大多數人會說：「嘿，你應該把所有東西都放在我這裡，否則我無法了解你在其他地方做了什麼，因此我無法最佳化地管理你的資產。」 - But that’s not true. You can have the firms communicate with each other and I do this regularly.
但那不是事實。你可以讓不同公司之間互相溝通，我經常這樣做。 - If you went to a traditional firm, they would start with more of the stock and bond mix. They might add a little bit of some sort of credit.
如果你去傳統的公司，他們會從股票和債券的組合開始。他們可能會加入一點某種信貸產品。 - We sort of tend to work with people more in a linear fashion acknowledging that their portfolio is going to change over time.
我們傾向於以更線性的方式與人合作，承認他們的投資組合會隨時間改變。 - So, we’re not focused simply on exiting that position on day one, the concentrated, let’s say it’s SpaceX. We’re not just simply going to be like, you got to sell all of SpaceX.
所以，我們不會只專注於在第一天就退出那個集中持倉，比如說是 SpaceX。我們不會簡單地說，你必須賣掉所有的 SpaceX。 - It’s okay, SpaceX, if you hold onto it for 20 years, here’s what the outcome might look like. By the way, we built a lot of tools to help forecast these kinds of things, which is again empowered by the fact we have professional investors who know how to do that.
SpaceX 沒問題，如果你持有 20 年，結果可能會是這樣。順帶一提，我們建立了很多工具來幫助預測這類事情，這同樣是因為我們有專業投資者知道如何做到這一點。 - A lot of it falls back to that. And then we will customize based on their needs.
很多都回歸到那一點。然後我們會根據他們的需求客製化。 - Strange, unusual alternative asset classes are definitely part of the mix. We have some clients who do a lot in the art space. I’m not an art specialist, but I know art specialists that can help you. So, we’re very flexible.
奇特的、不尋常的另類資產類別絕對是組合的一部分。我們有一些客戶在藝術品領域做了很多。我不是藝術品專家，但我認識能幫助你的藝術品專家。所以，我們非常靈活。 - But the point is the whole mix of things has to make sense.
但重點是整體的組合必須合理。 - And so, I’m not simply going to be, and this is where giving advice is an important part. A lot of firms will present you alternatives. They’ll say you can do this or you could do that. You tell me what you want.
所以，我不會只是，而這就是提供建議很重要的地方。很多公司會向你展示不同選項。他們會說你可以做這個或做那個。你告訴我你想要什麼。 - And they’re doing this for various reasons. One, they may not actually have a strong opinion. Two, it’s liability. If I tell you do this and you do it and then you’re not happy, well, I told you to do that. If instead I gave you three options and you pick B, I didn’t pick B, you picked B.
他們這樣做有各種原因。第一，他們可能實際上沒有強烈的觀點。第二，是責任問題。如果我告訴你做這個，你做了然後你不開心，嗯，是我叫你做的。如果我給你三個選項，你選了 B，不是我選的 B，是你選的 B。 - So, we’re very much into giving advice. We’ll tell you, look, if you’re going to put a lot of art, you might want to counterbalance that with this and that to make the whole portfolio work.
所以，我們非常注重提供建議。我們會告訴你，如果你要投入大量藝術品，你可能需要用這個和那個來平衡，讓整個投資組合運作良好。 - So, we sort of put ourselves out there, but I think a lot of people have desire and hunger for that. They really want, they don’t want to sort of have to learn all these things and make the decision. They want someone who tells them, “You should do this.”
所以，我們某種程度上把自己推出去了，但我認為很多人對此有渴望和需求。他們真的想要，他們不想要自己學所有這些東西然後做決定。他們想要有人告訴他們：「你應該這樣做。」 - Again, let’s use a medical analogy. You have cancer, okay, you need to do a surgery. Not, “Well, maybe you could do a surgery, maybe you can drink some herbal teas. You tell me.” You wouldn’t be satisfied with that with the physician. Why is that okay here?
再用一個醫療類比。你得了癌症，好，你需要做手術。而不是：「嗯，也許你可以做手術，也許你可以喝一些草藥茶。你告訴我。」你不會對醫生這樣的回答感到滿意。為什麼在這裡就可以呢？ - So, you want a professional telling you, “No, no herbal tea for you. The tumor’s big. Herbal tea is not going to work. You need a surgery.” So, that’s one of the things we pride ourselves in.
所以，你需要一個專業人士告訴你：「不，你不能喝草藥茶。腫瘤很大。草藥茶沒有用。你需要手術。」這是我們引以為傲的事情之一。
管理市場波動與資產
- I’m so curious about your stance on the current markets and the current market volatility. So, one, we have AI disrupting public markets, but we also have wars and geopolitics and oil. And so, how do you manage through all this?
我很好奇你對目前市場和當前市場波動的立場。首先，我們有 AI 在顛覆公開市場，但我們也有戰爭、地緣政治和石油問題。那麼，你如何管理這一切？ - How do you provide assistance to the families, to your clients? One, are you actively managing their portfolios? Two, are you helping them navigate through this? Because I’m sure they’re seeing their wealth go up and down in different directions.
你如何向這些家族、你的客戶提供協助？第一，你是否在積極管理他們的投資組合？第二，你是否在幫助他們度過這段時期？因為我確信他們看到自己的財富在不同方向上起伏。 - I always tell people, one of my favorite sayings is, “Volatility is not the enemy.” A lot of people fret volatility.
我總是告訴人們，我最喜歡的一句話是：「波動不是敵人。」很多人害怕波動。 - But if you have a deep balance sheet and you’ve kept your portfolio at least somewhat liquid, volatility is a huge opportunity. It’s like a fat pitch.
但如果你有雄厚的資產負債表，而且你的投資組合保持了至少一定程度的流動性，波動就是一個巨大的機會。就像是一個好球。 - And so, you get assets that go on sale. You know, big equities, stock markets, every four, five years, there’s like a 40% drawdown. Blue light sale.
於是，你會得到打折的資產。你知道的，大型股票、股市，每四五年就會有大約 40% 的回撤。大特賣。 - You should have flexibility in your portfolio to take advantage of the blue light sale, and you should have your advisor call you up and go, “Hey, these things are 40% off. It’s time to back up the truck.”
你的投資組合應該有彈性來利用這些大特賣，你的顧問應該打電話給你說：「嘿，這些東西打了六折。是時候大量買進了。」 - So, yes, we do very active interaction with clients on that front.
所以，是的，我們在這方面確實與客戶有非常積極的互動。 - How much do you like to put in cash and real estate and all of these other kinds?
你喜歡在現金、房地產和所有這些其他類別中配置多少？ - Real estate’s actually, for taxable individuals, is a really very cool asset class because it’s uncorrelated. So, if you’re, again, a SpaceX person, you have a lot of stock market risk factor. If you take real estate, real estate’s pretty uncorrelated to that, so it diversifies you.
房地產對於需要納稅的個人來說，實際上是一個非常酷的資產類別，因為它是不相關的。所以，如果你又是一個 SpaceX 的人，你有很多股市風險因素。如果你選擇房地產，房地產與那些相當不相關，所以它能幫你分散風險。 - And then a lot of wealth in this country, a lot of wealthy families made their fortunes with real estate. Including the president.
然後這個國家很多的財富，很多富裕家族都是靠房地產發家的。包括總統。 - And why is that? Because the entire banking system and taxation system was built around real assets. When banks and all these laws were built in the ’20s, ’30s, ’40s, all there was was real assets. People weren’t, there were no internet companies. They were buying buildings, factories.
為什麼呢？因為整個銀行系統和稅務系統都是圍繞著實體資產建立的。當銀行和所有這些法律在 20、30、40 年代建立時，那時只有實體資產。那時沒有網路公司。人們在買的是建築物、工廠。 - So, the tax code is very beneficial to real assets, and you can therefore get a solid teens return on a tax-adjusted basis out of real assets and real estate.
所以，稅法對實體資產非常有利，你因此可以從實體資產和房地產中獲得稅後調整基礎上穩健的十幾個百分點回報。 - So, from, to me, if you’ve got the ability to stomach the illiquidity, because buildings don’t trade like stocks, you should be holding a lot of those in your portfolio. So, yes, it’s an important part.
所以，對我來說，如果你有能力承受流動性不足，因為建築物不像股票那樣交易，你應該在投資組合中持有大量這類資產。所以，是的，這是重要的一部分。 - And then cash or very liquid bonds, people don’t like bonds for the return profile. They say, “Well, why would I own this thing? It returns 3 or 4%.”
然後是現金或非常具流動性的債券，人們不喜歡債券的回報表現。他們說：「為什麼我要持有這個東西？它只回報 3% 或 4%。」 - And my answer to that is, you’re not owning it for the 3 or 4%. You’re owning it because it gives you that flexibility. It gives you that option value to liquidate that, and go into something else very fast.
我的回答是，你持有它不是為了那 3% 或 4%。你持有它是因為它給你彈性。它給你選擇權的價值，可以快速變現然後投入其他東西。 - I remember during the global financial crisis, I worked at a hedge fund. The only thing we could sell was Treasuries to raise money. Nothing else was trading.
我記得在全球金融危機期間，我在一家避險基金工作。我們唯一能賣的就是國債來籌集資金。其他什麼都沒有在交易。 - So, having a Treasury kind of liquidity buffer, super important. You can go sell those Treasuries even when there’s a horrible war or something, someone will pay you cash for that.
所以，擁有國債類型的流動性緩衝，超級重要。即使發生可怕的戰爭或什麼事情，你都可以去賣那些國債，有人會付現金給你。 - In fact, they may pay you more than they would have before, because bonds are a safe haven asset. You take that cash, you go buy the distressed asset.
事實上，他們可能會比以前付更多，因為債券是避風港資產。你拿到現金，去買陷入困境的資產。 - We should talk about taxes.
我們應該談談稅務。
稅務與居住地決策
- Taxes are probably one of the biggest talks around town, especially in California.
稅務可能是全城最大的話題之一，特別是在加州。 - Some people are like, “Oh, well, you made so much money, you get to choose where you live, and if you want to live in California, that’s the purpose of making a lot of money.”
有些人會說：「噢，你賺了這麼多錢，你可以選擇住在哪裡，如果你想住在加州，那就是賺很多錢的目的。」 - Some people will say, “Oh, I made a lot of money. I need to go somewhere else so I can save a couple percentage points.” And live somewhere for three, four years, something like that.
有些人會說：「噢，我賺了很多錢。我需要去其他地方，這樣我可以省下幾個百分點。」然後在某個地方住個三四年之類的。 - But what is your main stance on taxes and where you live? Because we can also get into this afterwards, but the billionaire tax bill, I think it was over a trillion dollars left the state of California.
但你對稅務和居住地的主要立場是什麼？因為我們之後也可以深入討論，但那個億萬富翁稅法案，我認為超過一兆美元離開了加州。 - So, how do you feel about taxes?
那麼，你對稅務有什麼看法？ - Well, no one loves paying taxes unless they feel they’re getting value for it. And I think when you hear people complain about it, it’s, “I don’t get value.” You know, my schools aren’t great, the roads are in disrepair, whatever. You hear these complaints.
嗯，沒有人喜歡繳稅，除非他們覺得有得到相應的價值。我認為當你聽到人們抱怨時，就是「我沒有得到價值。」你知道的，我的學校不怎麼樣，道路年久失修，等等。你會聽到這些抱怨。 - So, I don’t think anyone’s necessarily averse to paying tax if they feel they’re getting value for it. And a lot of people who leave feel they’re not getting value for it.
所以，我不認為任何人一定排斥繳稅，如果他們覺得得到了相應的價值。而很多離開的人覺得他們沒有得到相應的價值。 - Two, there’s a sense that the revenues are mismanaged, and I’m not going to get into all the waste and fraud that happens, but we all know a lot of that happens.
第二，有一種感覺是收入被管理不善，我不會深入討論所有發生的浪費和詐欺，但我們都知道這些事情經常發生。 - But moving is a very draconian move, because your family, your friends and all that. So, some people can do that and want to do that.
但搬家是一個非常極端的舉動，因為你的家人、朋友等等。所以，有些人能做到而且想做。 - And by the way, it’s not easy. You have to sort of really move.
而且順帶一提，這不容易。你必須真正地搬過去。 - So, leaving your house here, your main house, and moving to Texas or Florida for a year or two with the intent of coming back doesn’t qualify.
所以，離開你在這裡的房子，你的主要住所，搬到德州或佛羅里達一兩年，打算之後回來，這樣是不符合資格的。 - If you do come back after a couple years, the tax authorities here say, “Look, you never sold your house. You never had the intent of leaving the state, so you owe us tax.”
如果你幾年後回來了，這裡的稅務機關會說：「看，你從來沒有賣掉你的房子。你從來沒有打算離開這個州，所以你欠我們稅。」 - So, you really have to sever ties. You have to sell your principal residence here. You’ve got to register to vote. You’ve got to have all your physicians there, all that stuff to really prove to the state that you’ve left and that you have no intention of coming back.
所以，你真的必須切斷聯繫。你必須賣掉你在這裡的主要住所。你必須在那裡登記投票。你必須把所有的醫生都轉到那裡，所有這些事情，才能真正向州政府證明你已經離開了，而且沒有回來的打算。 - So, the move isn’t easy, and it’s a draconian change.
所以，搬遷並不容易，這是一個非常極端的改變。
投資組合稅務減免
- Some people though, if you have a really big balance sheet, it’s worth it.
不過有些人，如果你有非常龐大的資產負債表，這是值得的。 - But there’s a lot of things you can do with your portfolio to mitigate tax too. So, before jumping to “I’m going to move to Puerto Rico or whatever,” first think about how you structure your investments, your portfolio.
但你也可以透過投資組合做很多事情來減輕稅負。所以，在急著說「我要搬到波多黎各或其他地方」之前，先想想你如何架構你的投資、你的投資組合。 - So, there’s all sorts of very clever ways to use the qualified business tax exemptions, the QSBS. You can create several trusts. Each of those trusts gets the now $15 million exemption. Before it was 10.
有各種非常聰明的方式來使用合格小企業股票稅務豁免（QSBS）。你可以建立幾個信託。每個信託現在可以獲得 1,500 萬美元的豁免額度。之前是 1,000 萬。 - So, you can do that. Married couples now can get both exemptions.
所以，你可以這樣做。已婚夫妻現在可以同時獲得兩份豁免。 - So, there’s a lot of things that if you do on the pre-IPO prep, you can do things to really mitigate tax a lot.
所以，如果你在 IPO 前準備階段做了很多事情，你可以做很多事來大幅減輕稅負。 - Then you can use the proceeds and invest them in tax-advantaged things like real estate, if it’s managed the right way, that is.
然後你可以用收益投資在稅務優惠的項目上，比如房地產，前提是管理方式正確。 - A lot of real estate unfortunately is managed in a way where the buildings are sold a lot, and that generates tax. But if you hold the buildings for a long time, you can use the depreciation credits and never pay tax on the income you’re getting.
不幸的是，很多房地產的管理方式是頻繁出售建築物，這會產生稅。但如果你長期持有建築物，你可以使用折舊抵免，永遠不用為你獲得的收入繳稅。 - So, there’s a lot of things you can do like that before you move. And we spend a lot of time obviously thinking about that, pre-liquid event and post-liquid event, there’s also a number of strategies you can use to generate losses, whether the market is up or down.
所以，在搬家之前你可以做很多類似的事情。我們顯然花了很多時間思考這些，在流動性事件之前和之後，也有許多策略可以用來產生損失，無論市場是上漲還是下跌。 - There’s some sophisticated strategies that use leverage. Using leverage is not always easy because leverage can be dangerous on a portfolio. Luckily, we have a couple people in our team that worked at hedge funds and are used to leverage.
有一些使用槓桿的複雜策略。使用槓桿並不總是容易的，因為槓桿對投資組合可能很危險。幸運的是，我們團隊中有幾個人曾在避險基金工作過，習慣使用槓桿。 - So, there are things like that you can do before you pull the plug, “I’m moving somewhere else.”
所以，在你下定決心「我要搬到其他地方」之前，有這些事情可以做。
搬遷的個人影響
- But I see a lot of people moving though, to your point. A lot of people moving.
但就你說的，我確實看到很多人在搬家。很多人在搬。 - In fact, there’s been a bit of a boomerang. Some people have moved and then come back because in their minds they thought that saving several percentage points of tax was worth the move. And then when they moved, for personal reasons they’re like, “Look, I saved money, but the savings weren’t worth the cost to me personally.”
事實上，有一點迴旋鏢效應。有些人搬走了然後又回來，因為他們心裡認為省下幾個百分點的稅值得搬遷。但當他們搬了之後，出於個人原因，他們覺得：「看，我省了錢，但省下的錢對我個人來說不值得那個代價。」 - And these are, you can’t, it’s very hard to predict how you’re going to feel when you move somewhere else because you’ve never lived there. So, I think it’s a very valid point.
而且這些，你無法，很難預測當你搬到其他地方時會有什麼感覺，因為你從來沒有住過那裡。所以，我認為這是一個非常有道理的觀點。
Sponsor: VCX by Fundrise
- VCX by Fundrise, the public ticker for private tech, allowing investors of all sizes to invest in venture capital.
VCX by Fundrise，私人科技的公開代號，讓各種規模的投資者都能投資創投。 - View the portfolio at getvcx.com. That’s getvcx.com.
在 getvcx.com 查看投資組合。網址是 getvcx.com。
Sponsor: Public
- Some of you may not have heard this yet, but our sponsor Public just launched something called Generated Assets and it brings AI into investing in a way I’ve honestly never seen before.
你們有些人可能還沒聽說過，但我們的贊助商 Public 剛推出了一個叫做 Generated Assets 的東西，它以一種我老實說從未見過的方式將 AI 帶入投資。 - Here’s how it works. You type in an idea like AI-powered supply chain companies with positive free cash flow or defense tech companies growing revenue over 25% year over year.
它是這樣運作的。你輸入一個想法，比如擁有正向自由現金流的 AI 驅動供應鏈公司，或是營收年增超過 25% 的國防科技公司。 - Public’s AI then dispatches a swarm of agents that scan every single US stock, evaluates them, and instantly builds a custom index around your thesis.
Public 的 AI 接著派出一群自主代理掃描每一檔美國股票，評估它們，並即時根據你的投資論點建立一個客製化指數。 - What really stands out is how clearly it explains why each stock is included. And before you invest, you can even backtest your idea against the S&P 500, so you’re making decisions with real context, not just guessing.
真正突出的是它如何清楚地解釋為什麼每檔股票被納入。在你投資之前，你甚至可以將你的想法與 S&P 500 進行回測，這樣你是在有真實脈絡的情況下做決定，而不只是猜測。 - And beyond Generated Assets, Public lets you invest in stocks, bonds, options, crypto, all in one place.
除了 Generated Assets 之外，Public 讓你在一個地方投資股票、債券、選擇權、加密貨幣。 - They’ll even give you an uncapped 1% match when you transfer your investments over from another platform.
當你從另一個平台轉移投資過來時，他們甚至會給你無上限的 1% 配對獎勵。 - If you want to build a portfolio that actually reflects your thesis, visit public.com/sorcery.
如果你想建立一個真正反映你投資論點的投資組合，請造訪 public.com/sorcery。 - Paid for by Public Investing. Full disclosures in the description.
由 Public Investing 贊助。完整揭露資訊請見說明欄。
Sponsor: Deel
- Founders, ship faster on Deel. Set up payroll for any country in minutes, hire anyone anywhere, get visas handled fast, and get back to building.
創辦人們，用 Deel 更快出貨。幾分鐘內為任何國家設定薪資系統，在任何地方雇用任何人，快速處理簽證，然後回去專注打造產品。 - Visit deel.com/sorcery. That’s d e e l.com/s o u r c e r y.
請造訪 deel.com/sorcery。網址是 d e e l.com/s o u r c e r y。
資本虧損與 SPACs
- Chamath recently went viral for a tweet about capital losses because of the destruction his SPACs have incurred on people.
Chamath 最近因為一則關於資本虧損的推文而爆紅，因為他的 SPACs 對投資人造成了巨大損失。
運用資本虧損
- What is your viewpoint on capital losses and how do you use them to your point of offsets?
你對資本虧損有什麼看法，你們如何利用它們來進行抵銷？ - So, we use them a lot. Capital losses are the core behind all those sort of liquid strategies I mentioned you before, the leverage strategies and whatnot.
我們大量使用它們。資本虧損是我之前提到的那些流動性策略的核心，包括槓桿策略等等。 - There’s some nuances in the tax code like you can’t use a loss that comes to you personally unless you happen to be a professional in that industry. So, you can only use a small part of them.
稅法中有一些細微差異，比如你不能使用個人承受的虧損，除非你恰好是該行業的專業人士。所以你只能使用其中一小部分。 - So, the way to use a loss is inside a fund vehicle that generates its own gains that can be offset by its own losses. Then you don’t have to worry about extracting the losses and putting them on your personal balance sheet and not being able to use them.
所以，運用虧損的方式是在一個基金載體內部，該基金自行產生收益，可以被自身的虧損所抵銷。這樣你就不必擔心把虧損提取出來放到個人資產負債表上卻無法使用。 - So, if you owned a SPAC or something like that and it went to zero, you may not be able to write that off. But if it’s sitting in a portfolio, in a fund structure, usually a partnership, you’re going to have other things inside that fund that are going to be offsets naturally so that you can shield the total result of that fund from tax.
所以，如果你持有一個 SPAC 或類似的東西，而它歸零了，你可能無法將其沖銷。但如果它放在一個投資組合中，在一個基金結構裡，通常是合夥制，基金內部會有其他項目自然形成抵銷，這樣你就可以讓該基金的總體成果免受稅負影響。 - And that’s exactly I think the right strategy for real assets and real estates where you’re generating these capital losses, you’re generating depreciation losses, and you use those to offset the income inside that fund. And then the total you get at the end has been tax mitigated.
我認為這正是實物資產和房地產的正確策略，你在產生這些資本虧損、產生折舊虧損，然後用這些來抵銷基金內部的收入。最終你得到的總額已經經過了稅務減免。
二級市場與 SPV 警示
- SPACs were a huge trend. Secondaries have taken storm. And so, with secondaries, we’re seeing not only lots of volume in secondary transactions, which is good, I guess, for growth investors cuz that was really quiet for a while, but we’re also seeing these multi-layered SPVs proliferate and cause sometimes scams.
SPACs 曾是一股巨大的趨勢。二級市場交易現在風起雲湧。在二級市場方面，我們不僅看到大量的二級交易量，這對成長型投資者來說應該是好事，因為之前沉寂了一段時間，但我們也看到這些多層結構的 SPV 大量出現，有時甚至造成詐騙。 - But in terms of secondaries, what are you seeing and what are you advising your clients on with these?
但就二級市場而言，你看到了什麼，你對客戶有什麼建議？ - So, it’s a fascinating space, to your point. It’s a little bit like the comment I made before where if you don’t have professional investors on your team, you have to build a fund of funds to invest. It’s the same idea with these secondary vehicles.
正如你所說，這是一個很有趣的領域。這有點像我之前說的，如果你的團隊中沒有專業投資者，你就必須建立一個母基金來投資。二級市場載體的概念也是一樣的。 - I’d say be very, very careful what you’re doing.
我會說，要非常、非常小心你在做什麼。 - Attorneys love to use this term “perfect your ownership interest.”
律師們喜歡用「完善你的所有權權益」這個術語。 - So, I’d say we’re going to use SpaceX again since we’ve been on SpaceX. Let’s say you’ve been working at SpaceX years and you create your own Molly Corp and you put your SpaceX stock in that.
我們繼續用 SpaceX 當例子。假設你在 SpaceX 工作了多年，你建立了自己的 Molly Corp，把你的 SpaceX 股票放進去。 - SpaceX doesn’t want you, or most companies, don’t want you to transfer your stock to an external person. So, what you do is you transfer it to your own entity and then you sell shares in that entity to other people. And it’s not very clear and you often charge fees.
SpaceX 不希望你，或者大多數公司，都不希望你把股票轉讓給外部人士。所以你做的是把它轉到你自己的實體，然後把那個實體的股份賣給其他人。這不是很透明，而且你通常會收取費用。 - So, a lot of it is sometimes quite egregious, to your point. You’re being paid 2, 3, 5% for the right to buy something.
所以很多情況正如你所說，有時候相當離譜。你要付 2%、3%、5% 才能獲得購買某樣東西的權利。 - But the problem is the stocks are sitting in that entity and you are the manager of the entity, the employee is the manager of the entity. And so, they’re the ones who ultimately, even though they’ve written a promise saying when there’s a liquidity event, we’ll sell the shares and hand you the money, I’ve seen personally in cases where the stocks in that entity are sold by the individual managing the entity. And they don’t need to seek approval from the people who invested in it.
但問題是股票放在那個實體中，而你是那個實體的管理者，那個員工是實體的管理者。所以最終是他們說了算，即使他們寫了承諾說當有流動性事件時，我們會賣掉股票並把錢給你，但我個人見過一些案例，那個實體中的股票被管理實體的個人賣掉了。而且他們不需要徵求投資者的同意。 - So, be really careful when you go into these private entities. Any private company has its own set of rules. You can’t sort of use intuition well, that’s fair or not. Whatever’s written in the contract is what matters when you go into private.
所以，進入這些私人實體時要非常小心。任何私人公司都有自己的一套規則。你不能靠直覺判斷這公不公平。進入私人市場時，合約上寫的才是重要的。 - And the vast majority of the volume goes through these sort of questionable SPVs. Directly going on the cap table is what you should be trying to do, but that’s extremely difficult.
而絕大多數的交易量都是透過這些有問題的 SPV 進行的。直接進入股權結構表才是你應該嘗試做的，但這極其困難。 - And so, that’s where I would caution people really be very careful. So, we spend a lot of time when we see these things doing legal diligence, which is expensive. You know, you’re going to pay an attorney $20,000 to review this thing and make sure it’s bulletproof. Do you really want to do that if you’re going to be putting 500,000 into this? So, beware.
所以，這就是我要告誡大家要非常小心的地方。我們花了很多時間在看到這些東西時進行法律盡職調查，這很昂貴。你知道的，你要付律師 2 萬美元來審查這個東西，確保它無懈可擊。如果你只打算投入 50 萬美元，你真的想這樣做嗎？所以，要當心。 - Will your clients take these SPVs to you to manage for them or do they just kind of do them on their own?
你的客戶會把這些 SPV 帶給你來管理，還是他們自己處理？
管理 SPV 投資與盡職調查
- We’ve helped a couple clients try to build some, but most of the time we’re actually trying to build one for our clients to get into a particular company.
我們幫助過幾個客戶嘗試建立一些，但大多數時候我們實際上是在為我們的客戶建立一個 SPV，讓他們能進入某家特定公司。 - It’s been interesting to see. I did an interview series at Anduril and one of the questions I asked Marc Andreessen and Brian Schimpf, the CEO, is there is like a dark pool of fake SPVs going around for Anduril.
看到這些很有趣。我在 Anduril 做了一系列訪談，我問 Marc Andreessen 和 CEO Brian Schimpf 的其中一個問題是，市面上有一堆假的 Anduril SPV 在流通。 - And so, with those, are you just going into deep legal matters and paperwork to backtrack and see if that is a viable vehicle? Have you seen any issues » into a full-on fraud before, but, you know, the first thing we do is we pay a background check company to see, again, using you as an example, did she actually work at SpaceX? So, that’s step one.
那麼，面對這些情況，你們是不是深入研究法律事務和文件來追溯確認那是否是一個可行的載體？你們有沒有遇過問題 » 還沒有遇到過全面詐騙，但你知道，我們做的第一件事是付費給背景調查公司，再用你當例子，她真的在 SpaceX 工作過嗎？這是第一步。 - A lot of people don’t even do that. Ask your friends and clients, how many of them have done a background check on the person running the SPV. The answer’s going to be no one.
很多人連這個都不做。問問你的朋友和客戶，他們有多少人對經營 SPV 的人做過背景調查。答案會是沒有人。 - So, just to get back to my point, just do some basic homework if you’re going to do these kinds of things. Or get someone to do it for you.
所以，回到我的觀點，如果你要做這類事情，至少做一些基本的功課。或者找人替你做。
績效離散度與經理人遴選
- Venture capital has gotten some heat for not having the best returns, not being the best asset class. How do you manage that kind of alternative within these portfolios? What’s your view on venture capital as an industry?
創投因為回報不是最好的、不是最佳的資產類別而受到一些批評。你如何在這些投資組合中管理這種另類資產？你對創投作為一個產業的看法是什麼？ - » No bias, of course. Zero bias.
» 當然沒有偏見。零偏見。 - Look, if you look at the different asset classes and the dispersion of returns, the worst manager to the best manager, venture is the biggest dispersion of all the asset classes, like compared to private equity, credit, or hedge funds, or whatever.
你看，如果你觀察不同的資產類別和回報的離散度，從最差的經理人到最好的經理人，創投是所有資產類別中離散度最大的，相比私募股權、信貸或避險基金等等。 - And so, to your point, that means that who you pick is super important. If the dispersion was this narrow, it kind of wouldn’t matter. You kind of know what you’re going to get out of that asset class. When the dispersion is this wide, and the stock market performs, by the way, somewhere in the middle of that. If you pick the bottom half, to your point, well, that’s a problem. You should have just avoided the illiquidity, avoid the fees, and bought QQQ or something.
所以正如你所說，這意味著你選誰非常重要。如果離散度很窄，那就無所謂了。你大概知道從那個資產類別能得到什麼。當離散度這麼大時，順帶一提，股票市場的表現大概在中間位置。如果你選了後半段，那就是個問題。你應該直接避開流動性不足、避開費用，去買 QQQ 之類的就好了。 - And so, I think picking the right managers and being exposed to the right people there is more critical than in any other asset class. There’s a couple of other interesting observations.
所以我認為，選擇對的經理人、接觸對的人，在創投中比在任何其他資產類別都更為關鍵。還有幾個有趣的觀察。
企業價值與長期存續
- I’d say by and large, the industry has not tried to create entity value. What do I mean by that? They’re often focused around one individual, and if that individual leaves, the firm is gone. Or the firm will have to reinvent itself.
我會說，整體而言，這個行業並沒有嘗試建立企業價值。我這是什麼意思？他們通常圍繞一個人，如果那個人離開了，公司就沒了。或者公司必須重新改造自己。 - So, because the person has their name on it, they’re the only one there, and they’ve not built an institution around it. And so, the longevity of that entity is questionable, and therefore, it doesn’t have entity value in and of itself. Of course, the funds have value, but the entity itself doesn’t.
因為那個人的名字就是招牌，他們是唯一的人，沒有在周圍建立一個機構。所以那個實體的長期存續性是有疑問的，因此它本身沒有企業價值。當然，基金有價值，但實體本身沒有。 - And what’s really interesting about a16z, personally for me, one of the things that attracted me here, this firm has entity value. There’s a lot of people who own this firm. It’s building a comprehensive set of products and services across different sub-asset classes. Be it crypto, AI apps, AI infra, whatever.
而 a16z 真正有趣的地方，對我個人而言，吸引我來這裡的原因之一，就是這家公司有企業價值。有很多人持有這家公司。它正在跨不同子資產類別建立一套全面的產品和服務。無論是加密貨幣、AI 應用、AI 基礎設施，還是其他什麼。 - And it also has expertise around fundraising, HR, systems, go-to-market. And so, the whole thing is highly valuable. It doesn’t just revolve around one person. It’s not 10 or 15 people with one person.
它還擁有募資、人力資源、系統、市場推廣方面的專業知識。所以整體非常有價值。它不只是圍繞一個人轉。不是 10 或 15 個人加上一個核心人物。 - So, I would say if you’re going to invest for the long term, try to invest in firms that are trying to create entity value because that’s a sign of longevity. The firm’s not going to disappear when someone decides to hang up the cleats.
所以我會說，如果你要做長期投資，試著投資那些正在努力建立企業價值的公司，因為那是長期存續的標誌。當某人決定退休時，公司不會消失。
規模與投資金額的重要性
- I think the other interesting thing is as the check sizes to participate have gotten bigger, scale has become more important. All asset management industries have some scale benefits to them. Venture traditionally had less and now has a lot.
我認為另一個有趣的事情是，隨著參與所需的投資金額越來越大，規模變得更加重要。所有資產管理行業都有一些規模優勢。創投傳統上較少，但現在有很多。 - So, if you’re going to back a new AI startup, you can’t show up with a million-dollar check or two-million-dollar check, it’s useless. Or let alone, you’re going to build an AI chip where the tape out for one chip is $100 million. And how are you going to participate in that? So, you need to have large funds.
所以，如果你要投資一家新的 AI 新創公司，你不能帶著一百萬或兩百萬美元的支票出現，那沒有用。更不用說，你要建造一顆 AI 晶片，光一顆晶片的流片成本就是一億美元。你要怎麼參與？所以你需要有大型基金。 - So, that’s another thing I think all of a sudden it’s become very clear that you need to have this dispersion and you need to have a bigger fund.
所以，這是另一件事，我認為突然之間，很明顯你需要面對這種離散度，而且你需要有一個更大的基金。 - What’s the biggest lesson that you’ve learned from Mark and Ben?
你從 Mark 和 Ben 身上學到的最大教訓是什麼？
團隊建設與人才擁抱
- The biggest lesson I learned from Mark and Ben. Actually have an interesting one.
我從 Mark 和 Ben 身上學到的最大教訓。其實有一個很有趣的。 - So one of the biggest lessons I’ve learned from Mark and Ben, it’s really interesting. It’s about how to build a team and how to work with people.
我從 Mark 和 Ben 身上學到的最大教訓之一，真的很有趣。是關於如何建立團隊以及如何與人合作。 - And they said something when I first got here that was interesting. They said we don’t hire people for lack of flaws. We hire people for their skills.
他們在我剛到這裡時說了一些有趣的話。他們說我們不是因為一個人沒有缺點而雇用他。我們是因為他們的技能而雇用他們。 - And it was really interesting to me. At first I didn’t know what to make of this, but for a long time I worked in a large management consulting company. And my reviews were all about addressing my flaws.
這對我來說真的很有趣。一開始我不知道該怎麼理解，但我曾在一家大型管理顧問公司工作了很長時間。我的考核全部都是關於改正我的缺點。 - So it’s like well, they would gloss over the things I did well. It was not even worth mentioning. And it’s just a list of things I had to fix all the time.
就好像，他們會略過我做得好的事情。那些甚至不值得一提。然後就是一張我必須一直修正的事項清單。 - And it’s actually an incredibly demoralizing kind of thing cuz you the things you did well, no one seems to care to mention. And then you’re always being told every year after year these are the 18 things you got to fix to make it to the next level.
這其實是一件極度令人沮喪的事情，因為你做得好的事情，似乎沒有人在意提起。然後你每年都被告知，這是你要修正的 18 件事才能晉升到下一個層級。 - Here we’ve completely turned it on its head. Like if you are great at something, let’s celebrate that. And we’re all people, so there’ll be things we might not like with that, but that’s fine. We’ll learn to live with that and hopefully the balance is good.
在這裡我們完全顛覆了這種做法。如果你在某件事上很出色，讓我們慶祝它。我們都是人，所以會有一些我們可能不喜歡的地方，但沒關係。我們會學會接受，希望整體平衡是好的。 - So there’s this real embrace of the talents people have. And so as a result, everyone here at the firm which stunned me is every function I meet people are really excellent at their function. The amount of talent in this firm is mind-blowing. And so it makes you really proud to be part of this place.
所以這裡有一種真正擁抱人才的文化。結果就是，讓我驚嘆的是，公司裡每個職能部門的人都在他們的職能上非常出色。這家公司的人才密度令人驚嘆。這讓你真的為成為這個地方的一份子感到驕傲。 - So that’s the lesson I learned from Mark and Ben.
所以這就是我從 Mark 和 Ben 身上學到的教訓。
創辦人的財富管理錯誤
- What’s the biggest mistake people make with their wealth?
人們在財富管理上犯的最大錯誤是什麼？ - So I’ll restrict my answer to the biggest mistake founders of startups make with their wealth.
我把答案限定在新創公司創辦人在財富上犯的最大錯誤。 - I think because they grew up in the venture industry and in the private asset industry, they automatically gravitate to that.
我認為因為他們在創投產業和私人資產產業中成長，他們自然而然地傾向於此。 - And so I’ll see someone with their very first liquidity, their very first liquidity, they take it and instead of doing something a little bit safe in case there’s a rainy day, they turn around and they go put it in a bunch of like very early stage startups often referred to by their friends.
所以我會看到某人拿到他們的第一筆流動資金，真正的第一筆流動資金，他們拿到後不是做一些比較安全的事情以備不時之需，而是轉頭把它投入一堆非常早期的新創公司，通常是朋友介紹的。 - And you just sort of sit there and you’re like listen, if you’re going to do venture, at least try to do it in a systematic way and not take 80% of what you just got and hand it to your three friends.
你就坐在那裡心想，聽著，如果你要做創投，至少用系統化的方式來做，不要把你剛得到的 80% 交給你的三個朋友。 - And almost always this ends in tears. I’m being exaggerating, but very rarely do those outcomes happen the same.
而且幾乎總是以淚水收場。我有點誇張，但那些結果很少會一樣好。 - And of course because that individual who made it, their experience was one of success. It’s hard for them to sort of visualize the statistics of the industry as a whole. So they’re expecting that they do two or three of these things, at least one of them will work, and often none of them.
當然，因為那個成功的人，他們的經驗是成功的。他們很難去理解整個產業的統計數據。所以他們期望做兩三件這樣的事情，至少有一件會成功，但往往一件都沒有。 - So that’s the biggest mistake I see is like you finally got some liquidity, your hard work paid off. And what do you go and put it back in another sort of highly uncertain, highly illiquid thing.
所以這就是我看到的最大錯誤，你終於獲得了一些流動資金，你的辛勤工作得到了回報。然後你又把它投入另一個高度不確定、高度缺乏流動性的東西。 - For those founders that come to you, they’re post exit, they’re liquid.
對於那些來找你的創辦人，他們已經退出了，有了流動資金。
創辦人的投資組合管理
- Do some of them want to start on their second or their third company and how do you manage their portfolios to do that?
他們中有些人想創辦第二家或第三家公司嗎？你如何管理他們的投資組合來支持這件事？ - Many do want to start a second and third company. Especially nowadays, you’re young. Are you going to retire when you’re 35 or 40 and not do anything? I mean, I don’t think anyone wants to do that.
很多人確實想創辦第二家和第三家公司。特別是現在，你還年輕。你要在 35 或 40 歲退休什麼都不做嗎？我不認為有人想那樣做。 - So a lot of people want to do that, and if that’s the goal, we try to keep the portfolio actually more liquid because their hope is that they can finance more of it themselves. The idea is well, I did my first company and by IPO I owned 15% of it. The next time I want to own 30% of it. And so I’m going to bootstrap it and use my own capital more.
所以很多人想這樣做，如果那是目標，我們會嘗試讓投資組合保持更高的流動性，因為他們希望能自己出更多資金。想法是，我做了第一家公司，到 IPO 時我擁有 15%。下次我想擁有 30%。所以我要自力更生，更多地使用自己的資金。 - So we try to, yes, is a short answer. We change how we would suggest the portfolio based on those desires.
所以我們會嘗試，簡短的回答是是的。我們會根據這些需求改變我們對投資組合的建議。 - A lot of founders though, I think want to stick with their company very long term. They’re not necessarily thinking two years out I’m done. They want to stay along, I mean, this is their baby. They’ve grown it.
但我認為很多創辦人想要長期留在他們的公司。他們不一定在想兩年後我就走了。他們想留下來，我的意思是，這是他們的心血。他們把它養大的。 - So it’s not necessarily I’m going to completely detach. It’s maybe my level and intensity will decrease. Maybe I won’t be CEO anymore. Maybe I’ll be chair or something like that, but flat out leaving, I’d say it’s kind of the exception. You do see it, but yeah.
所以不一定是我要完全脫離。可能是我的參與程度和強度會降低。也許我不再擔任 CEO 了。也許我會當主席之類的，但完全離開，我會說那算是例外。你確實會看到，但是是的。
總體經濟討論
- I want to do a quick fire on some macro.
我想做一個快速問答，聊聊一些總體經濟的話題。
私人信貸泡沫分析
- Is private credit in a bubble?
私人信貸是否處於泡沫中？ - There’s several flavors of private credit. One is sort of direct lending. So the idea is FICO scores and things like that aren’t the best indication of credit quality. Maybe we can develop a different way to assess credit quality, and we’ll lend directly to an individual often.
私人信貸有幾種類型。一種是直接借貸。概念是 FICO 分數之類的東西不是信用品質的最佳指標。也許我們可以開發一種不同的方式來評估信用品質，然後通常直接借給個人。 - That stuff has been fairly resilient and in part because it’s tranched out. So they sort of take the equity tranche, sometimes called the first loss piece, and they keep that on the balance sheet, the issuer does, and then the other pieces are sold. So there’s like a buffer. If there’s a few defaults, you’re okay.
這類產品一直相當有韌性，部分原因是它被分層了。他們會拿走股權層級，有時稱為第一損失層，發行者把它留在資產負債表上，然後其他部分被出售。所以有一個緩衝。如果有幾筆違約，你沒事。 - But there’s more to sort of the private credit lending to companies and mainly sponsor-backed companies. And when people say sponsor-backed, they mean PE-backed companies.
但私人信貸借給公司，主要是贊助商支持的公司，還有更多需要了解的。當人們說贊助商支持時，他們指的是 PE（私募股權）支持的公司。 - And remember the PE companies, PE meaning private equity, they’re equity investments. So how do you maximize the return on equity? Well, you use as little equity as you can. So you buy a company and you lever it as much as you can so that your equity piece is small, so that if the company improves, the return on equity is magnified.
記住 PE 公司，PE 意思是私募股權，它們是股權投資。那麼你如何最大化股權回報？你盡可能少用股權。所以你買一家公司，盡可能多加槓桿，讓你的股權部分很小，這樣如果公司改善了，股權回報就會被放大。 - And so you’re purposely leveraging these companies quite highly. And you’re putting that into a vehicle and people are investing into that leverage. So if there’s an economic headwind and those companies start not being able to manage their debt, that’s a problem.
所以你故意對這些公司施加很高的槓桿。然後你把它放入一個載體，人們投資的就是那個槓桿。所以如果有經濟逆風，那些公司開始無法管理他們的債務，那就是個問題。 - So at the end of the day, the question of whether or not private credit is in a bubble is really a question of are we facing some sort of long-term slowdown or recession whereby these companies can’t service their debt the way they were before?
所以歸根結底，私人信貸是否處於泡沫中的問題，實際上是我們是否面臨某種長期放緩或衰退，導致這些公司無法像以前一樣償還債務？ - And that, right now, there’s no indication of a slowdown in the economy really. There’s a few, you know, there was a bit of a surprise on the employment report. But by and large, the economy’s growing. The long-term trend for growth is not even 2%, and the economy grows above that pretty regularly.
而目前，確實沒有經濟放緩的跡象。有一些，你知道的，就業報告有一點出乎意料。但總體而言，經濟在成長。長期成長趨勢甚至不到 2%，而經濟相當經常地超過這個水準。 - So right now, and the huge CapEx boom around AI is propelling the economy. So I don’t know that there’s an immediate sort of macro event that causes these companies to not be able to support their debt. But it’s a leveraged, high-risk strategy.
所以現在，圍繞 AI 的巨大資本支出熱潮正在推動經濟。所以我不認為有什麼即時的總體經濟事件會導致這些公司無法支撐其債務。但這是一種槓桿化的高風險策略。
IPO 窗口狀態
- Is the IPO window open?
IPO 窗口開了嗎？ - We’re going to find out with SpaceX.
我們會隨著 SpaceX 的動態得到答案。 - What about OpenAI?
那 OpenAI 呢？ - Whoever goes first.
看誰先上市。 - Who’s going first?
誰會先上市？ - I think SpaceX. But it depends if Anthropic and OpenAI are going to have a heated competition even more. ‘Cause I feel like they’re in a battle right now. And so that’s a race.
我覺得是 SpaceX。但這取決於 Anthropic 和 OpenAI 是否會有更激烈的競爭。因為我覺得他們現在正在較量。所以那是一場競賽。 - But look, I mean, companies are still able to raise large amounts of money in the private markets, as we’ve seen with OpenAI and others. So the pressure to go public is not as high as it would be if they weren’t able to.
但你看，公司仍然能在私人市場籌集大量資金，正如我們在 OpenAI 和其他公司身上看到的。所以上市的壓力不像無法在私人市場籌資時那麼大。 - And then, as I mentioned before, I think VC funds, growth equity funds have raised large funds. So there’s capital available to do these things.
然後，正如我之前提到的，我認為 VC 基金、成長型股權基金已經募集了大型基金。所以有資本可以做這些事情。 - It’s surprising how large fund raises, 10, 20, 50 billion dollar fund raises happen overnight, oversubscribed. So until that stops happening, there’s less urge to IPO unless you get to a size where the private market can’t accommodate you anymore.
令人驚訝的是，100 億、200 億、500 億美元的大型募資能在一夜之間完成，還超額認購。所以在這種情況停止之前，除非你大到私人市場無法容納你了，否則 IPO 的迫切性較低。 - So it’s, in some paradoxical way, if there’s like a slowdown in the economy and less excitement about these companies, that’s when they’re going to be maybe more forced to IPO because the private capital then won’t be available.
所以，以某種矛盾的方式，如果經濟放緩，對這些公司的熱情降低，那時候它們可能會更被迫 IPO，因為私人資本屆時將不再可用。 - I feel like OpenAI already pushed the limits on how much private capital they can extract with a 110 billion dollar round. I can’t imagine how many more.
我覺得 OpenAI 已經以 1,100 億美元的融資輪推到了他們能從私人市場提取多少資本的極限。我無法想像還能有多少。 - But that was it. No one thought before that it would be easy to raise that sum anyway. It was easy to raise it.
但就是這樣。之前沒有人認為籌集那筆金額會很容易。結果很容易就籌到了。
資訊飲食與研究策略
- What is your information and research diet? What do you watch out for?
你的資訊和研究飲食是什麼？你關注什麼？ - I’m kind of old school. I like to read source materials. I know nowadays people watch podcasts and things like that.
我有點老派。我喜歡閱讀原始資料。我知道現在人們看 podcast 之類的。 - I like to read Fed data. I like to read FRED, the Federal Reserve Economic Database, that you can get free. I like to read quarterly reports from companies, transcripts of the analyst calls, and those kinds of things. So, that’s what I spend a lot of time looking at and reading.
我喜歡讀 Fed 的數據。我喜歡讀 FRED，也就是聯邦儲備經濟數據庫，那是免費的。我喜歡讀公司的季報、分析師電話會議的逐字稿之類的東西。所以，這就是我花很多時間在看和閱讀的。 - And then, of course, listening to my clients who are in the know on the private market side.
然後，當然，還有聆聽我那些了解私人市場動態的客戶。 - You do have a very good advantage there. » A great. » Great advantage there.
你在那方面確實有很好的優勢。» 非常好的。» 非常好的優勢。 - So, I think of private investing, there’s like this two-by-two matrix which is like, it’s access and it’s diligence.
所以，我認為私人投資有一個二乘二的矩陣，就是取得管道和盡職調查。 - And so, we’re in a real sweet spot here. Cuz I have access, or we have access, or clients therefore have access to all sorts of things because of the incredible network we have here.
所以我們在這裡處於一個非常有利的位置。因為我有管道，或者說我們有管道，客戶因此也有管道接觸各種東西，因為我們在這裡擁有令人難以置信的人脈網絡。 - And then the diligence, it’s a large firm. I can always find someone here that’s worked with someone or knows someone that’s worked with or been on a board or in a startup. So, the amount of diligence I can do, it’s very quickly I can sort of assert whether or not this is a quality investment.
然後是盡職調查，這是一家大公司。我總能在這裡找到曾與某人合作過的人，或者認識某個曾在董事會或新創公司工作過的人。所以，我能做的盡職調查量，我可以很快地判斷這是否是一項優質投資。 - So, on that two-by-two matrix, I like to think I’m lucky enough to be up here, which is, I’m not going to complain. Very lucky.
所以在那個二乘二矩陣上，我認為自己很幸運能在這個位置上，我不會抱怨。非常幸運。
未來展望與教育目標
- As we close out, what are you most looking forward to this year?
在我們結束之際，你今年最期待什麼？ - So, there’s been a big effort at the firm to be more outgoing with media. And this is part of that.
公司一直在努力加強媒體曝光。這就是其中的一部分。 - So, I’m very excited to be out there speaking a bit more. I mean, traditionally, a lot of wealth management firms tried to operate, multi-families under a little bit under the radar.
所以我非常興奮能多出去發言。我的意思是，傳統上很多財富管理公司試圖低調運營，多家族辦公室都有點隱於幕後。 - But I think for me personally, at least, I find that the way we set things up is so compelling and differentiated that I’m very excited to sort of present it to the world more broadly. So, that’s it.
但我認為至少對我個人而言，我發現我們的架構方式是如此引人注目且與眾不同，我非常興奮能更廣泛地向世界展示它。就是這樣。 - Also, from what you’ve mentioned, it’s clear that there needs to be more real information on these industries out there because there’s a lot of traps. A lot of traps.
而且從你提到的來看，顯然這些產業需要更多真實的資訊，因為有很多陷阱。很多陷阱。 - So, my goal is to educate. A long time ago, I wanted to be an academic. I spent way too many years at Stanford. I still enjoy teaching and educating people. So, to me, that’s the biggest excitement of this job.
所以我的目標是教育。很久以前，我想成為一名學者。我在 Stanford 待了太多年。我仍然喜歡教學和教育人們。所以對我來說，這就是這份工作最令人興奮的地方。 - Well, I’m looking forward to that as well.
我也很期待。
號召行動與訂閱
- Thank you so much, Michel. Thank you. Appreciate it.
非常感謝你，Michel。謝謝。很感激。 - Hey, it’s Molly. If you enjoy our interviews, check out our newsletter, Sourceery.vc, where we deliver a once-a-week top deals and tech headlines email. And also go deeper on our podcast interviews.
嗨，我是 Molly。如果你喜歡我們的訪談，請查看我們的電子報 Sourceery.vc，我們每週發送一封頂級交易和科技頭條的郵件。也會深入探討我們的 podcast 訪談。 - Subscribe to Sourceery today, and don’t forget to subscribe to the podcast on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, or wherever you listen. Link in description to sign up.
今天就訂閱 Sourceery，別忘了在 YouTube、Spotify、Apple 或你收聽的任何平台訂閱我們的 podcast。說明中有註冊連結。