创投容亏容错暖风频吹，回购条款未见明显松动

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing challenges faced by venture capital (VC) funds regarding buyback clauses, despite recent government policies aimed at increasing tolerance for losses. The anticipated positive impact of these policies has not yet been felt at the market level, with many VC firms maintaining a cautious approach to buyback terms [2][4][6]. Group 1: Buyback Clauses and Market Response - The buyback controversy has become a focal point in the primary market, driven by the pressure on VC funds to deliver satisfactory returns to their limited partners (LPs) [2][5]. - Although local governments have introduced policies to increase the tolerance for losses, there has been no significant relaxation of buyback terms across the industry. Most VC firms remain cautious when addressing buyback issues [2][4][6]. - Some VC institutions have made slight adjustments to their buyback clauses, such as implementing a "two-year assessment" mechanism, but these changes are not widespread and are often contingent on the quality of the projects [4][10]. Group 2: Government Policies and Industry Impact - Since 2025, local government guiding funds have rolled out policies that allow for a maximum loss tolerance of up to 60%, with some funds targeting seed-stage or future industries allowing up to 80% [7][8]. - Despite these supportive policies, feedback from industry insiders indicates that the anticipated benefits have not yet reached the VC fund level, with many LPs not increasing their tolerance for losses [8][11]. - The regulatory environment has become more stringent, with LPs requiring detailed reporting and audits, which complicates the decision-making process for VC funds [11][12]. Group 3: Trends in Fund Management - The combination of increased pressure from LPs and the challenges of exiting investments has led to a rise in fund extensions, with many funds unable to exit as planned [12]. - The article highlights that the adjustment of buyback terms is currently a negotiation between policy direction and market realities, suggesting a gradual evolution towards more accommodating terms in the future [12].