Core Viewpoint - The article discusses issues related to compliance and internal control within investment institutions, highlighting incidents of misconduct and the consequences faced by individuals involved [1][4][7]. Group 1: Internal Control and Compliance Issues - A previous investment institution faced challenges with return requirements from local government investors, leading to frequent discussions on how to facilitate project completion and returns [1][2]. - An investment manager was dismissed after suggesting the fundraising of non-returnable funds, indicating a potential lack of alignment with institutional goals [3]. - A notable incident involved an employee inviting a company's founder to an online roadshow without prior notice, leading to the employee's termination after the event was exposed [4][5][6]. Group 2: Media and Market Reactions - A grassroots employee of a listed company inadvertently disclosed sensitive information during a media interview, resulting in exaggerated media coverage and significant stock price fluctuations [7][8]. - The stock exchange imposed a fine of 1 million on the company's secretary, while no actions were taken against the media or retail investors who contributed to the market reaction [9]. Group 3: Historical Context of Media and Compliance - In 2010, a journalist exposed insider trading at a listed company, leading to severe repercussions including a nationwide manhunt for the journalist, which was later retracted by authorities [10][11][12]. - Another incident involved a publication's retraction of a report on regulatory officials, leading to a collective resignation of the editorial team in protest against the decision [13][14][15][16].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges faced by companies due to government investment funds that impose "return investment" conditions, which often require businesses to relocate their headquarters or core operations to receive funding, creating a dilemma for many firms [5][6]. Group 1: Government Investment Funds and Their Impact - Government investment funds have become a primary source of capital in the primary market, but they often come with conditions that require companies to relocate to receive investment [5][6]. - The trend of local governments actively seeking to attract companies has intensified, with some officials personally leading efforts to entice businesses to move [7]. - The "return investment" requirement binds venture capital and private equity firms to assist local governments in attracting businesses, which complicates the investment landscape for startups [7][8]. Group 2: Types of Return Investment Requirements - There are three main types of return investment requirements from local guiding funds: establishing branches with minimal operations, setting up factories or sales centers, and relocating headquarters with actual production and tax contributions [8][9]. - The requirement for companies to frequently relocate can disrupt long-term development plans and increase operational costs, making the investment both beneficial and burdensome [9][10]. Group 3: Concerns of Companies Regarding Relocation - Different types of companies have varying considerations regarding relocation, with those having core technological capabilities often possessing stronger bargaining power [11]. - The difficulty of managing operations across different locations is a significant concern for companies, particularly for those in high-tech sectors [10][11]. - Companies that have previously received government subsidies may face demands to return those funds if they relocate, adding another layer of complexity to the decision-making process [12]. Group 4: Effectiveness of Return Investment and Recommendations - The effectiveness of return investment initiatives has been questioned, as many companies that receive funding do not contribute significantly to local economies [14][15]. - There is a call for local governments to shift their focus from short-term metrics like the number of companies attracted to long-term indicators such as tax contributions and employment [16][17]. - Recommendations include adjusting evaluation criteria for local investments to prioritize sustainable economic contributions rather than merely the number of businesses relocated [17].

Core Viewpoint - Government investment funds are a primary source of capital in the primary market, but they often impose "return investment" conditions that require companies to relocate their core operations or headquarters to receive funding, creating a dilemma for many businesses [1][3]. Group 1: Government Investment and Return Investment - Local governments are increasingly aggressive in attracting companies, often sending high-ranking officials to solicit businesses to relocate, with the aim of fostering local economic development [3]. - The return investment requirement binds venture capital and private equity firms to local government mandates, compelling them to invest a certain percentage of government funds back into local enterprises [3][4]. - There are three main types of return investment: establishing local branches with minimal operations, setting up factories or sales centers, and relocating headquarters with substantial operational commitments [4]. Group 2: Challenges Faced by Companies - Many companies face a tough choice between accepting funding with relocation conditions or missing out on critical financial support, especially those under cash flow pressure [1][5]. - Frequent relocations can disrupt long-term business strategies and increase operational costs, making the funding both a necessity and a burden for companies [5][6]. - Concerns about managing operations across different locations are significant, particularly for technology firms that rely on close coordination between R&D and production [7][8]. Group 3: Effectiveness of Return Investment - The effectiveness of return investment is questioned, as many companies that receive funding do not contribute significantly to local economies, with some being mere shell companies [11][12]. - Despite policies aimed at improving local investment practices, many regions still prioritize short-term metrics like the number of companies attracted over long-term economic contributions [11][12]. - Experts suggest that local governments should shift their focus from quantity to quality in attracting businesses, emphasizing sustainable economic development rather than merely fulfilling return investment quotas [13].

Group 1 - Government investment funds are a primary source of capital in the primary market, often attaching "relocation" conditions to their investments, which complicates decision-making for companies [1][3] - The trend of local governments actively seeking to attract companies has intensified, with some local leaders personally leading efforts to entice businesses to relocate [2][3] - The binding of "relocation" to "return investment" creates a dilemma for many companies, as relocating increases operational costs while not relocating risks losing critical funding [4][8] Group 2 - The "return investment" requirement has become a core task for VC/PE institutions, which are expected to invest a certain percentage back into the local economy based on government funding [3][8] - There are three main types of return investment: establishing local branches, setting up factories or sales centers, and relocating core business operations [3][4] - Many companies face hidden "hard requirements" to relocate in order to receive investment, leading to potential disruptions in long-term planning and increased operational costs [4][5] Group 3 - Different types of companies have varying considerations regarding relocation, with those having strong technical capabilities often possessing greater bargaining power [5][6] - Concerns about the management difficulties of operating in a new location are significant, especially for tech companies that rely on close coordination between R&D and production [6][7] - The concentration of core resources in existing locations is a critical factor for companies when considering relocation, as it can impact talent retention and supply chain efficiency [7][8] Group 4 - The effectiveness of the "return investment" strategy is questioned, as many companies that receive funding do not contribute significantly to local economies, leading to a mismatch between investment and actual benefits [8][9] - Recent guidelines suggest that government investment funds should not prioritize attracting businesses solely for short-term metrics like tax revenue, but rather focus on long-term economic contributions [9][10] - Recommendations include shifting assessment criteria from short-term metrics to high-quality development indicators, encouraging local governments to improve the business environment instead of relying on forced relocations [10]

Group 1 - Government investment funds are a primary source of capital in the primary market, often attaching "return investment" conditions that require companies to relocate their core business or headquarters to receive funding [1][2] - This "return investment" requirement creates a dilemma for companies, as relocating increases operational costs while not relocating may result in missing critical funding, especially for cash-strapped firms [1][3] - The push for companies to relocate is driven by local governments aiming to attract quality enterprises and foster local economic development, with some regions seeing significant efforts from local leaders to recruit businesses [2][4] Group 2 - The types of "return investment" requirements from local guiding funds can be categorized into three main types: establishing branches with minimal operations, setting up factories or sales centers, and full relocation of headquarters with actual production and tax contributions [3][4] - Many investment firms and startups find themselves trapped by these "return investment" conditions, leading to frequent relocations that disrupt long-term planning and increase operational costs [3][4] - The reluctance of companies to relocate complicates the situation for venture capital and private equity firms, as they struggle to meet local government investment requirements while facing pushback from businesses [4][5] Group 3 - Different types of companies have varying considerations regarding relocation, with those possessing core technology and significant revenue often having stronger bargaining power in negotiations with local governments [6][7] - Concerns about the difficulties of managing operations in different locations are significant for companies, particularly in high-tech sectors where talent and operational coherence are critical [6][7] - The potential requirement to return government subsidies if a company relocates adds another layer of complexity to the decision-making process for businesses considering relocation [7] Group 4 - The current "return investment" model has led to a situation where many local funds achieve their short-term goals but fail to attract high-quality enterprises that contribute meaningfully to local economies [8][9] - There is a growing recognition that the focus on short-term metrics like the number of companies attracted may overlook the long-term benefits of fostering a sustainable business environment [9][10] - Recommendations include shifting the evaluation of local investment effectiveness from quantity to quality, emphasizing long-term contributions to local economies rather than immediate relocations [9][10]

Core Viewpoint - Government investment funds are a primary source of capital in the primary market, but they often impose "return investment" conditions that require companies to relocate their core operations or headquarters to receive funding, creating a dilemma for many businesses [1][2]. Group 1: Government Investment and "Return Investment" Conditions - Local governments are actively seeking to attract companies to relocate, often led by high-ranking officials, with the goal of fostering local economic development and creating publicly listed companies [2][4]. - The "return investment" requirement binds venture capital and private equity firms to invest a certain percentage of government funds back into local enterprises, complicating the investment landscape [2][3]. Group 2: Challenges Faced by Companies - Companies face increased operational costs and strategic disruptions when required to relocate, leading to a difficult choice between securing necessary funding and maintaining stability [1][3]. - Frequent relocations can disrupt long-term business plans and increase operational burdens, making the investment funds both a necessity and a constraint for many firms [3][4]. Group 3: Divergent Interests of Funds and Companies - Investment funds are caught in a bind as companies resist relocation, making it challenging to fulfill "return investment" obligations while also meeting local government funding requirements [4][8]. - The reluctance of companies to relocate headquarters complicates the ability of funds to meet their investment goals, particularly in developed regions where securing funds is more difficult [4][6]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - Industry experts suggest that local governments should adjust their evaluation criteria for attracting businesses, focusing on long-term contributions such as tax revenue and employment rather than short-term metrics like the number of companies relocated [8][10]. - There is a call for a shift from a focus on "return investment" to a more sustainable approach that emphasizes the overall value and impact of businesses on local economies [9][10].

困在返投里。 作者 I 周佳丽 报道 I 投资界PEdaily "返投真难。" 聊起年终感受，不少投资人不约而同地说起返投之困，" 2 02 4年的返投任务没有完成"： 有GP收到某地国资问责：基金返投进度缓慢；长三角一家基金因返投不达标，Ca ll款失 败；筹备了半年的拟募集基金，因返投储备项目不到位而夭折；一位从事一级市场多年的 IR因完不成返投KPI决定辞职.. . .. . 如此一幕幕，是中国创投生态变化下的一缕缩影。当国资LP成为一级市场主力，返投和 招商摆到了所有VC/PE的面前。在大部分投资机构内部，返投落地工作已经放在了与项 目考核同等重要的位置。 身在其中，投资人感受复杂："过去一年，表面是一级投资人，实际是个干招商的。" 2024，我们没完成返投任务 清科研究中心数据报告显示，截至2 023年，我国累计设立政府引导基金2086只，目标规 模约1 2 . 1 9万亿元，已认缴规模约7.13万亿元人民币。 政府引导基金成为中国股权投资市 场的重要支撑 ——2 02 4年上半年，国有控股和国有参股LP的出资金额占LP认缴出资总 规模的比重达到8 1.2%。 以往，VC/PE机构的核心诉求是募到钱 ...

这篇尝试整理我所见过的，以及我机构实操过的，满足返投的一些做法。 为了确保阅读的顺畅，我还是默认大家都已经基本理解"返投"" lp "等相关概念。 指点江山派： 国投招商认为新能源产业链很适合安徽合肥。然后，国投招商招引了蔚来汽车，总部落地。 再然后，国投招商又帮助合肥拆解新能源产业链上游，并围绕车产业链直接投资了： 自动驾驶算力芯片 - 欧冶半导体； 双剑合璧派： 汽车零部件 - 保隆汽车； 一体化压铸 - 力劲科技； 等等等等。 还有非常多由合肥国资、合肥出资的子基金投资的各种新能源车产业链项目。 新能源增速这么快，确定性这么强，产业链这么长，可投企业这么多。只要方向指的好，不愁返投完不 成。 一招制胜派： IDG 为四川宜宾引入光伏企业 - 高景太阳能，这一个项目的落地固投就远超返投要求。直接一个项目完 成整只基金的返投。 或者，我作为投资机构，给你政府带一个院士工作站过来，院士名下已经有多项具备产业化条件的技 术。工作站落过来，你们慢慢培育慢慢孵化。 你就也爽快点，一次性算我完成返投。要求不过分吧？ 机构的每一期都同时成立两只基金，主基金几乎没有返投，市场化投资。辅基金强返投，招商性质。 两只基金同时 ...

我会做到： 抓牢，抓细，抓实，抓稳，抓深，抓具体，抓落实，一抓到底，常抓不懈。 在艰难的 2024 年，我紧密跟随合伙人的正确领导，圆满完成了年初制定的工作目标。 投资工作中，我完成投资项目两个，均取得了 关于上市退出的对赌回购，创始人无限连带责任。 其中 一个项目还实现 down round ， 我方进入估值低于上一轮，充分提高了我方的安全垫。 返投工作中，我促成返投落地项目一个。在原有城市不同意离开的巨大困难下，我说服该项目 以核心 团队出走，新成立公司的形式，完成实质性的迁总部返投。 退出工作中，针对退出难，回购难的 xx 项目，我召集其他股东，发起集体诉讼，目前诉讼已经判决， 创始人资产正在被强制变卖，充分保障了我方权益。 募资工作中，我敏锐识别到基金的有限合伙协议中存在的某项模糊概念， 抓住 lp 经验不足的弱点 ，最 终以合规手段突破了 lp 的限制，促成了基金第二期资金的到账。 对于 2025 年的工作，我有三点规划： 抓水下项目，抓落地难的项目，抓退出难的项目。 2025 年我还会加强宣传工作。 我致力于为创投行业提高思想， 统一国有资产不流失的认知，明确创始人需要给予对赌回购并配合返 投落地 ...